Technical ReportPDF Available

Transport and social exclusion in African cities: South Africa scoping study report

Authors:

Abstract

This document provides a background overview of what is currently known about the mobility conditions of low-income groups in South Africa, based on a bounded desk-based review of academic and policy studies on issues of transport-related social exclusion. The terms of reference or scope of work, and other limitations, meant that the study considered only transport-related social exclusion, and did not consider other outcomes of transport-disadvantage, nor other forms of social exclusion or inequity. The work is the result of a dialogue between VREF (Volvo Research and Educational Foundations) and the INTALInC network (International Network for Transport and Accessibility in Low Income Communities), the latter represented by the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.
SCOPING STUDY: TRANSPORT AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN AFRICAN CITIES
SOUTH AFRICA SCOPING STUDY REPORT
Gail Jennings*, Roger Behrens*, Christo Venter** and Mark Zuidgeest*
* Centre for Transport Studies, University of Cape Town
** Centre for Transport Development, University of Pretoria
11 November 2018
supported by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 2
3. STATE OF THE KNOWLEDGE: SUMMARY ....................................................................... 6
4. LITERATURE SEARCH: METHOD ....................................................................................... 7
4.1 Search of selected databases by keywords ............................................................................ 7
4.2 Key informant input .............................................................................................................. 8
5. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Spatial exclusion and mobility .............................................................................................. 9
5.2 Travel behaviour and travel burden of the poor .................................................................... 9
5.3 Critiques of conventional transport planning models .......................................................... 11
5.4 Analysis frameworks to frame transport disadvantage ........................................................ 12
5.5 Impacts of individual transport interventions ...................................................................... 14
6. GAPS IN THE KNOWLEDGE ............................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 20
APPENDIX A: CAPE TOWN INTALINC WORKSHOP PROGRAMME, 5-6 APRIL 2018 ....... 24
APPENDIX B: SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 28
APPENDIX C: PANEL DISCUSSION SUMMARIES ................................................................... 67
Panel discussion 2: The equity impacts of Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN)
improvements in South African cities .................................................... 67
Panel discussion 3: The impact of safe and secure walking and cycling environments on
transport burden ...................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX D: RESEARCH SUMMARIES ................................................................................... 74
Research summary 1: An investigation into the experiences of travel cost burdens for
female commuters who are low-income earners in Cape Town ....... 74
Research summary 2: Accessibility and social welfare: a study of the City of Johannesburg
........................................................................................................... 75
Research summary 3: Measuring potential accessibility to jobs by public transport
incorporating user affordability A study of Cape Town, South
Africa ................................................................................................. 77
Research summary 4: Changing socio-spatial inequalities: Population change and the lived
experience of inequality in urban South Africa’................................ 80
Research summary 5: Temporal aspects of transport-related social exclusion: Spatial-
temporal analysis of access to places for leisure and other life
enhancing opportunities during off-peak hours from a township
neighbourhood in Cape Town ........................................................... 82
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The turn of the 21st century saw a growing interest among researchers and policy makers in the United
Kingdom in the concept of transport disadvantage, and particularly, how this might relate to the social
exclusion of low-income groups and communities (Lucas, 2012). Studies began to show the links
between poverty, transport disadvantage, and access to key services, and economic and social
exclusion (Lucas, 2012).
This document provides a background overview of what is currently known about the mobility
conditions of low-income groups in South Africa, based on a bounded desk-based review of academic
and policy studies on issues of transport-related social exclusion. The terms of reference or scope of
work, and other limitations, meant that the study considered only transport-related social exclusion,
and did not consider other outcomes of transport-disadvantage, nor other forms of social exclusion or
inequity.
The work is the result of a dialogue between VREF (Volvo Research and Educational Foundations)
and the INTALInC network (International Network for Transport and Accessibility in Low Income
Communities), the latter represented by the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.
The study will form a baseline and informant for formulating future research and educational projects.
Through the project cooperation, VREF will be able to broaden its network of academic researchers
explicitly within relevant areas of social and behavioural sciences. In this respect, relevant, in-depth
qualitative work within these areas is of particular interest.
The desktop study was supplemented by inputs and discussion from an INTALInC workshop held in
Cape Town on 5-6 April 2018.
The scoping study report is divided into 6 sections, with four appendices.
The following section critically discusses the policy framework that has directed city development in
South Africa since the transition to democracy in 1994. Section 3 summarises the state of knowledge
in the field of transport and social exclusion that emerged from the literature review and engagement
with active researchers. Section 4 describes the method followed in searching for relevant literature
and in engaging with researchers. Section 5 presents the review of the literature found. Section 6
concludes with an identification of the key gaps in knowledge in the field.
Appendix A presents the agenda of the Cape Town INTALInC workshop. Appendix B presents the
analysis undertaken of available secondary data, in the form of the 2013 National Household Travel
Survey commissioned by the national Department of Transport, to establish baseline quantitative
understanding of transport and social exclusion in South African cities. Appendix C presents notes on
the content of two of the panel discussions that took place in the Cape Town INTALInC workshop.
Included in the synthesis of panel discussion 3 are summary data on pedestrian road crashes, which
provides insight into the safety burden on low-income households forced to travel long distances on
foot. Appendix D presents research summaries of research, presented in the Cape Town INTALInC
workshop, that has been, or is being, conducted in the field of transport and social exclusion (in Cape
Town and Johannesburg).
2
2. POLICY CONTEXT
Why after 18 years of democracy do we still encounter so many challenges with public
transport in our country? Throughout the 20th century, segregationist urban settlement
controls increasingly reproduced the structural reality: the black working class was
settled in remote, peri-urban reserves, dormitory townships, far enough away from the
commanding heights of power and wealth to be contained and controlled, close enough
to be migrated daily to work in factories, shops, and white suburban homes. This has
resulted in a persisting, racialized urban geography. Black workers and the urban poor
continue to be hugely disadvantaged by their geographical marginalization in dormitory
townships. The average public transport trip in London is 8 km, in Cape Town the
average bus trip is 20 km.
We won't overcome all of these [transportation] challenges just through delivery of more
RDP houses to the same faraway localities, or more bus subsidies for the same daily
migratory haul. There has to be a determined effort to tackle the root causes of ongoing
exclusion. We need integrated public transport systems, mixed-use, mixed-income human
settlements, and relatively dense corridor development.’ ‘… But there is a danger … that
we will continue to allocate our energies and our scarce resources into [large
infrastructure] projects that reinforce dysfunctional patterns, like urban sprawl, that we
have inherited from the past. And that is what has to be changed’…
Jeremy Cronin, then Deputy (national) Minister of Transport (South Africa), budget debate of April 2012
The turn of the 21st century saw a growing interest among researchers and policy makers in the United
Kingdom in the concept of transport disadvantage, and particularly, how this might relate to the social
exclusion of low-income groups and communities (Lucas, 2012). Studies began to show the links
between poverty, transport disadvantage, access to key services, and economic and social exclusion
(Lucas, 2012). A social exclusion approach directly identifies the social consequences or outcomes of
transport disadvantage, and the way in which individuals are unable to participate in ‘key life-
enhancing opportunities. This disadvantage results in, among others, reduced ability to search for
work, job losses, missed health appointments, school truancies, lower educational levels, and
increased physical isolation in later life. Such an approach to transport firmly conceptualizes transport
and mobility, or the lack of it, as a social policy problem (Lucas, 2012).
Transportation and social exclusion in South Africa exists within a context where, historically,
mobility was employed as an instrument of control (Czeglédy, 2004). As von Schnitzler (2015) puts
it, ‘at one level [Apartheid was] simply a grand scheme to channel and police mobility’. Although
academic research in this arena remains ‘extremely sparse’ (Kane, 2010), since 1994 there has been
an increasing interest in transport justice in South Africa, articulated largely as pro-poor policies or
interventions that desire to reduce transport disadvantage and its causes and consequences (Jennings,
2015).
The spatial nature of this transport disadvantage is widely acknowledged in the literature, yet post-
Apartheid,
the challenges extended to delivering on
s
ubsidized
1
housing targets,
together with
comparatively small national budget allocations. Although t
he South African National Housing
Act of 1997 proposed an ideal in which housing has convenient access to jobs, healthcare, education
and other social amenities (Culwick, 2019), small housing subsidies
have meant that housing
1
The cornerstone of the National Department of Housing's low-income housing policy is the National
Housing Subsidy Scheme introduced in 1994. The subsidy takes the form of a once-off capital grant,
graded on a sliding scale according to household income (Behrens & Wilkinson, 2003)
3
continues to be built on cheap, available land, usually close to or beyond existing
townships
that already have poor access to employment and commercial centres (Turok, 2001; Behrens
and Wilkinson 2003). T
his imposes a major burden on the provision of subsidized public
transport services to the beneficiaries of such housing. It also imposes direct additional travel
time and expenditure costs on the people who live in such subsidized housing, thereby limiting
their ability to direct their household time and expenditure budgets towards home improvement
or housing consolidation projects (Behrens and Wilkinson, 2003).
Subsequent to the first democratic elections in April 1994, transport needs in South Africa have been
identified variously as safety, shorter travel times, affordable fares, less overcrowding, reduced
walking distances, and improved access to facilities (NDoT, 2005). The 1994 Reconstruction and
Development Programme (RDP) stated in its key programme Meeting Basic Needs that a future
transport policy must promote coordinated, safe, affordable transport as a social service. This policy
direction was expanded upon in the 1996 White Paper on National Land Transport Policy (NDoT,
1996), which noted that ‘the South African transportation system remains inadequate to meet all
accessibility needs (to work, health care, schools, and shops) in many developing rural and urban
areas.’ The White Paper recognized transport as one of its five priority areas for socio-economic
development, and envisioned new transportation systems that support ‘government strategies for
economic and social development whilst being environmentally and economically sustainable…’ The
White Paper also paid attention to meeting customer needs
2
; addressing land use and spatial
development in support of land passenger transport; improving the safety, security, reliability, quality,
and speed of transporting goods and people; and economic and environmental sustainability (NDoT,
1996).
The White Paper formed the basis for the National Land Transport Transition Act (NLTTA) in 2000,
and is the policy document on which the National Land Transport Act (NLTA) 2009 was based.
Transport interventions were now required to align with national transport goals, and public transport
was to ‘reduce the total cost of travel’ and ‘assist currently marginalized users and those who have
poor access to social and economic activity’ (NLTTA, 2000). Kane (2001) in reviewing progress
toward international environmental goals in the transport sector, flags the continuing emphasis on
motorization in new South African policy as inequitable and an irresponsible use of public resources
to the detriment of measures that would support densification and spatial justice.
By 2007, the Public Transport Strategy (NDoT, 2007) is candid about ‘mass motorization of the
South African population [not being] possible, [but] neither desirable, nor equitable’, but
conceptualizes transport redress in terms of quality mobility rather than accessibility: ‘70% of
households without access to a car today are doomed to third class travel options,’ the Strategy
laments, but envisions that ‘by 2020, urban customers will be able to participate fully in the various
activities of city life by using a public transport network that provides as much city-wide coverage as
possible, and which is affordable, safe, secure, fast and frequent.’ This public transport network
programme was to become known as the IRPTN, or Integrated Rapid Public Transport Network,
which until recently was the focal point of South Africa’s attempts to address transport disadvantage
and improve accessibility. National government described the services such networks could offer
(largely envisioned as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services) as ‘the mobility wave of the future, and the
only viable option that can ensure sustainable, equitable and uncongested mobility in liveable cities
and districts’ (NDoT, 2007).
An acknowledgment of the role that other modes, particularly walking and cycling, might play in
meeting the challenges of mobility and accessibility have appeared more slowly. The Draft National
2
The basis for public participation process or participatory justice is outlined in key legislation and
policy such as the Development Facilitation Act (1995), the Municipal Systems Act (2000), and the Draft
National Framework for Public Participation (2005). The preparation of Integrated Transport Plans (ITPs) and
new transport interventions require stakeholder engagement.
4
Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) Policy (NDoT, 2008) is explicit in its goals of redressing inequities:
the foreword, by the then Minister of Transport, Jeff Radebe, states that ‘this NMT Policy is one of
the Department of Transport’s interventions towards reversing challenges of accessibility and
mobility.’ Among the NMT Policy statements are a desire to ‘meet the mobility needs and improve
the quality of life of marginalised peoples, and to use NMT to bridge the economic and social gaps
between . . . first and second economies’ (Jennings, 2018).
Both the National Development Plan (NDP) (NPC, 2012) and the National Transport Master Plan
(NATMAP) (NDoT, 2015) see a need to maintain and expand transport infrastructure to continue
supporting South Africa’s economic growth and social development goals. The latter document
quotes the World Bank on the centrality of transport to social and economic development. Without
physical access to jobs, health, education and other amenities, quality of life suffers; and without
physical access to resources and markets, growth stagnates and poverty reduction cannot be sustained
(NDoT, 2015).
The evident role of spatial inequity (rather than poor mobility) in transport disadvantage and
inadequate access has become more visible in the later policy discourse. The Department of
Housing’s Breaking New Ground: a comprehensive plan for the development of sustainable human
settlements (HDA, 2004) shifted the emphasis away from meeting quantitative housing targets
towards using housing as an instrument for the development of sustainable human settlements, in
support of spatial restructuring “…to build linkages between housing delivery, spatial planning, and
transportation systems…” This created space for local variations in approaches. The City of
Johannesburg, in one example, is embarking on a new spatial planning approach the Corridors of
Freedom that ‘will transform entrenched settlement patterns, which have shunted the majority of
residents to the city’s outskirts, away from economic opportunities and access to jobs and growth
(CoJ, 2011).
Gone will be the days of being forced to rise at dawn to catch a train, bus or taxi to a place of work.
Families will be able to have quality time, with spouses and children sharing meals together in the
evening …The Corridors of Freedom will result in reduced poverty for the majority of the City’s
residents, who are currently spending a large percentage of their income on transport.
3
The Corridors of Freedom are meant to promote closer coordination between housing and transport
development. Yet Ballard et al. (2017) comment on the pressures municipalities face to approve
‘megaprojects’ which rhetorically aim to promote inclusion through large-scale mixed-use
development, but in reality are still located in less accessible peripheral locations.
Other government documents have elaborated on the spatial nature of equitable access. The Spatial
Planning and Land Management Act (SPLUMA) (2013) aims to ‘provide for inclusive,
developmental, equitable and efficient spatial planning… to ensure that ensure that the system of
spatial planning and land use management promotes social and economic inclusion...’ The 2016
Integrated Urban Development Framework (COGTA, 2016) describes South African cities as having
some of the lowest densities in the world, and residential areas that are mostly separated from places
of employment, recreation, and public facilities. This hinders the development of an efficient,
equitable and resilient urban form and access to social and economic opportunities.
The most recent transportation policy document, the Green Transport Strategy (NDoT, 2018), begins
with the recognition that ‘apartheid planning and marginalization of some communities has left a
legacy of transport networks that are poorly integrated, resulting in the majority of citizens living far
from work, and with inadequate transport infrastructure’. Nonetheless, the focus remains on access to
transport, not access to services (‘many people do not have access to convenient, safe and affordable
transport’). The challenge, as described in this Strategy, is to ‘orient the sector towards a compromise
3
http://www.corridorsoffreedom.co.za
5
that maximizes the economic and social benefits of transport and minimizes associated
environmental, social and economic costs.
In summary, the policy discourse around transport and inclusion displays an understanding of the
links between mobility, spatial inequity, and exclusion that is still evolving. It is fair to say that the
problem is still largely articulated as one of inadequate transport, rather than a result of more complex
interplay between spatial, social, and economic factors. This tends to isolate the debate from a fuller
understanding of, firstly, how a lack of access affects people’s lives; secondly, how non-transport
policies and decisions contribute to poor access and exclusion; and, thirdly and subsequently, how a
more holistic understanding of the problem could lead to more effective multi-sectoral responses.
6
3. STATE OF THE KNOWLEDGE: SUMMARY
The key findings of this bounded scoping study, with respect to the state of knowledge regarding
transport-related social exclusion in South Africa, are that while policies and researchers acknowledge
the existence, and challenge, of transport disadvantage as a consequence of spatial inequity and
Apartheid planning, it is rarely situated within a social exclusion framework, and it is seldom
qualitatively explored. While some academic work now focuses on quantifying transport disadvantage
in terms of patterns of accessibility to opportunities
4
, in practice transport disadvantage is more likely
to be expressed in travel time, distance, and cost.
Because of the limited nature of this particular scoping study, we chose to focus our literature search
using only key words relating explicitly to the area of study: transport/mobility + access /accessibility
/ development indicators / sustainable livelihoods / poverty alleviation / transport disadvantage /
social justice / social equity / social inclusion / social exclusion / human rights / spatial inequity. As
was our expectation, based on our own knowledge of the field, there is not a substantial body of
published work that relates explicitly to transport-related social exclusion in South Africa. We believe
that a search that extends to public health provision, public safety, food security, access to education,
involvement in stakeholder engagement and civil society, and human settlements, among others, may
reveal a larger body of literature, but due to scope and resource constraints this was not included in
this work.
Topics covered in the literature include concerns with planning models that traditionally overlook the
travel modes of the poor; the travel behaviour and travel burden of the poor (using data collected by
the 2003 National Household Travel Survey); analysis frameworks such as transport justice,
sustainable livelihoods and other asset-based frameworks; and impact evaluations of micro- or mega-
interventions such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and bicycle facilities, intended to alleviate poverty and
redress spatial inequity.
There are substantial gaps in the existing knowledge: the terms of reference (TOR) for this study
indicated that the output should serve as a basis for ‘developing primary research on the much-
overlooked topic of the interface between transport and social policy in developing cities’. The study
team were particularly interested in uncovering relevant, in-depth qualitative work within this area of
interest.
Overall, it is fair to say that that the TOR accurately predicted that this topic is overlooked. Social
inclusion or exclusion is not a common transportation research focus, and the transport problem is
more often framed as one of (spatial) inequity, marginalization, or poverty. Further, we were unable
to source much in the way of in-depth qualitative work. All in all, the voice of the ‘lived experiences’
to which Lucas (2012) refers, is almost entirely absent. In addition, there is a dearth of literature
assessing the outcome or impact of any increased accessibility or mobility, and the contribution of
new transport interventions whether through qualitative or quantitative analysis. Perhaps surprising
is the lack of research regarding the outcome or impact of pedestrian interventions.
4
Some of the emerging (unpublished) work on accessibility measurement at the Universities of Pretoria
and Cape Town is summarized in Appendix D.
7
4. LITERATURE SEARCH: METHOD
The literature search for scholarly publications in the transport justice and social inclusion/exclusion
fields was conducted in four parts, all between January and March 2018, and consisted of:
1. a keyword search; complemented by
2. key informant input
5
; and
3. bibliographies of published papers; and
4. a call for published papers on social media networks
6
4.1 Search of selected databases by keywords
The search focused on English language scholarly publications globally, but that presented research
findings from South Africa only, subsequent to 1994.
The following five databases were searched:
Science Direct (www.sciencedirect.com);
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.co.za);
Southern African Transport Conference (https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/3887;
http://www.satc.org.za/archive.html);
Jester (www.jstor.org); and
ResearchGate (www.researchgate.net).
Because of the bounded nature of this particular scoping study, we chose to focus our literature search
using only key words relating explicitly to the area of study.
Key words:
South Africa + transport / mobility / transit +
o access
o accessibility
o development index/indicators
o sustainable livelihoods
o poverty alleviation
o transport disadvantage
o social justice
o social equity
o social inclusion
o social exclusion
o human rights
5
Including (Prof Mark Zuidgeest, University of Cape Town, Prof Christo Venter, University of Pretoria,
Dr Lisa Kane, and Dr Ivan Turok)
6
For example: “Have you published any work on mobility-related social exclusion / inaccess in South
Africa? Whether it’s about food security, education, health-care. Please make contact. We would like to include
your work in our workshop on transport justice and the travel burden of the poor…” [in one instance, we had
495 reads of this entry, but received no new papers as a result]
8
4.2 Key informant input
The second part of the literature search took the form of the addition of important publications that
were not found during a keyword search. These publications were identified by the authors of this
document, and by individual researchers working in this field, known to the authors.
As was our expectation, based on our own knowledge of the field and an initial literature scan, there is
not a substantial body of published work within this field that relates explicitly to transport-related
social exclusion. However, we believe that a search that extends to public health provision, public
safety, food security, access to education, involvement in stakeholder engagement and civil society,
and human settlements, among others, may reveal a larger body of literature.
9
5. LITERATURE REVIEW
Migrating to a city… is not in itself a guarantee of superior or cheaper daily mobility.
Just as one can be lonely in a crowd, one can be isolated in a city. For impecunious
migrants, cheap, empty land, and cheap housing, is commonly only available at the
edges of metropolitan areas, often far from formal workplaces and public institutions of
government, learning and health care. Journeys can be long, time-consuming,
exhausting and expensive. The sheer difficulty of getting to a job interview from a remote
urban settlement creates a vicious circle of unemployment.
Whether urban or rural, geographical mobility in Africa is highly differentiated. Perhaps
the separation between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ on the continent is unusual.
Certainly, the hazards and experiences of geographical immobility are grinding. The
trials of occasional immobility are also severe: a periodic journey can be a major
financial setback. Travel can be an emotional ordeal Understandably, the easy
mobility of privileged people is enviable. Universally, access to a private car, and then
car ownership itself, has become a social and personal signifier of success and freedom.
(Prof Gordon Pirie, Virtuous mobility: moralizing vs. measuring geographic mobility in Africa, 2009)
The literature review produced work that could be grouped into five themes: exploration of links
between spatial exclusion and mobility; measurement of the travel behaviour and travel burden of the
poor (using data collected by the 2003 National Household Travel Survey); planning models that
traditionally overlook the travel modes of the poor; analysis frameworks such as transport justice,
sustainable livelihoods and other asset-based frameworks; and impact evaluations of micro- or mega-
interventions such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and bicycle facilities.
5.1 Spatial exclusion and mobility
The first theme we identified was the exclusionary spatial nature of South Africa’s sprawling cities,
which contributes to long travel times and public transport that is unviable beyond the morning and
evening peak (e.g. Turok, 2011; 2013; Parnell, 2015; Culwick, 2015). A review of the early literature
on South African housing policy (Behrens and Wilkinson, 2003) showed that the Department of
Transport was well aware of the contradictory and counterproductive location of housing, which in
many respects perpetuated Apartheid’s spatial ine
quity. However, as noted in Section 2 of this
document, the policy response has largely been equivocal.
In what was the first paper in South Africa to use the term ‘spatial mismatch’ to describe the jobs-
housing imbalance and resulting transport problems, Turok (2001) discusses the private and public
costs of transport resulting from persistent polarization. This is a consistent thread in the work of
Turok, whose analyses are influenced by the same basic concern that poverty and social exclusion in
South Africa are worsened by the unusually large spatial divide between where people live and where
jobs/resources are concentrated. The other substantive concern in his work is how to resolve this
challenge (see Turok 2001; Turok and Parnell 2009; 2011a; 2011b; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2016). Urban
marginalization has a large spatial component: significant evidence has been reported of the exclusion
imposed on the urban poor through lack of physical access to job opportunities and social networks
(Venter et al, 2007).
5.2 Travel behaviour and travel burden of the poor
A second identified theme takes the form of quantifying the travel burden of the poor, in terms of the
overall amount of travel, travel purpose, travel time and costs, public transport accessibility, vehicle
10
ownership, and accessibility to shopping, education and medical facilities using the findings of the
first National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) in 2003.
South Africa’s 2003 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) was the first of its kind
7
in the
country, using a representative sample, to attempt to capture the nature of travel. The survey revealed
that more than half of households had limited access to public transport it either being too far away,
or not available at all (Walters, 2008). Paratransit (minibus-taxis) played a central role in providing
mobility for the poor. One-fifth of households mentioned that the cost of public transport was of
concern. Respondents were also unhappy with security on trains (63%), lack of facilities at bus stops
(74%), crowding on buses (54%) and with the low off-peak frequencies of bus services (51%)
(Walters, 2008). The 2003 survey indicated that walking, as the main mode, varied from 9% (high-
income households) to 43% (middle-income households) and 61% (low-income households) and that
cycling was ‘quantitatively insignificant’ (Behrens, 2009).
Trip purposes: Overall, low-income households exhibited low levels of mobility, with high-income
households travelling 20% more than the poor in urban areas (Kane, 2006). For the urban poor, the
most common trip purposes were shopping (28%), visiting (25%), and education (23%). In 2003, 85-
90% of urban households had a food shop within a 15-minute journey time (Kane, 2006), and almost
all poor respondents reported being able to access medical help. Social networks sustained through
visiting are an important asset of the poor, and one that protects them against hardship, through, for
example, sharing of chores, informal care for sick, elderly and children, and informal lending of food
and money (Kane, 2006).
The NHTS data showed that South Africa’s planning focus on work-commute trips is misdirected, if
we are to take pro-poor planning seriously (Kane, 2006). Among the low-income population,
unemployment among the poorest quintile is at approximately 80% in the metro/urban areas, thus
work-commute trips have little importance. While congestion in the morning peak is an issue for
those concerned with economic efficiency, it is evidently not a major priority issue for the poor (Kane
2006).
Travel costs: Low-income households spend the most in percentage terms on public transport. This is
clearly a considerable burden, with almost 50% of metropolitan area/urban households spending more
than 20% of their declared income on public transport (Kane, 2006). Further exploration of transport
costs by Venter (2011) showed that transport expenditures vary considerably across urban locations,
with public transport users in displaced urban settlements bearing the highest burden. Travellers in
these locations are also most likely to identify affordability as a key problem.
Travel time: An effective transport system can reduce travelling time and provide users with
additional time resources (Kane, 2006; 2010). The objective of urban transportation planning is, or
should be, to optimize access to opportunities for all people (Hitge, 2015), yet time spent travelling by
the urban poor is enormously costly, both financially and in terms of loss of time in family life. A
decade after the 2003 NHTS, travelling by public transport still takes significantly longer than by
private car for average urban trips (Hitge, 2015).
Metro-level surveys: Since 2009 the Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO) has undertaken five
biennial Quality of Life Surveys, which measured the socio-economic circumstances, perceptions of
service delivery, values, psycho-social attitudes, and other characteristics of residents in the Gauteng
City-Region. The surveys asked respondents about their trip-making behaviour and their perceptions
of transportation in the city-region. Venter and Badenhorst (2014) report two significant observations
in their analysis of the 2011 survey data. Firstly, that about 30% of people reporting no income do not
7
Curiously, although the National Household Travel Survey was repeated in 2013, our keyword search
revealed no scholarly publications analysing its findings… But we have prepared our own summary in
Appendix B.
11
use public transport at all, suggesting a tendency to walk or to curtail travel entirely if public transport
is unaffordable; and secondly, that women and men have similar proportions of travel looking for
work, perhaps pointing to the mounting pressures women face to find employment as either the
primary breadwinner or secondary worker in the family (Venter and Badenhorst, 2014). Overall,
almost three quarters of households surveyed lived within a 10-minute walk of a public transport
service, and 95% lived within a 30-minute walk (about 2 km). Among the lowest income group, the
cost of, and access to public transport was reported as a significant barrier to mobility.
In Cape Town, the capital city of the Western Cape Province, the local authority conducted its own
household survey in 2013, which reported that the most popular main mode of travel was by car as a
driver (25%), followed by walking (21%), minibus-taxi (paratransit) (15%), private car passenger
(12%) and train (11%). Walking as a main mode has the highest percentage in the low-income group
(33%).
5.3 Critiques of conventional transport planning models
A third category of literature (both pre- and post-dating the NHTS) considers the way in which
transport planning models traditionally overlook the travel modes and needs of the poor. Overall, for
planning to be effectively pro-poor, there is a need to re-asses what planners value, and what they
value enough to measure.
For example, Kane (2001), Kane and Behrens (2002), and Behrens (2002) critique conventional
transport policies and planning models in South Africa, arguing that they pay insufficient attention to
equity concerns and non-motorized transport users (walking in particular).
Kane and Behrens support Vasconcellos’ (Vasconcellos, 2001) proposal that the developing world
requires a 'sociological' approach to transport, which focuses on individuals instead of vehicles, and
lives instead of trips, within a framework of equitable provision. Without a detailed understanding of
the travel behaviour of the poor, inherited inequities in transport systems cannot be successfully
redressed (Behrens, 2004), yet data collection methods and planning models introduce a routine bias
by excluding non-motorized modes, for non-work purposes and during off-peak periods. This leaves
it difficult to identify precisely which groups and in what way people are most transport
disadvantaged (Behrens, 2002) what Behrens describes as the ‘equity gaps’.
Kane and Del Mistro (2003) suggest that Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) has an important a role to
play in transport planning, as it offers planners a way in to explore and interpret the human and socio-
political context of transportation, and in particular the power relationships (participative or process
justice) that may otherwise be invisible when transport is seen as a neutral, technical intervention
only. If transport is to meet the needs of all, this can only be achieved with a shift in focus from cost-
efficiency in infrastructure provision, to a focus on accessibility, environmental impact, and equity.
Walters (2008) suspects that the initial aim of redressing past inequities has been superseded by
attempts to increase system efficiency, financial constraints, and labour challenges. Kane (2006)
explicitly criticizes this mismatch between key values of the post-apartheid South African government
that of addressing poverty and redressing inequities and the values intrinsic to the cost-benefit
approach, which among others, misses the needs of the young, old, female, and poor. Kane proposes
the development of a South Africa-specific Sustainable Transport Assessment Tool (STASSA), which
would interpret sustainability in the context of equity and poverty. Such a tool would have been able
to assess the way in which public transport widens individual boundaries, and increases freedom of
movement; it would ultimately facilitate an understanding of the way in which time-constrained
people
8
are able to use newly ‘acquired’ time.
8
For example, mothers are particularly affected by the need to accompany children and the elderly to
school or medical facilities. Improving safety and security of streets, which would allow children independence,
could give mothers more time.
12
The indicator set proposed as part of the STASSA (Kane, 2010)
9
included accessibility and social
exclusion measures, such as the number of job opportunities, commercial services, and educational
facilities within 5 km of residents; the portion of household income devoted to transport, the per
capita cost for fatal and serious accidents; the accessibility of infrastructure to the mobility
disadvantaged, children and elderly; the opportunities for public participation; and impacts on the
liveability of the exposed community.
5.4 Analysis frameworks to frame transport disadvantage
Kane’s STASSA, above, was situated within a Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, which attempts to
address inequity, poverty alleviation and sustainability through the classic five types of capital:
natural, human, social, physical and financial. Kane (2010) adds a sixth type to this framework that
of time: ‘it is the ability of transport interventions to deliver time savings to the poor that distinguishes
transport from other infrastructural improvements,’ she suggests.
This leads to the fourth identified category or theme analysis frameworks within which to refine the
transport problem and understand the essence of particular transport disadvantage.
Lucas (2011) was perhaps the first to direct a social inclusion lens toward the relationship between
transport and social disadvantage in a developing country, working with the South African National
Department of Transport. In particular, Lucas was interested in assessing whether the concept of
social exclusion was a valid one, when it is the majority of the population that experiences transport
and income poverty
10
(Lucas, 2011). This research involved focus group discussions the urban and
peri-urban poor in Tshwane, Gauteng Province. It is worth including details of the study here, as it is
one of the few qualitative studies in the field. The study aimed to identify:
If, and in what physical and social circumstances people on low incomes experience transport
and accessibility problems on any kind of regular basis.
The types of problems they experience and/or the underlying causes of such problems, e.g.
lack of available transport, access onto the transport system, the cost of travel, lack of
information, low travel horizons, the inappropriate location of activity opportunities such as
employment, healthcare services, schools relative to their homes.
Whether different people are affected differently and when, where and how they are affected,
and the longer-term consequences of such problems in terms of their wealth and financial
security, physical and mental wellbeing, maintaining family ties and supporting social
networks.
What types of locally appropriate solutions could be developed to address these problems
from the perspectives of the people who experience them (Lucas, 2011).
Working with a similar dataset and part of the same study, Dimitrov (2011; 2012a; 2012b) measured
transport disadvantage beyond travel time, cost and distance, but within the realm of physical and
mental wellbeing, as well as economic and social activities.
Pirie (2009) shifts transport disadvantage beyond wellbeing, to a direct challenge to South Africa’s
constitution. He poses questions around compensation for ‘immobility’, and asks whether countries
founded on geographic immobility should develop rights-based mobility frameworks open to judicial
scrutiny. Which mobility provisions and practices might be made constitutionally ‘right’ and which
‘wrong’, he asks? More pertinently, how can shocking public transport infrastructure and service in
9
Although the City of Cape Town showed an early interest in such an assessment tool as part of their
transport planning, they ultimately rejected these indicators.
10
Compared with advanced economies, where it is the minority who experience transport disadvantage.
13
many parts of Africa be turned from a bland matter of budgetary allocation, and then managerial
failure, into a question of human rights infringement? Can the persistent cumulative advantages given
to car owners and users be addressed in law as an issue of social and environmental inequity?’ (Pirie,
2009).
South Africa’s Bill of Rights implicitly locates mobility and the right to mobility within the context of
human rights and the struggle for a rights-based society. Mobility is central to rights to access
economic opportunities, health care, education, food and clean water (Coggin and Pieterse, 2015).
More explicitly, national transport policy recognizes public transport as a ‘basic need’, placing public
transport on an equal footing with other government priorities such as adequate housing, and water
and sanitation (NDoT, 2007; Jennings, 2018). This may be why a rights-based or transport-justice
based framework has had more traction in South Africa than that of social exclusion.
Coggin and Pieterse (2015) set out to develop such a rights-based framework, and cite case law to
show that the availability, accessibility, efficiency and quality of public transport are crucial
determinants of the most vulnerable urban residents’ physical access to the socio-economic
opportunities offered by cities (thereby impacting on spatial equality). Without adequate and
affordable public transport to outlying housing areas, urban housing settlements infringe upon
individualsconstitutional right of access to adequate housing
11
.
Seelige and Turok (2013) and Turok (2013) use transitions theory and systems thinking to understand
urban resilience and to show how narrow, insular policy interventions may produce unintended
consequences for other parts of the system. For example, travel subsidies for people living on the
periphery, as a poverty-alleviation measure, may inadvertently perpetuate fragmented spatial
development patterns and prolong inefficient transport and bulk infrastructure arrangements, rather
than encourage a more compact and integrated urban form (Turok, 2013).
Turok (2013) proposes that instead of perpetuating the bus subsidies and travel patterns unchanged
from the Apartheid era, that subsidies to outlying settlements be re-directed to housing in better-
located areas. There is an emerging literature (Pieterse, 2018; Culwick, 2018; Culwick 2019),
however, that suggests that people living on the periphery might be less marginalized than is assumed.
Many poor and unemployed people consciously choose to settle in peripheral urban areas because of
... greater social connections and support networks, and greater overall quality of life, asserts
Pieterse (2018), who argues further that the mere fact of peripheral housing location is not ‘in and of
itself a reliable indicator of destitution, marginalization or urban disconnectedness...’ Gauteng’s
multi-nodal urban characteristic, for example, means that the cities have distinct and dispersed cores.
Areas far from the traditional central business district may in fact be close to significant satellite
nodes of economic activities. Culwick’s work investigates the ‘ideal’ of a compact city – which
promises to increase the viability of public transport and accessibility of urban opportunities and
critiques the traditional conceptualization of ‘well-located’ land (Culwick, 2019).
This bears out earlier work by Cross (2014), and Venter and Cross (2011). Cross (2014) argues that in
many South African cities, subsidized housing is not as poorly located as critics suggest. She argues
that while ‘core’ areas may not be the best places for unskilled and most unemployed people to earn
an income, economic opportunities are nevertheless to be found in informal contexts or decentralized
economic zones. Venter and Cross (2011) undertook an in-depth qualitative study of the relationships
11
For example, see the Constitutional Court’s judgment in Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western
Cape v Thubelisha Homes, where the court found that the eviction of members of an informal settlement close
to Cape Town, and their relocation to Delft (a significant distance outside of the city) whilst the settlement was
being upgraded, was ultimately not unconstitutional. This finding was pertinently influenced by the fact that the
court regarded the City of Cape Town’s offer of transport to relocated community members between their new
location and their places of work, schools, amenities and health-care facilities, as significantly diminishing the
hardship that the eviction and relocation caused them.
14
between the mobility and access opportunities in 32 low-income settlements in South Africa (not
necessarily urban). Like Pieterse, above, they argue that it would be wrong to equate isolated
locations with ‘universally problematic access/mobility environments’ - particularly where services
are within walking distance. Settlement types are more likely to fit into one of a number of typologies,
based on its own characteristic mobility/access profile, which uniquely determines the transport
needs, constraints and opportunities for intervention that are necessary to reduce exclusion-related
poverty (Venter and Cross, 2011). That not only location relative to urban opportunities, but also
micro-level transport and infrastructure conditions within settlements, are important determinants of
access and exclusion has been highlighted also by Behrens (2005) in the context of barriers to walking
within poor neighbourhoods.
5.5 Impacts of individual transport interventions
Coggin and Pieterse (2015) assess the City of Johannesburg’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) intervention,
Rea Vaya, through their human rights framework (discussed above), and conclude that its time-saving
impact (effectively ‘shortening’ travel distances) has greatly increased the accessibility of the city’s
amenities to those in the areas served. This, they suggest, has served to de-marginalize outlying areas,
which have become better connected to the city, and consequently renders land that would have once
been regarded as peripheral as now suitable for social housing. This connectivity makes housing
constructed in these areas ‘adequate for purposes of section 26 of the Constitution.
This leads to the fifth identified category in this literature review: work evaluating the poverty-
alleviation, equity or justice impact of individual transport interventions, such as BRT systems, rail
systems, or bicycle programmes.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services: Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) interventions are the
preferred approach to improving public transport in South Africa’s larger cities and towns, in terms of
the Department of Transport’s Public Transport Strategy of 2007 (see further, Panel discussion 2: The
equity impacts of IPTN improvements in South African cities). This reflects a particular reading of
the urban mobility problem, which is essentially defined in terms of the difficulty people in more
peripheral locations have in covering long distances using slow and inconvenient modes. The
resultant interventions, which have been largely based on the model of high-quality Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) deployment, has arguably had less impact in terms of serving marginalized populations than
what was intended.
The Johannesburg BRT (Rea Vaya) Phase 1A was introduced in 2009 and was the first operational
BRT system in South Africa. Although in theory BRT has the potential to address public transport
challenges for poor communities (Venter et al, 2017), Rea Vaya’s route alignment and spatial
configuration have been criticized for reinforcing existing operational economic routes and corridor
service, and thus consolidating ‘the inherited geographical spatial accessibility and mobility
challenges in urban areas of South Africa (Chakwisiza, 2011). Because the terminal infrastructure is
far from the marginal communities location, these communities needed to switch modes at least
twice in order to access and use these services thus prolonging journey time (Chakwisiza, 2011).
Further, the routes run parallel to and have adopted what are traditionally viewed as minibus-taxi
routes, and at times fares are higher than those of minibus-taxis; had planners considered outlying and
underserviced routes instead, this may have resulted in expanded transport services for marginal
communities (Chakwisiza, 2011).
Venter and Vaz (2012) consider the poverty impacts of the first phase of Rea Vaya using data from a
small-sample household survey conducted in Soweto. They ask whether Rea Vaya improves travel
conditions (including access to transport, travel times, and travel costs) for all users, and whether
these benefits accrue specifically to lower-income or poor users. Key findings suggest that while the
service does enhance access to a variety of services, it does not directly expand such access. Time and
cost savings are substantive, as much as 10 to 20% compared to previous levels, but these are felt by
15
medium-income households rather than by the poorest commuters in the area. Inasmuch as
passengers can spend time and fare savings on other goods, Rea Vaya contributes to poverty
reduction, although Rea Vaya costs more than commuter rail, which remains the mode of choice for
the poorest commuters’ (Venter and Vaz, 2012).
Other studies also acknowledge the time savings benefit of Rea Vaya, but show too that the urban
poor are not the main beneficiaries of the service (Carrigan et al, 2013); Cervero, (2013), in
comparing various BRT systems internationally, concludes that ‘Johannesburg’s 26A km BRT line
(Rea Vaya) has failed to improve the livelihoods of the poor due to its pricing scheme and focus on
middle-income markets.’ The BRT’s fare structures are distance-based (an increasing fare based on
the length of the trip taken) rather a single flat fee regardless of the distance travelled. This places a
higher burden on long-distance commuters and disproportionately affects marginalized groups that
have limited residential and economic options (Culwick, 2015).
In 2014, after the partial completion of phases 1A and 1B, the City of Johannesburg commissioned a
study as input into the Integrated Transport Network Strategy, to guide further deployment of the
BRT and related services (Venter, 2016). Findings threw into question the current BRT paradigm,
which aims for higher speed and reliability along trunk routes, rather than the better access and higher
neighbourhood frequencies many passengers claim to prefer (and are more willing to pay for these).
Venter, who led the study, concluded that it might be more appropriate to spend money on
increasing network coverage and frequencies, and improving the waiting experience with adequate
shelters, than to invest heavily in a network of segregated busways (Venter, 2016).
A qualitative study looking at BRT impacts at neighbourhood level in the lower-income Johannesburg
suburbs of Soweto and Diepkloof, Gauteng (Tsotetsi and Niclesse, 2016), shows that although users
of the system were positive about its benefits, the anticipated housing or commercial development in
the vicinity of the bus stations had not materialized. Local minibus-taxi operators indicated business
had been reduced; and respondents saw the development of a large shopping complex in the area as a
more significant local event than the upgraded public transport system.
Also in Gauteng, Venter and Cross (2014) use a new GIS-based accessibility mapping technique,
referred to as ‘access envelopes’, to evaluate the City of Tshwane’s emerging BRT service (named
A Re Yeng). Access envelopes use what is known as the Net Wage After Commute (NWAC)
measure, which describes the potential wage earnable at a job destination, less the transport costs
incurred to commute to that destination from a particular location. They are valuable for assessing the
impact of transport and spatial development strategies on the location-specific affordability of job
access for poor households. The work shows that A Re Yeng selectively enhances accessibility to
jobs, but that the benefit is reduced by the part-duplication of existing rail lines to core employment
areas. Ultimately, suggest Venter and Cross (2014), while the BRT improves the net earning
potential of low-income workers in certain areas, its ultimate benefits will significantly depend on its
achievement of network effects especially via the reduction of first/last-km trip costs and its
ability to leverage higher density development within walking distance of the route.
Lionjanga (2018) used the access envelope technique to examine the time-series development of
accessibility related to BRT within eight low-income areas in the City of Johannesburg, biennially
from 2009 to 2013 (Lionjanga 2018, Lionjanga and Venter, 2018). Her comparative analysis revealed
that Rea Vaya resulted in very marginal accessibility improvements to Soweto residents living within
close proximity to the service. However, the additional accessibility fails to improve the general sense
of well-being in the communities it serves. There is evidence however of well-being improvements
among the narrower cohort of actual users of BRT, especially in terms of their satisfaction with their
amount of free time. (Lionjanga, 2017, 2018)
Cape Town’s MyCiTi BRT service has been the subject of less investigation in terms of poverty and
equity impacts, perhaps as its first routes were not aimed at serving marginalized low-income
communities, and thus the City does not measure the system’s impacts in terms of equity/justice (see
16
further, Panel discussion 2). Investigating the early phases of MyCiTi, which served a heavily
congested, mostly middle-income corridor with relatively few incumbent paratransit operators, Del
Mistro and Maunganidze (2012) found that MyCiTi had little clear benefit for the urban poor in terms
of service level improvements. These services are more accessible, frequent and faster, and reduce
travel times, but are more expensive and in some cases unaffordable to lower-income users. Any
efficiency gains of such a service has not lead to savings in operating costs, which could have been
passed on to users to keep fares affordable (see further, Panel discussion 2).
Utility cycling (cycling as a mode of transport): In a series of publications on utility cycling and
transport justice, Jennings (2014, 2016b, 2018) examines the poverty-alleviation and social justice
discourse recently assigned to bicycle mobility interventions, and questions the degree to which
cycling is able to reduce transport disadvantage and social exclusion in sprawling cities with long
travel distances between home and work, or home and other desirable destinations. Although the
limited scholarly research suggests that cycling has potential for improving local access, reducing
travel costs, and contributing toward poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods, these outcomes
do not follow automatically from interventions as currently conceptualized and implemented. For
bicycle interventions to advance transport justice and substantively reduce the travel burdens of the
poor, they need exhibit network characteristics and involve stakeholder engagement in a way that few
such interventions have done to date.
Urban rail systems: Two distinct urban rail systems are operational in South African cities. Metrorail,
operated by the Passenger Rail Agency of SA (PRASA), provides basic mobility to many low-income
communities in metropolitan areas. Because of its low fares (supported by high public subsidies), it is
the mode of choice for many of the poorest residents, especially those travelling longer distances from
peripheral townships to traditional employment nodes (Walters, 2008). PRASA has recently been
investing in upgraded train sets and station infrastructure, which is expected to improve the service
quality available to users. However, it is surprising that no specific studies were found assessing the
impact or effectiveness of this spending.
Gautrain, a high-end rapid rail system implemented in Gauteng, offers an interesting contrast.
Although it was not intended as a pro-poor intervention, it has nonetheless drawn significant criticism
in work looking at transportation equity. Donaldson (2006) for example proposes that Gautrain
deepens the ‘mobility-related exclusion… which the post-apartheid state was ostensibly tasked with
alleviating the post-apartheid challenge was to transform South Africa’s geographies of exclusion
and provide a more equitable and effective public transportation’. It diverts public funding from other
public transportation projects, he suggests, going further to write that other options for more
integrated public transport systems were insufficiently considered. Citing the Portfolio Committee on
Transport (2005:4) he notes that ‘the location of the rail lines is remote from most of the major
townships in Gauteng, and there has been very little consideration of ensuring connectivity with the
major modes of transport used by township dwellers in Gauteng.’
17
6. GAPS IN THE KNOWLEDGE
The terms of reference (TOR) for this study indicated that this work should serve as a basis for
‘developing primary research on the much-overlooked topic of the interface between transport and
social policy in developing cities’. The study team was particularly interested in uncovering relevant,
in-depth qualitative work.
Overall, it is fair to say that the TOR accurately predicted that this topic is much overlooked. Social
inclusion or exclusion is not a common transportation research analysis framework, and the transport
problem is more often framed as one of (spatial) inequity, marginalization, or poverty.
Further, we were unable to source much in the way of in-depth qualitative work. In the sourced
literature, this gap had already been identified by for example Kane
12
(2010), Jennings
13
(2015), and
Tsotetsi and Niclesse
14
(2016). All in all, the voice of the ‘lived experiences’ to which Lucas (2012)
refers is almost entirely absent in the literature.
The literature to date acknowledges the existence of physical and geographical exclusion, as well as
economic, time-based, fear-based exclusion and exclusion from facilities (Lucas, 2012). There is
consensus in the South African literature that the poor, and historically and currently economically
and spatially marginalized people, experience transport poverty and a substantial travel burden. But
quite what that daily experience is, is less known (we look forward to the publication of the work of
current student researchers Fuma and Morilly/Fester, see Appendix D, which will cast more light on
these experiences). There is little scholarly literature available on the consequences of a high travel
burden in terms of social outcomes, such as reduced school attendance, health, failure to find (or look
for) employment, and a lower likelihood of home ownership, for example. We know that the cost of
travel is high, but we do not know what people sacrifice in order to travel, and how they make these
trade-offs. We do not know what people have been unable to do because they have low travel
horizons, nor do we know whether transport disadvantage extends to poor social and public
engagement, and exclusion from decision-making. We know that users say public transport is not
safe, but we do not necessarily know how this limits travel behaviour. Without this multi-dimensional
knowledge, it is less easy for policy makers and planners to develop interventions that directly or
indirectly attend to these particular transport disadvantages.
12
‘In 2002 … these topics were even less prominent in a Southern context, and the intellectual resources
attending to transport and sustainability issues were extremely sparse. The resources available were mainly in
the form of “grey”, non-academic literature, found in reports online or through word-of-mouth, supplemented
by academic literature where available’ (Kane, 2010).
13
‘Most of the evaluative literature … has employed quantitative methodology, considering travel times,
travel costs, and level-of-service. This literature review did not encounter scholarly qualitative research
evaluating the nuances of transport disadvantage. Faced with South Africans’ conflicting budgetary needs,
transport planners and political champions do tend to favour mega-projects and high-profile interventions, easily
measured in distance, passenger numbers, speed and frequency’ (Jennings, 2015).
14
These observations are intended to provide food for thought on a number of potential neighbourhood
impacts that can be considered and explored further. The list is not exhaustive and it is recommended that
further, more in-depth research is required to better test and more fully understand the impacts associated with
public transport investment. This research does however provide a useful contribution to understanding how the
investment and impacts are perceived by the community members who are intended to be the ultimate
beneficiaries and provides a baseline set of observations on potential change in these areas. Better understanding
the views of the community can assist in the nature of future interventions and the manner in which they are
communicated to stakeholders’ (Tsotetsi and Niclesse, 2016).
18
We also do not know the extent to which marginalized people, living on the periphery, are in fact
socially excluded (see for example Pieterse, 2018), and to what extent they live with reduced social
capital and wellbeing. Transport disadvantage and transport-related social exclusion are not
necessarily synonymous with each other it is possible to be socially excluded but still have good
access to transport, or to be transport disadvantaged but highly socially included (Lucas, 2012).
A decade ago, Kane (2006) noted that ‘we can only speculate what the ability to move freely does to
human wellbeing and the health of the poor (Kane, 2006). We are still only able to speculate. In 2015
Jennings presented an early draft of a paper looking at the justice impacts of recent mega public
transport projects; responses by policy makers and City officials or elected representatives were
defensive, querying the literature and assuring the author that each transport intervention has ‘made a
great difference to people’s lives’. That paper proposed that qualitative approaches might lead to a
more multi-dimensional understanding of any [social] benefits achieved (Jennings, 2015). It is our
concern that the gaps in this knowledge and understanding largely remain to this day.
Measurement of social disadvantage and its interaction with transport provision, in South African
research, has mostly taken the form of accessibility measures, yet these too often suffer from what
Venter et al (2017) describe as a failure to demonstrate the actual outcomes of enhanced accessibility
for households. These measures largely consider how easy it is to access transport services
15
, or to
access destinations: in other words, how easy it is to access mobility
16
(Jennings, 2016a). Transport
disadvantage remains primarily framed as a mobility problem, and scholarly investigations do not
sufficiently answer the question of what the poor ‘do’ with this access or mobility, and whether they
are able to ‘do’ with it what they really need to do (Venter et al, 2017; Jennings, 2016a). Can the
poor actually make use of enhanced access; do they find better or higher-paying jobs, or access better
health care, education opportunities, or social networks?‘ Venter et al (2017) highlights a need for
further research using ‘purposely designed before-after studies, to better understand these impacts.’
Although Venter refers specifically to BRT projects, there is a similar shortage of scholarly work
evaluating the micro-scale poverty-alleviation impact of bicycle or pedestrian interventions, or of
conventional rail or bus services, or paratransit. What makes the lack of evidence on the actual
impacts of these interventions particularly concerning is the large amounts of public resources, both in
money and bureaucratic energy, that are being channelled into them.
It is worth noting how little scholarly research has been devoted to exploring the experiences of
pedestrians and utility cyclists, and the impact of pedestrian and bicycle mobility interventions; also
of interest is the rising level of protest action around poor or expensive transport provision, and
whether this points to an increasing connection being made by passengers of the role of transport and
social exclusion. It will also be worth seeing whether there is an increased research interest in
passenger needs and transport impacts since the reduction of BRT’s status (Venter, 2016), no longer
the ‘only viable option that can ensure sustainable, equitable and uncongested mobility’ (NDoT,
2007).
Lucas (2012) presents evidence that globally, there have been three key areas of progress considering
transport and social exclusion since the turn of the century: (i) better conceptualization of transport-
related exclusion as a social phenomenon; (ii) improved identification and measurement of social
disadvantage and its interaction with transport provision, in different geographical contexts, using
new and innovative techniques and; and (iii) greater policy recognition of these issues and practical
responses to the problem. What is missing is the ‘extent to which reduced mobility and access to
services leads to the social exclusion of affected individuals and/or reduces their social capital, life
chances, and overall wellbeing’ (Lucas, 2012).
16
Bus Rapid Transport programmes, for example, aim to provide public transport ‘stops’ within 800 m of
every resident.
19
This scoping study reveals that the above exposition, with the exception of (i), is largely true for
research in South Africa too. It may be because transport has traditionally been the domain of
engineering and other quantitative disciplines, and where qualitative work is to some extent viewed
with suspicion. Kane (2010) has the view that because ‘the theoretical understanding of the role that
transport infrastructure investment may play in the informal urban economy, and in supporting the
livelihoods of the poor, is sparse … arguments for a more holistic look at transport investment, which
pushes its role beyond the traditionally conceived support for the formal economy, are difficult to
make.’
It may be, too, that until relatively recently, basic service delivery and economic growth have taken
precedence over social justice arguments, and the connections between these outcomes have not been
made. South Africa’s revised National Transport Master Plan (NATMAP, 2017) is explicit (yet oddly
tentative) in making this connection, though, and recommends the development of definitive
guidelines about the socio-economic role of transport in South Africa: ‘If we, then, agree that
transport supports socio-economic development, one of the questions in our local context is what
strategy do we employ to enhance transport’s role in socio-economic development? Here we have to
consider, for example, the level of investment or subsidization required in public transport to enable it
to support socio-economic needs. Accessibility and mobility are crucial to allow all members of
society to access the economy and have a better quality of life (NATMAP, 2017).
20
REFERENCES
Adato, Michelle, Carter, Michael and May, Julian (2004) ‘Social Exclusion and persistent poverty in
South Africa’. University of KwaZulu-Natal
Ballard, Richard, Dittgen, Romain, Harrison, Philip, and Todes, Alison (2017) ‘Megaprojects and
urban visions: Johannesburg's Corridors of Freedom and Modderfontein.’ Transformation:
Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 95 (1):111-139.
Behrens, Roger (2002) ‘A critique of travel analysis practices in South Africa with respect to
understanding the travel needs of the poor’, in Godard X and Fatonzoum I (eds), Urban
mobility for all, Proceedings of the 10th International CODATU Conference, Lomé, AA
Balkema, Lisse.
Behrens, Roger (2004) ‘Understanding travel needs of the poor: towards improved travel analysis
practices in South Africa’. Transport Reviews, 24:3, 317-336
Behrens, Roger (2005) ‘Accommodating walking as a travel mode in South African cities: Towards
improved neighbourhood movement network design practices.’ Planning Practice &
Research 20 (2):163-182.
Behrens, Roger (2009) ‘What the NHTS reveals about non-motorised transport in the RSA’. In
Khadpekar, N (ed), Non-motorized transportation: making it a viable option. Ahmedabad:
ICFAI University Press
Behrens, Roger and Wilkinson, Peter (2003) ‘Housing and urban passenger transport policy and
planning in South African cities: A problematic relationship?’, in Harrison P, Huchzermeyer
M and Mayekiso M (eds), Confronting fragmentation: Housing and urban development in a
democratising society, University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town
Carrigan, Aileen (2013) ‘Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts of BRT systems: BRT case
studies from around the world’. World Resources Institute, Washington DC
Cervero, Robert (2013) ‘BRT: An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport’. IURD
Working Paper Series. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley
Chakwizira, J, Bikam P et al (2011) ‘Some Missing Dimensions of Urban Public Transport in Africa:
Insights and Perspectives from South Africa’. The Built and Human Environment Review, Vol
4, Special Issue 2, 2011
City of Johannesburg (CoJ) (2011) Joburg 2040: Growth and Development Strategy. City of
Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Coggin, Thomas and Marius Pieterse (2015) ‘Towards a rights-based approach to mobility in the
city’. South African Journal of Human Rights. International Research Group on Law and
Urban Space, University of the Witwatersrand
Cross, Catherine (2014) ‘Youth, housing and urban location: Economic entry for the excluded poor’.
From Housing to Human Settlements: Evolving Perspectives. South African Cities Network,
pp 96122
Culwick, Christina (2015) ‘Social justice and sustainability transitions in the Gauteng City-Region’.
The Ideal City: between myth and reality. Representations, policies, contradictions and
challenges for tomorrow's urban life. Urbino (Italy) 27-29 August 2015
Culwick, Christina (2018) ‘Deconstructing sustainability and justice in social housing developments’.
African Centre for Cities International Urban Conference, 1 February 2018
Culwick, Christina (forthcoming, 2019) Conflicting rationalities in Gauteng housing developments
For GCRO (Gauteng City-Region Observatory) Just Sustainability
Czeglédy, A (2004) ‘Getting around town: Transportation and the built environment in post-apartheid
South Africa’. City and Society, 16(20), 6392
Del Mistro, Romano and Lorita Maunganidze (2012) ‘The role of BRT in improving public transport
levels of service, particularly for the urban poor users of public transport. A case of Cape
Town, South Africa’. Southern Africa Transport Conference, Pretoria, South Africa
Department of Co-operative Governance (COGTA) (2016) Integrated Urban Development
Framework (IUDF): A new deal for South African cities and towns
Dimitrov, Laverne (2011) How to boost public transport service delivery in South Africa to address
social exclusion and energy. Thredbo 12, Pretoria, Workshop 6
21
Dimitrov, Laverne (2012a) ‘The effects of social exclusion and transport in South Africa’. Southern
African Transport Conference, Pretoria, South Africa
Dimitrov, Laverne (2012b) ‘The link between transport, social exclusion and energy issues in the
South African context’. Thesis presented for Masters of Commerce, Faculty of Management,
University of Johannesburg
Hitge, Gerhard and Vanderschuren, Marianne (2015)Comparison of travel time between private car
and public transport in Cape Town’. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil
Engineering, Vol 57 No 3, September 2015, Pages 3543, Paper 1167
Housing Development Agency (HDA) (2004) Breaking New Ground: A comprehensive Plan for the
Development of Sustainable Human Settlements, South Africa
Janmohammed, Aliasgher (2017) Unpacking Road Safety at District Level the case of Cape Town,
South Africa. Masters of Engineering specializing in Transport Studies
Jennings, Gail (2014) ‘Finding our Balance: considering the opportunities for public bicycle systems
in Cape Town, South Africa’. Research in Transportation Business and Management,
Elsevier
Jennings, Gail (2015) ‘Public transport interventions and transport justice in South Africa: a literature
and policy review’. Southern African Transport Conference, Pretoria, South Africa
Jennings, Gail (2016a) ‘Transport, poverty alleviation, and the principles of social justice: a literature
review’. Partnership o Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT)
Jennings, Gail (2016b) ‘Freedom of movement / freedom of choice. An enquiry into utility cycling
and social justice in post-apartheid Cape Town, 2994-2015’. Ch 4 in Bicycle Justice and
Urban Transformation. Edited by Aaron Golub, Melody Hoffman, Adonia Lugo and Gerardo
Sandoval, Routledge, 2016)
Jennings, Gail (2018) A justice- or rights-based approach to transport policy and prioritization: the
case of bicycle infrastructure in Johannesburg, South Africa. African Centre for Cities
International Urban Conference, 1 February 2018
Kane, Lisa (2001) ‘A review of progress towards Agenda 21 principles in the South African urban
transport sector’. Urban Transport Research Group, University of Cape Town
Kane, Lisa (2006) ‘Instilling Pro-Poor Values into Transport Assessment’. Conference on Transport,
Gender and Development, August 2006, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Kane, Lisa (2006) ‘Transport problems associated with poverty’. Conference on Findings of the
National Household Travel Survey, Pretoria, 22 March 2006
Kane, Lisa (2010) ‘Sustainable transport indicators for Cape Town, South Africa: Advocacy,
negotiation and partnership in transport planning practice’. Natural Resources Forum. A
United Nations Sustainable Development Journal. Special Edition on Sustainable Transport
34 (4)
Kane, Lisa and Behrens, Roger (2002) ‘Transport Planning Models: A Historical and Critical
Review’, Southern African Transport Conference 2002, Pretoria, South Africa
Kane, Lisa and Del Mistro, Romano (2003) ‘Changes in transport planning policy: changes in
transport planning methodology?’ Transportation 30 (2), 1-19
Lionjanga, Nahungu (2018) Accessibility and Social Welfare: A Study of the City of Johannesburg.
Masters dissertation. University of Pretoria
Lionjanga, Nahungu and Venter, Christo (2019). Does public transport accessibility enhance
subjective well-being? A Study of the City of Johannesburg. Research in Transportation
Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.011
Lucas, Karen (2011) ‘Making the connections between transport disadvantage and the social
exclusion of low income populations in the Tshwane Region of South Africa’. Journal of
Transport Geography 19 (2011) 13201334
Lucas, Karen (2012) Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy 20
(2012) 105113
Muzondo, Chido (2017) Transport and social exclusion: the case of Bus Rapid Transit in South
Africa, Masters Degree, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford
National Department of Transport (NDoT) (1996, updated 2017) White Paper on National Transport
Policy
National Department of Transport (NDoT) (2000) National Land Transport Transition Act
22
National Department of Transport (NDot) 2007) Public Transport Strategy
National Department of Transport (NDoT) (2008) Draft National NMT Policy
National Department of Transport (NDoT) (2009) National Land Transport Act
National Department of Transport (NDoT) (2015, updated 2017) National Transport Master Plan
2015 (NATMAP 2050)
National Department of Transport (NDoT) (2018) Green Transport Strategy
National Planning Commission (NPC) (2012) National Development Plan: A vision for 2030
National Planning Commission (NPC) (2013) Spatial Planning and Land Management Act
(SPLUMA)
Parnell, Susan (2015) ‘Poverty and the City’. The City in Urban Poverty, EADI Global Development
Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Pieterse, Marius (2018) ‘Where is the periphery even? Capturing urban marginality in SA human
rights law’. Urban Studies, 1-16 School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Pirie, Gordon (2009) Virtuous mobility: moralizing vs. measuring geographic mobility in Africa.
Afrika Focus Vol 22 Nr 1
Porter, Gina (2008) Increasing children's participation in African transport planning: reflections on
methodological issues in a child-centred research project’. Children's Geographies 6:2, 151-
167
Seeliger, Leanne and Turok, Ivan (2013) ‘Towards Sustainable Cities: extending resilience with
insights from vulnerability and transition theory’. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2108-2128. Human
Sciences Research Council (HSRC)
Thomas, David (2013) The Gautrain project in South Africa: a cautionary tale. Journal of
Contemporary African Studies, 31:1 77-94
Tsotetsi, Maggie and Niclesse Mariette (2016) BRT Impacts at a Neighbourhood Level. Volume 2:
Perception and observation insights from Soweto's Diepkloof and Thokoza Park Stations. SA
Cities Network/University of Pretoria
Turok, Ivan (2001) ‘Persistent Polarisation Post-Apartheid? Progress towards Urban Integration in
Cape Town’. Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 13, 23492377, 2001
Turok Ivan and Parnell, S (2009) ‘Reshaping Cities, Rebuilding Nations: The Role of National Urban
Policies’. Urban Forum, 20:157174 DOI 10.1007/s12132-009-9060-2
Turok, Ivan (2011a)’ Viewpoint: Deconstructing density: Strategic dilemmas confronting the post-
apartheid city’. Cities 28 (2011) 470477
Turok, Ivan (2011b) ‘Spatial economic disparities in South Africa: Towards a new research and
policy agenda’. ESSA conference, Stellenbosch, September 2011
Turok, Ivan (2012) ‘Urbanisation and Development in South Africa: Economic Imperatives, Spatial
Distortions and Strategic Responses’. Urbanization and emerging population issues. Working
Paper 8
Turok, Ivan (2013) ‘Transforming South Africa’s divided cities: can devolution help’. International
Planning Studies
Turok, Ivan (2014) ‘The resilience of South African cities a decade after local
democracy’. Environment and Planning A 2014, volume 46, pages 749769
Turok, Ivan (2016) ‘South Africa’s new urban agenda: Transformation or compensation?Local
Economy 2016, Vol. 31(12) 927
Vanderschuren, Marianne and Jennings, Gail (2017) ‘Non-motorised travel behaviour in Cape Town,
Dare es Salaam and Nairobi’. Ch 2 in Non-motorised transport integration into Urban
Transport Planning in Africa, Routledge (edited by Mitullah, et al)
Vasconcellos, Eduardo (2001) Urban Transport, Environment and Equity: the case for developing
countries. Taylor and Francis
Venter, Christo (2011) ‘Transport expenditure and affordability: the cost of being mobile’.
Development Southern Africa 28(1), pp. 121-140
Venter, Christo (2016) Are we giving BRT passengers what they want? User Preference and market
segmentation in Johannesburg’. Southern African Transport Conference, Pretoria, South
Africa
23
Venter, Christo and Badenhorst, Willem (2014) ‘2011 GCRO Quality of Life Survey: Analysis of
transport data’. Mobility in the Gauteng City-Region. Gauteng City-Region Observatory
(GCRO) and University of Johannesburg, University of Pretoria
Venter, Christo and Cross, Catherine (2011) ‘Location, mobility and access to work: a qualitative
exploration in low-income settlements’. Southern African Transport Conference, Pretoria,
South Africa
Venter, Christo and Cross, Catherine (2014) ‘Access envelopes: A new accessibility mapping
technique for transport and settlement planning’. SSB/TRP/MDM 2014 (64)
Venter, Christo, Jennings, Gail, Dario Hidalgo and Andrés Felipe Valderrama Pineda (2017) “The
equity impacts of bus rapid transit: A review of the evidence and implications for sustainable
transport”. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
Venter, Christo, Vera Vokolkova and Jaroslav Michalek (2007) ‘Gender, residential location and
household travel: empirical findings from low-income urban settlements in Durban, South
Africa’. Transport Reviews Vol 27 no 6, 653-677 317-336
Von Schnitzler, Antina (2015) Infrastructure, Apartheid Techno-politics, and Temporalities of
Transition (draft of Democracy’s Infrastructure: Neoliberalism, Techno-Politics and
Citizenship After Apartheid). University of the Witwatersrand
Walters, Jackie (2008) ‘Overview of public transport policy developments in South Africa’. Research
in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 98108
24
APPENDIX A: CAPE TOWN INTALINC WORKSHOP PROGRAMME, 5-6 APRIL 2018
Transport justice and the travel burden on peripheral low-income communities
5-6 April 2018
Faculty Room, 1st Floor, Protea Hotel Breakwater Lodge University of Cape Town,
Breakwater Campus
PARTICIPANTS:
1. Behrens, Roger
University of Cape Town
RB
2. Culwick, Christina
Gauteng City-Region Observatory
CC
3. Fester, Carlyn
Provincial Government of the Western Cape
CF
4. Fuma, Ayanda
University of Cape Town
AF
5. Govender, Claire
City of Cape Town
CG
6. Guerrero Casas, Marcela
Open Streets
MGC
7. Imuentinyan, Aivinhenyo
University of Cape Town
AI
8. Jele, Jabulani
Southern African Social Policy Research Institute
JJ
9. Jennings, Gail
Research Consultant
GJ
10. Lionjanga, Nahungu
University of Pretoria
NL
11. Lucas, Karen
University of Leeds
KL
12. Schalekamp, Herrie
University of Cape Town
HS
13. Stolworthy, Leigh
City of Cape Town
LS
14. Thanjekwayo, Maxine
Provincial Government of the Western Cape
MT
15. Turok, Ivan
Human Sciences Research Council
IT
16. Van Ryneveld, Philip
Hunter Van Ryneveld
PvR
17. Venter, Christo
University of Pretoria
CV
18. Wosiyana, Mlungisi
eThekwini Transport Authority
MW
19. Zembe-Mkabile, Wanga
Southern African Social Policy Research Institute
WZ
20. Zuidgeest, Mark
University of Cape Town
MZ
25
THURSDAY 5 APRIL 2018
Morning tea
08:30-09:00
1
Welcome
09:00
Welcome
RB
Participant introductions
All
Workshop programme overview
RB
2
Introduction and background
09:15
Introduction to INTALInC and the findings so far
KL
3
Preliminary findings of a scoping study
10:00
Limitations of available secondary datasets
RB
Thematic analysis of available literature and assessment of research
capacity in the field of transport burden and social exclusion
GJ
Mid-morning tea
10:45-11:15
4
Research summaries
11:15
TDA’s Transport Development Index
LS
Affordability dimensions of access and exclusion
AI
Discussion
All
Lunch
13:00-14:00
5
Panel discussion: Transport justice as a conceptual framework for
understanding transport burden and exclusion
14:00
Chair: Mark Zuidgeest
Panelists: Maxine Thanjekwayo; Christina Culwick; Wanga Zembe-
Mkabile
o Question 1: What is fairness in transport, and how can it help us to
overcome existing levels of transport burden and exclusion in
South Africa?
o Question 2: Transport justice requires some way to measure levels
of accessibility and degrees of inequality therein. What is
accessibility really, and when does someone have enough of it?
o Question 3: In view of the multi-disciplinary nature of the transport
justice concept, existing data, tools and (human) capacity in South
Africa, what does it take to operationalize the transport justice
concept in transport research, and by extension in transport
planning practice, in South Africa?
MZ
CC
MT
WZ
Afternoon tea
15:00-15:30
6
Panel discussion: The equity impacts of IPTN improvements in
South African cities
15:30
Chair: Christo Venter
Panelists: Claire Govender; Philip van Ryneveld; Mlungisi Wosiyana
o Question 1: What evidence do we have on the impacts of IPTN
investments on marginalized communities in SA so far?
CV
CG
PvR
MW
26
o Question 2: What does this mean for the way public transport
improvements are envisioned, scoped, and implemented? What
should we be doing better or differently to move towards more
equitable and inclusive cities?
o Question 3: How do we balance the need for equity with the need
for financially viable public transport systems?
Summary of Day 1
MZ
17:00
Workshop dinner (Den Anker, V&A Waterfront,
www.denanker.co.za)
18:00
FRIDAY 6 APRIL 2018
Morning tea
08:30-09:00
7
Welcome
09:00
Workshop programme recap
CV
8
Research summaries
09:30
The time and cost burden of low-income female commuters
CF
Temporal dimensions of access and exclusion
AF
Mid-morning tea
10:30-11:00
Accessibility and social welfare in Johannesburg
NL
Discussion
All
9
Panel discussion: The impact of safe and secure walking and
cycling environments on transport burden
11:45
Chair: Roger Behrens
Panelists: Marcela Guerrero Casas; Gail Jennings; Marianne
Vanderschuren
o Question 1: What road safety problems do low-income
communities in South African cities encounter when undertaking
walking and cycling trips, particularly over longer distances, and
what should be done to address these problems?
o Question 2: What personal security problems do low-income
communities, particularly woman and children, encounter when
walking and cycling in South African cities, and what should be
done to address these problems?
o Question 3: How conducive are South African street design
manuals and practices to creating safe and secure walking and
cycling environments?
RB
MG
C
GJ
MV
Lunch
13:00-14:00
11
Panel discussion: A research agenda for transport burden and
social exclusion in South African cities
14:00
Chair: Karen Lucas
Panelists: Christo Venter; Mark Zuidgeest; Roger Behrens
KL
CV
27
o Question 1: What have been your most important take-home
messages from the workshop, and how has this influenced your
thinking about your own research?
o Question 2: How do we best promote the interdisciplinary
dimensions of the research agenda with academics in other relevant
research disciplines?
o Question 3: How do you think that academics can work more
effectively with policymakers and transport professionals to take
this agenda forward in South Africa?
MZ
RB
Summary of Day 2
RB
15:00
Afternoon tea
15:00-15:30
28
APPENDIX B: SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS
This appendix presents the analysis undertaken of publicly available secondary data, in the form of
the 2013 National Household Travel Survey commissioned by the national Department of Transport,
to understand the current transport conditions and mobility patterns of low-income and other
vulnerable groups, and to establish baseline quantitative understanding of transport and social
exclusion in South African cities.
The main limitation encountered in this analysis was difficulty in filtering out the target population.
As is revealed in the first figure below, a plot of income against expenditure revealed a considerable
number of households reported expenditure on travel beyond their reported income. Consequently,
later analysis used majority income from grants as the principal means of identifying the target group.
Table 1: Correlation between income and expenditure (count)
Question#: Q7.2: What was the total household expenditure in the last month and Totmhinc: derived monthly
earning and grants
n= 43,463 households
1 = R0
2 = R1 R199
3 = R200 R399
4 = R400 R799
5 = R800 R1 199
6 = R1 200 R1 799
7 = R1 800 R2 499
8 = R2 500 R4 999
9 = R5 000 R9 999
10 = R10 000 or more
R² = 0.0064
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
012345678910
Income
Expenditure
29
Table 2: Income for target population vs total population (count)
Question: Totmhinc: derived monthly earnings and grants
n= 43,463 households
ROW LABELS
TOTAL POPULATION
TARGET POPULATION
0-4999
29,780
8,460
5000-9999
6,130
293
10000-14999
2,636
57
15000-19999
1,232
6
20000-24999
1,086
8
25000-30000
670
3
>30000
1,928
6
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0-4999
5000-9999
10000-14999
15000-19999
20000-24999
25000-30000
>30000
Count
Income in rand
total population target population
30
Table 3: Expenditure of target population vs total population (count)
Question#: Q7.2: What was the total household expenditure in the last month
n= 43,463 households
EXPENDITURE
TARGET POPULATION
TOTAL POPULATION
0
19
232
1-199
106
593
200-399
676
2,293
400-799
2,479
7,570
800-1199
2,446
7,799
1200-1799
649
4,345
1800-2499
1,627
6,643
2500-4999
399
5,433
5000-9999
73
3,540
10000+
19
2,634
don't know
267
1,581
refuse
14
372
Unspecified
59
427
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
1-199
200-399
400-799
800-1199
1200-1799
1800-2499
2500-4999
5000-9999
10000+
Count
Expenditure in Rand
target population total population
31
Table 4: Gender by race (count)
Question#: C and E: Is ...... a male or a female? What population group does ...... belong to?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
AFRICAN
BLACK
COLOURED
INDIAN/ASIAN
WHITE
TOTAL
POPULATION
Male
1,884
267
61
11
2,223
Female
1,902
350
24
45
2,321
2 223
1 884
267
61 11
2 321
1 902
350
24 45
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
Total Population African Black Coloured Indian/Asian White
count
Male Female
32
Table 5: Age (count)
Question#: D: What is +9+….’s date of birth and age in completed years?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
3548
499
150 140 150 50 7
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90-104
Count
Age
AGE
COUNT
0-14
3,548
15-29
499
30-44
150
45-59
140
60-74
150
75-89
50
90-104
7
33
Table 6: Age (count)
Question#: D: What is …..’s date of birth and age in completed years?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,794 persons
AGE
COUNT
0-14
11,518
15-29
12,924
30-44
10,674
45-59
6,633
60-74
3,068
75-89
856
90-104
120
105-119
1
11518
12924
10674
6633
3068
856 120 1
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90-104 105-119
Count
Age
34
Table 7: Main dwelling type (count)
Question#: Q7.1: Indicate the type of main dwelling that the household occupies
Filter: Metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 1,154 households
DWELLING TYPE
COUNT
Brick house
786
Informal dwelling
178
Informal backyard
73
Flat
45
Semi detached
24
Backyard house
23
Servant quarters
8
Traditional dwelling
5
Unspecified
5
Cluster housing
3
Caravan/tent
2
Town house
1
0ther
1
786
178
73 45 24 23 85321 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Brick house
Informal dwelling
Informal backyard
Flat
Semi detached
Backyard house
Servant quarters
Traditional dwelling
Cluster housing
Caravan/tent
Town house
0ther
Count
35
Table 8: Access to motor vehicle (count)
Question#: Q7.10: How many of the following motor vehicles in working order does this household have available
for private use
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 1,154 households
VEHICLE OWNED
POPULATION
0
1,148
1
3
Unspecified
3
1148
3 3
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 Unspecified
Count
Number of Vehicles
36
Table 9: Mode use by Trip purpose (count)
Question#: Q7.11: How do members of your household get to the nearest of each of the following facilities?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n = 1,154 persons
SHOP
O/SHP
HEALER
CHURCH
MEDSERV
POST
WFARE
POLICE
MUNIP
TRIBAL
FINSERV
Walk
301
739
104
618
517
333
249
399
298
37
235
Train
8
8
9
4
9
4
8
4
7
7
10
Bus
11
8
1
7
13
8
8
5
5
1
6
Minibus
679
256
54
254
409
379
549
450
491
49
651
Metered Taxi
7
5
0
3
4
1
5
1
2
0
3
Car/Bakkie
125
71
7
88
110
72
74
73
75
5
115
Truck/Lorry
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Tractor/Trailer
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
Motorcycle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Bicycle
2
1
4
3
3
4
0
0
2
6
1
Animal
Transport
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
No need to
Travel
11
53
932
157
72
331
239
205
255
1,003
115
Unspecified
8
12
32
17
13
17
16
13
17
35
15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SHOP
O/SHP
HEALER
CHURCH
MEDSERV
POST
WFARE
POLICE
MUNIP
TRIBAL
FINSERV
Mode use
Walk Train Bus Minibus Metered Taxi Car/Bakkie
Truck/Lorry Tractor/Trailer Motorcycle Bicycle Animal Transport No need to Travel
37
Table 10: Trips in the last seven days (count)
Question#: Q2.2 and QC: Did …..take any trip/travel in the last seven days e.g. going to work, school, visiting
friends/ relatives or going to the shops; Is ...... a male or a female?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL POPULATION
Yes
1,494
1,617
3,111
No
673
621
1,294
Don’t Know
10
10
Unspecified
46
83
129
1494
673
10 46
1617
621
83
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Yes No Don’t Know Unspecified
Count
Trip in last 7 days
Male Female
38
Table 11: Reason for walking all the way in the last seven days (count)
Question#: Q2.6: What is the main reason why ……. walked all the way to their destination?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n = 4,544 persons
REASON FOR WALKING
COUNT
Not applicable
2,628
Nearby
1,507
Public transport expensive
134
Unspecified
103
By choice
92
Other
24
No public transport
20
Health Reasons
15
Fuel costs
12
No parking
6
Inadequate public transport
3
1507
134 103 92 24 20 15 12 63
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Nearby
Public transport expensive
Unspecified
By choice
Other
No public transport
Health reasons
Fuel costs
No parking
Inadequate public transport
Count
39
Table 12: Reason for not travelling in the last seven days (count)
Question#: Q2.3: What is the main reason why ……. did not make any trips/travel in the last seven days?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
REASON FOR NOT TRAVELLING
COUNT
Not applicable
3,121
Too young/old
657
No need to travel
355
Unspecified
192
Financial constraints
59
No reason
54
Sick
36
Expensive
16
Caretaker
16
No interest
13
Disabled
12
NO public transport
8
Transport inaccessibility
4
No time to travel
1
657
355
59 54 36 16 16 13 12 841
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Too young/old
No need to travel
Financial constraintss
No reason
Sick
Expensive
Caretaker
No interest
Disabled
No public transport
Transport inaccessibilty
No time to travel
Count
40
Table 13: Trip generation various trip purpose (count and percent)
Question#: Q2.4: Thinking about the travel day, how many trips did …. make to the following
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n = 4,544 persons
HOME
EDUC
OTHR
TAKE
CHURCH
LOOKWRK
SHOP
USULWRK
CORSWRK
VISTING
FandR
MEDICAL
TRADHEALER
WELFARE
Trips
2,877
2,308
187
170
218
116
368
128
25
333
75
43
19
No trip
768
1,166
3,043
3,045
2,995
3,065
2,810
2,987
3,088
2,819
3,043
3,100
3,096
21
34
94 95 93 96 88 96 99 89 98 99 99
1
79
66
657412 4111 211
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
HOME
EDUC
OTHR
TAKE
CHURCH
LOOKWRK
SHOP
USULWRK
CORSWRK
VISTING
FRIENDS
MEDICAL
TRADHEALER
WELFARE
Perentage count
41
Table 14: Trip generation various trip purpose (count and percent)
Question#: Q2.4: Thinking about the travel day, how many trips did …. make to the following
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,794 persons
USULWRK
CORSWRK
VISTING
FandR
TAKE
EDUC
SHOP
LOOKWRK
MEDI
TRADH
WELF
CHURCH
HOME
OTHR
trips
17,874
2,554
5,393
2,410
14,976
7,188
2,071
1,598
754
773
3,056
37,829
2,077
no
trips
23,430
36,884
34,205
36,762
25,804
32,667
36,893
37,168
37,910
37,850
36,171
7,360
37,165
57
94 86 94
63
82
95 96 98 98 92
16
95
43
614 6
37
18
54228
84
5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USULWRK
CORSWRK
VISTING F&R
TAKE
EDUC
SHOP
LOOKWRK
MEDI
TRADH
WELF
CHURCH
HOME
OTHR
Percentage
No trips Trips
42
Table 14: Education by gender (count)
Question#: Q3.2 and QC: Is …currently attending any educational institution? Is ...... a male or a female?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 person
YES
NO
DON’T KNOW
Male
1,030
1,056
137
Female
1,127
1,086
108
2223
1030 1056
137
2321
1127 1086
108
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Total Population Yes No Don’t know
Count
Male Female
43
Table 15: Main mode for education trips (count)
Question#: Derived from Q 3.12: What mode of travel does … use to get to the educational institution he/she
attends?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
MODE
COUNT
Not applicable
2,155
Walking all the way
1,566
Unspecified
326
Taxi
231
Car passenger
113
Bus
110
Train
21
Other
20
Car Driver
2
1566
231
113 110 21 20 2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Walking all the
way
Taxi Car passenger Bus Train Other Car driver
Count
44
Table 17 Main mode for education mode trips (count)
Question#: Derived from Q 3.12: What mode of travel does … use to get to the educational institution he/she
attends?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 4,544 persons
MODE
COUNT
Not applicable
30,836
Walk
6,268
Taxi
2,715
Car passenger
2,544
Unspecified
1,704
Bus
845
Car driver
372
Train
350
Other
160
6 268
2 715 2 544
845
372 350 160
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
Walk Taxi Car passenger Bus Car driver Train Other
Count
45
Table 16: Departure time to education institution (count)
Question#: Q3.7: At what time did... leave to go the educational institution he/she attends on the travel day?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
TIME
POPULATION
0430-0500
3
0501-0530
4
0531-0600
46
0601-0630
157
0631-0700
614
0701-0730
865
0731-0800
331
0801-0830
24
0831 or later
17
Not applicable
2,142
Unspecified,
341
3446
157
614
865
331
24 17
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0430-0500
0501-0530
0531-0600
0601-0630
0631-0700
0701-0730
0731-0800
0801-0830
0831 or later
Count
Time
46
Table 17: Waiting time for first transport to education institution (count)
Question#: Q3.9: How long did … wait for his/her first transport to arrive on the travel day?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
TIME IN MINUTES
COUNT
0
90
1
34
2
23
3
29
4
13
5
77
10
72
15
12
20
12
30
10
Not applicable
3,881
Don’t know
30
Unspecified
261
90
34
23 29
13
77 72
12 12 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 30
Count
Waiting time in mins
47
Table 18: Total time to education institution (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 3.7: At what time did … leave to go to the educational institution he/she attends?
And Question 3.11: At what time did … arrive at the educational institution he/she attends?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
TIME
COUNT
1-30
1,526
31-60
421
61-90
103
91-120
6
121-150
2
151-180
3
Not Applicable
2,483
1526
421
103
623
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180
Count
time in mins
48
Table 21: Total time to education institution (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 3.7: At what time did … leave to go to the educational institution he/she attends?
And Question 3.11: At what time did … arrive at the educational institution he/she attends
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,794 persons
TIME
COUNT
1-30
8,265
31-60
3,391
61-90
966
91-120
378
121-150
96
151-180
43
181-210
9
211-240
3
241-270
2
271-300
1
301-330
1
361-390
1
Not applicable
32,638
8265
3391
966 378 96 43 93 2 111
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1-30
31-60
61-90
91-120
121-150
151-180
181-210
211-240
241-270
271-300
301-330
361-390
Count
Time in minutes
49
Table 19: Total cost education institution per month (count)
Question#: Derived from logical series of questions: Question 3.13: For the mode/s selected in Q3.12, does …
make a payment. And Question 3.14: For the mode selected above, how much did it cost …as per
payment method selected in Q3.13?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
COST
COUNT
5-204
146
205-404
159
405-604
57
805-1004
2
2205-2404
2
Not Applicable
4,178
146
159
57
2 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
5-204 205-404 405-604 805-1004 2205-2404
Count
Cost in rand
50
Table 20: Total cost education institution per month (count)
Question#: Derived from logical series of questions: Question 3.13: For the mode/s selected in Q3.12, does …
make a payment. And Question 3.14: For the mode selected above, how much did it cost …as per
payment method selected in Q3.13?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,794 persons
COST IN RAND
COUNT
0-499
3,315
500-999
724
1000-1499
141
1500-1999
64
2000-2499
68
2500-2999
15
3000-3499
17
3500-3999
5
4000-4499
14
4500-4999
4
5000-5499
5
5500-5999
1
6000-6500
3
Not applicable
41,418
3315
724
141 64 68 15 17 514 4513
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0-499
500-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
3500-3999
4000-4499
4500-4999
5000-5499
5500-5999
6000-6500
count
cost in rand
51
Table 21: Employment status(count)
Question#: Does …have a job/run a business or did he/she do any work in the last seven days,
even if he/she was absent from work due to leave or illness?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
TOTAL
Not Applicable
3,548
No
873
Formal
82
Informal
41
873
82 41
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
No Formal Informal
Count
Employment Status
52
Table 22: Employment status(count)
Question#: Does …have a job/run a business or did he/she do any work in the last seven days,
even if he/she was absent from work due to leave or illness?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,794 persons
ROW LABELS
COUNT
Formal
13,704
Informal
2,875
Unemployed
17,697
Not applicable
11,518
17697
13704
2875
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Unemployed Formal Informal
count
53
Table 23: Departure time to work (count)
Question#: At what time did …leave to go to work on the travel day?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
TIME
COUNT
0400-0459
5
0500-0559
21
0600-0659
34
0700-0759
26
0800 or later
29
Not Applicable
4,423
Don't travel
6
5
21
34
26
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0400-0459 0500-0559 0600-0659 0700-0759 0800 or later
Count
time
54
Table 24: Main mode to employment (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.21: What mode of travel does … use to get to his/her place of employment?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544
MODE
COUNT
Not applicable
4,423
Taxi
40
Walk
24
Train
22
Car passenger
18
Car driver
8
Unspecified
5
Bus
4
40
24 22
18
8
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Taxi Walk Train Car passenger Car driver Bus
Count
55
Table 25: Main mode to employment (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.21: What mode of travel does … use to get to his/her place of employment?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,794 persons
MODE
COUNT
Not applicable
29,956
Car driver
5,484
Taxi
4,551
Walking
1,748
Train
1,286
Car passenger
1,027
Bus
987
Unspecified
634
Other
121
5484
4551
1748
1286 1027 987
121
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Car driver Taxi Walking Train Car
passenger
Bus Other
count
56
Table 26: Walking time to first transport of transport to employment
Question#: Q4.26: How long did …walk to get from here to his/her first transport on the travel day?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 person
TIME IN MINUTES
COUNT
0
17
1
8
2
5
4
3
5
9
10
18
15
11
20
1
30
7
40
2
Not Applicable
4,451
Do not Know
7
Unspecified
5
17
8
5
3
9
18
11
1
7
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 1 2 4 5 10 15 20 30 40
Count
Time in minutes
57
Table 27: Total time to employment (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.9: At what time did … leave to go to work? And Question 4.10: At what time did
… get to the place of work?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 person
TIME
COUNT
5-34
37
35-64
46
65-94
23
95-124
9
Not Applicable
4,429
37
46
23
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5-34 35-64 65-94 95-124
Count
time in mins
58
Table 28: Total time to employment (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.9: At what time did … leave to go to work? And Question 4.10: At what time did
… get to the place of work?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 45,974 person
TIME IN MINUTES
COUNT
1-30
5,452
31-60
5,375
61-90
2,303
91-120
1,066
121-150
340
151-180
143
181-210
46
211-240
32
241-270
12
271-300
17
301-330
6
331-360
2
361-390
3
391-420
1
Not applicable
30,996
5452 5375
2303
1066
340 143 46 32 12 17 62 3 1
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1-30
31-60
61-90
91-120
121-150
151-180
181-210
211-240
241-270
271-300
301-330
331-360
361-390
391-420
count
Time in minutes
59
Table 29: Cost to place of employment per month (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.22 For the modes of travel used, how much did it cost …to travel to work?
Question 4.23 For the modes of travel used, did … make a payment
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
COST
COUNT
56-155
4
156-255
14
256-355
4
356-455
15
456-555
15
556-655
11
656-755
1
756-855
2
856-955
3
1156-1255
2
Not Applicable
4,473
4
14
4
15 15
11
1
2
3
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
56-155
156-255
256-355
356-455
456-555
556-655
656-755
756-855
856-955
1156-1255
Count
Cost in rand
60
Table 30: Cost to place of employment per month (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.22 For the modes of travel used, how much did it cost …to travel to work?
Question 4.23 For the modes of travel used, did … make a payment
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 4,544 persons
COST IN RAND
COUNT
1-500
4,239
501-1000
2,096
1001-1500
365
1501-2000
150
2001-2500
47
2501-3000
29
3001-3500
15
3501-4000
19
4001-4500
4
4501-5000
11
5001-5500
4
5501-6000
4
Not applicable
38,811
4239
2096
365 150 47 29 15 19 411 4 4
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1-500
501-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001-2500
2501-3000
3001-3500
3501-4000
4001-4500
4501-5000
5001-5500
5501-6000
count
cost in rand
61
Table 31: Percentage of income spent on transport per month (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.22 For the modes of travel used, how much did it cost …to travel to work?
Question 4.23 For the modes of travel used, did … make a payment and Totmhinc: derived from
monthly earnings and grants
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 71
PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
COUNT
0-4
9
5-9
24
10-14
21
15-19
5
20-24
3
25-29
2
30-34
7
Average
12
9
24
21
5
32
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34
Count
Percentage income spent on transport
62
Table 32: Percentage of income spent on transport per month (count)
Question#: Derived from Question 4.22 For the modes of travel used, how much did it cost …to travel to work?
Question 4.23 For the modes of travel used, did … make a payment and Totmhinc: derived from
monthly earnings and grants
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001
n= 7,823 persons
PERCENTAGE OF INCOME SPENT ON TRANSPORT
COUNT
0-4
2,302
5-9
1,993
10-14
1,040
15-19
571
20-24
344
25-29
208
30-34
130
35-39
95
40-44
63
45-49
43
50-54
24
55-59
33
60-64
21
65-69
15
70-74
13
75-80
9
>80
79
Average
11
2302
1993
1040
571
344 208 130 95 63 43 24 33 21 15 13 979
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-80
>80
Count
Time in minutes
63
Table 33: Main mode for day trip (count)
Question#: Q6.3: What was the main mode of travel used for this trip?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 4,544 persons
MODE
COUNT
Not applicable
4,037
Local Minibus Taxi
170
Walk
99
Car Passenger
88
Bus
51
Long D Minibus
46
Unspecified
23
Car Driver
15
Sedan Taxi
7
Train
4
Bakkie Taxi
2
Long D Train
1
Metered Taxi
1
170
99 88
51 46
23 15 7421 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Local minibus taxi
Walk
Car passenger
Bus
Long d/minibus
Unspecified
Car driver
Sedan Taxi
Train
Bakkie taxi
Long d/train
Metered taxi
Count
64
Table 34: Factors influencing mode choice in general travel (count)
Question#: When travelling, which factor influences your households’ choice of mode of travel most?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n = 1,154 households
FACTORS
COUNT
Travel Cost
410
Travel Time
335
Safety from Accidents
79
Flexibility
61
Comfort
61
Distance to Transport
59
Driver Attitude
41
Security from Crime
37
Reliability
36
Other
21
Unspecified
8
Availability of timetable
5
410
335
79 61 61 59 41 37 36 21 85
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Travel cost
Travel time
Safety from accidents
Flexibility
Comfort
Distance to transport
Driver attitude
Security from crime
Reliability
Other
Unspecified
Availability of timetable
Count
65
Table 35: Problems experienced with transport in general (count)
Question#: Q8.1: What are the two most important transport-related problems experienced by the household?
Filter: metropolitan cities: derived from census typology 2001 and Q7.3 households with majority income from
grants
n= 1,154 households
PROBLEM
COUNT
No buses
260
No buses at times
32
Buses too far
21
Buses expensive
23
Reckless bus driving
12
No taxis available
36
No taxis late
64
Taxis too Far
58
Taxes expensive
162
Reckless taxi drivers
42
No trains
13
No late trains
9
Trains too far
7
Train expensive
1
Train unreliable
6
Crime
16
Overload
83
Rude drivers
22
Poor road conditions
98
Parking
1
Toll fees
2
Congestion
1
No transport problem
152
Other
4
Not applicable
22
Unspecified
6
66
260
162 152
98 83
64 58 42 36 32 23 22 22 21 16 13 12 976 6 421 1 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
No buses
Taxis expensive
No transport problem
Poor road conditions
Overload
No taxis late
Taxis too far
Reckless taxi drivers
No taxis available
No buses at times
Buses expensive
Rude drivers
Not applicable
Buses too far
Crime
No trains
Reckless bus drivers
No late trains
Trains too far
Train unreliable
Unspecified
Other
Toll fees
Train expensive
Parking
Congestion
Count
67
APPENDIX C: PANEL DISCUSSION SUMMARIES
Panel discussion 2: The equity impacts of Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN)
improvements in South African cities
Chair: Christo Venter (CV)
Panelists: Claire Govender (CG), City of Cape Town
Philip van Ryneveld (PvR), Hunter van Ryneveld
Mlungisi Wosiyana (MW), eThekwini Transport Authority
o Question 1: What evidence do we have on the impacts of IPTN investments on marginalized
communities in SA so far?
o Question 2: What does this mean for the way public transport improvements are envisioned,
scoped, and implemented? What should we be doing better or differently to move towards more
equitable and inclusive cities?
o Question 3: How do we balance the need for equity with the need for financially viable public
transport systems?
CV opened the panel discussion by noting that Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN)
interventions are the preferred approach to improving public transport in SA’s larger cities and towns,
in terms of the Department of Transport’s Pubic Transport Strategy of 2007. This reflects a particular
reading of the urban mobility problem, which is essentially defined in terms of the difficulty people in
more peripheral locations have to cover long distances using slow and inconvenient modes.
The resultant interventions, which have been largely based on the model of high-quality Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) deployment, have arguably had less impact in terms of serving marginalized
populations than what was intended. Panelists agreed that the current IPTN model needs a serious
critique, as it is based on several flawed assumptions, indicated below:
- That all minibus-taxi (paratransit) services in cities can be replaced by larger buses, and that
IPTN can therefore provide improved services to all communities. It is clear that this is not
financially affordable to the fiscus, and will take extremely long to achieve (MW).
- That efficiency gains of an integrated IPTN system will lead to savings in operating costs,
which can be passed on to users to keep fares affordable. This is not true, especially for feeder
routes, which recover a small portion of their costs from farebox revenues, and thus
introduces a dilemma in terms of sustainable funding as the BRT fares are in some cases
higher than those of minibus-taxis, leading to MyCiti losing market share again to minibus-
taxis in some areas (CG).
- That BRT systems will be self-funding and require zero operating subsidy (which in itself
was not a pro-poor aspiration on the part of government). In reality, long travel distances and
poor seat renewal depresses revenues (PvR). In fact, it is argued that BRT (closed stations;
dedicated roadways) is a wrong technology choice for long-distance township-to-CBD routes
(where there tends to be limited seat renewal and limited congestion); conventional buses
with high seating capacity and dedicated lanes in congested sections tends to be a better fit on
the long-distance township-to-CBD routes; BRT’s low revenue to costs on the long routes
depresses the ability to serve the needs of low-income peripheral users. However, the other
alternative (rail) is not performing well either.
In addition, CG indicated that the first MyCiti routes were not aimed at serving marginalized low-
income communities, and therefore the city does not measure the system’s impacts in terms of
equity/justice (other than the more general Transport Development Index discussed elsewhere in the
workshop).
68
PvR highlighted the institutional gains made from implementation of the IPTN programme, in terms
of building technical and managerial sophistication amongst cities in line with the devolution of
transport responsibilities towards lower spheres of government. This is positive for moving towards
more equitable cities that are responsive to local needs and aspirations.
On the question of how cities can respond to this the following thoughts were offered:
- Fare products and fare levels need a rethink, to address issues of affordability which have not
been solved by IPTN interventions and remain a key constraint to low-income mobility.
- More emphasis should be placed on IPTN in the context of a larger multimodal integrated
network, to expand benefits to more communities.
- This includes working with existing minibus-taxi operators rather than trying to incorporate
and replace them with formal companies. (Panelists noted the efforts made in Cape Town and
eThekwini with respect to upgrading and integrating better with existing minibus-taxi
operators). More work is needed in figuring out how to optimize and co-exist between formal
and informal systems in a complementary fashion, and how to make the business case for
this.
- Issues of coverage of a multimodal system also affect safety from crime, especially at night
on the walking trip to/from bus or taxi stops, which could be a significant barrier to
vulnerable users.
- Cities should be honest and humble to express their willingness to learn from affected
communities relating to their needs and experiences. This includes minibus-taxi operators
cities should be careful in thinking they can intervene in an industry that they don’t fully
understand. An incremental light-touch regulatory approach seems to be preferred.
- Institutional renewal is needed to help cities plan better for diverse communities. A continued
shift is needed towards the principles of the national transport policy which place user needs
at the centre of cities’ efforts. Fragmentation between roleplayers at different levels of
government needs to be reduced, to allow cities control over all aspects of the multimodal
system; rather than current arrangements where different spheres of government and
institutions are responsible for a particular mode, making decisions and resource allocation
modally driven rather than user/outcome driven.
- Cities need better mechanisms to collect disaggregate data to be able to monitor equity
impacts, and adapt analysis and modelling approaches to more activity-based or agent-based
approaches that are better able to capture differential effects across different user groups.
- Cities should be open to the possibilities of information technology solutions such as smart
cards/mobile phones, as these may create opportunities for introducing user-side subsidies
targeted at specific vulnerable user groups. Smart-phone based apps may also help to reinvent
the way that formal and informal transport interacts.
69
Panel discussion 3: The impact of safe and secure walking and cycling environments on
transport burden
Chair: Roger Behrens (RB), University of Cape Town
Panelists: Marcela Guerrero Casas (MGC), Open Streets
Gail Jennings (GJ), Research consultant
Marianne Vanderschuren (MV), University of Cape Town
RB initiated the panel by providing some background and a rationale for topic. As demonstrated in
SA travel surveys mentioned earlier in the workshop, households who are excluded/vulnerable/poor
are heavily dependent on walking as a means to access the activities required to sustain themselves.
The time and effort associated with this walking dependence is exacerbated by road safety and
personal security problems. Thus, understanding how safety and security impacts walking, and how
planning/design practices address safety and security, is important to understand. The
potential/limitation of cycling to ease time/effort burden is also an important theme to explore.
The panelists then introduced themselves. Marcela Guerrero Casas’ involvement with Open Streets
has exposed her to how the presence of cars and street designs impact street users. Gail Jennings
experience both as a cyclist and consultant in the field has enabled her to consider the
potential/limitations of cycling as a means of mitigating travel burdens. Marianne Vanderschuren has
extensive research experience in the fields of pedestrian road safety, NMT design practices, and
women’s security in accessing and travelling on public transport services.
The panel discussion focused on three main questions.
The first question was as follows: What road safety problems do low-income communities in South
African cities encounter when undertaking walking and cycling trips, particularly over longer
distances, and what should be done to address these problems? MGC discussed the negative impacts
of cars on street use, and the rationale for car-free days. She noted shifts in the attitudes of officials
involved in the facilitation of car-free days, from questioning what value the events add (in the
context of Langa), to asking when the next events would take place (in the context of Mitchells Plain).
MV noted the excessive road crash casualty rates in SA cities, and explained that arterials tend to be
the road environments where most pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries occur (see figure 4-15
below, extracted from Janmohammed, 2017). She cited the example of Voortrekker Road in Cape
Town, where the street design is not supportive of safe pedestrian movements. MV noted, however,
that cycling rates are small, but when this is controlled for, crash rates are also high (see figure 4-6
below, extracted from Janmohammed, 2017). Sadly, cyclist deaths are not infrequent.
70
71
MV cited work by Janmohammed (2017) showing that in Cape Town, analysis reveals that
pedestrians constitute the majority of road fatalities in the city (58%), and that percentage fatalities
that impact pedestrians and cyclists are more than the percentage of the population that walk and
cycle in the city (see figure 4-3 below, extracted from Janmohammed, 2017).
72
GJ raised concerns about the perception that cycling automatically offers a means of escaping poverty
and overcoming social exclusion. She indicated that there were real limitations and unexplored
assumptions in this regard, particularly in overcoming the transport disadvantage originating in
apartheid spatial planning (also see Jennings, 2018).
The second question was as follows: What personal security problems do low-income communities,
particularly woman and children, encounter when walking and cycling in South African cities, and
what should be done to address these problems? MGC indicated that Open Streets did not have
particular experiences in the area of personal security, although car-free day participants in areas with
high personal crime rates did report experiencing their streets in fundamentally different, and safer,
ways. MV discussed the results of research on female public transport passengers which revealed high
levels on insecurity when walking to and from train (and BRT) services. She noted that the most
common reasons advanced for mode choice decisions include time and cost, followed by security. GJ
noted that there have been recent incidences in Cape Town where cyclists have been seriously
assaulted or murdered for their bicycles.
The third question was as follows: How conducive are South African street design manuals and
practices to creating safe and secure walking and cycling environments? MV noted that national DoT
NMT guidelines had recently been revised extensively, but that her research has indicated that they
73
are not being widely applied in practice. GJ agreed that there were problems in NMT infrastructure
planning, citing the example of discontinuous cycle way improvements and incidences where the
street retrofit has not led to increased safety.
74
APPENDIX D: RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Research summary 1: An investigation into the experiences of travel cost burdens for female
commuters who are low-income earners in Cape Town
Carlyn Morilly, University of Cape Town
Aim
To complement quantitative findings and to input into policy discussions, the study asked, ‘What
are the lived experiences of South African women who are low income earners in terms of their
travel costs for commuting to and from their place of work?’
Method
Qualitative interviews were conducted with research subjects in order to gain an authentic
understanding of their travel cost burdens and associated impacts on their lives and on their
households.
Findings
All respondents reported a negative and frustrating commute experience that differs significantly
from the user-focused, affordable and time-efficient public transport service that the 1996 White
Paper on National Transport Policy had promised to deliver.
Key Themes
“Train cancellations and delays mean that I must spend more money to get alternative transport.”
“Spending extra money on alternative transport means buying less food, electricity and other
household items.”
“Train cancellations and delays mean I must spend more time travelling to and from work.”
“Spending extra time on travelling to and from work means less time for personal activities, school
meetings and religious meetings.”
“I fear being robbed or hurt when travelling to and from work because I’ve either been robbed or
witnessed criminal activity on my commute.”
“Train cancellations and delays can make me late for work or might make me lose that day’s
wage.”
Recommendations
The study recommends renewed emphasis on integrated land-use and transport planning that
reduces trip distances, prioritisation of investment in public transport infrastructure, fare and
ticketing integration, restructuring of public transport subsidy frameworks and increased focus on
security through visible law enforcement and lighting.
75
Research summary 2: Accessibility and social welfare: a study of the City of Johannesburg
Nahungu Lionjanga, University of Pretoria
The access envelope technique was used to examine the time-series development of accessibility
from eight townships in the City of Johannesburg, biennially from 2009 to 2013. The access
measure for this technique is the Net Wage After Commute (NWAC), which describes the potential
wage earnable at a job destination less the transport costs incurred to commute to that destination
from a particular location.
The accessibility quadrant plot in Figure 1 reflects the time-series changes of the average NWAC
accessibility (number of jobs accessible with NWAC greater than R85/day) and the average travel
time accessibility (number of jobs accessible within one hour of travel time) for each township.
The results reveal that the township with the highest accessibility to jobs is Alexandra, primarily
due to its close proximity to all the economic nodes in the city, and the township with the lowest
accessibility to jobs is Orange Farm; the furthest removed from the city’s economic nodes.
Figure 2 contrasts the NWAC surfaces of Alexandra and Orange Farm for 2013. The results
suggest that significant time-series changes in accessibility patterns are driven by improved
affordability of public transport, however, for low-income areas in the peripheries of the city, this is
most effective against the backdrop of the decentralisation of opportunities towards these
peripheral areas. However, the Alexandra results, in comparison to the other townships, reveal that
the marginal benefits of improving accessibility from regions with already high levels of
accessibility are relatively low.
To explore the wider social impacts of the Rea Vaya BRT, a difference-in-differences methodology
was adopted to estimate the effect of access to the BRT on the social welfare of Soweto residents.
The regression model revealed that implementation of the BRT did not result in any statistically
significant welfare improvements for those residing within close proximity to the service, relative
to those further out. However, there was evidence of possible welfare improvements if the BRT is
used, suggesting that the BRT in Johannesburg is beneficial as a transport project to users within
close proximity to the service, but not as a general urban intervention able to improve the overall
amenity of the served community.
76
Figure 2.1: Accessibility quadrant plot. The NWAC index and the travel time (TT) index were determined by
standardising the average NWAC accessibility and the average TT accessibility (of each township, in each
year) about the overall average NWAC accessibility and overall average TT accessibility (of all townships, in
all years), respectively. A value of 0.5 for an index reflects an average accessibility that is 50% greater than
the respective overall average accessibility.
Figure 1.2: NWAC surface for origins in Alexandra and Orange Farm: 2013. An NWAC surface reflects the
NWAC at every zone on the study surface from a specific origin which is represented by a black dot.
Moderate accessibility
Moderate accessibility
Low accessibility
High accessibility
2009 2011 2013
77
Research summary 3: Measuring potential accessibility to jobs by public transport
incorporating user affordability A study of Cape Town, South Africa
Imuentinyan Aivinhenyo, University of Cape Town
Past apartheid planning system in South African cities like Cape Town have created some level of
spatial dislocation between residents and opportunities, with majority of the low income residential
neighbourhood located on the urban outskirts far from main economic hubs. Considering that
public transport in the city is mainly priced by distance, the implication for such low-income
households is high cost of travel to access basic opportunities. While the concept of accessibility
have been widely applied in investigating the level of integration of individuals to various land use
opportunities, most of the existing metrics typically consider the spatial element of transport
infrastructure supply, with no consideration of the socioeconomic composition of the population,
such as income level and ability to pay for transport service. In this study, we proposed a metric of
potential accessibility to jobs that considers both the multimodal public transport system and the
monetary cost of reaching destinations from origins. The measure is based on the Hansen’s gravity
model with an affordability variable sensitive to the income level of households. The reachability
of opportunities is established based on the potential for connectivity between origin and
destination using any public transport mode combination that minimises total travel time. An
exponential time decay function fitted from observed travel time survey, is applied to discount the
opportunities at destinations, while an additional affordability variable eliminates opportunities that
are not reachable within pre-established monetary travel budget threshold, taken as percentages of
the upper bound of a low-income wage range in South Africa.
Figure 3.1 shows a summary output of measured accessibility to low income jobs, and the
implication of budget restrictions for a low-income household with one source of income. The first
four bars show potential accessibility level by travel time threshold, while the last three bars show
accessibility under various thresholds of travel budget. Accessibility value shown in the chart have
been normalised to a maximum value of 1 for travel within 120 minutes. Different travel threshold
and budget constraints are measured relative to this maximum value. For travel within 30 mins,
only 20% of the total jobs reachable within 120 mins, is potentially accessible. In terms of
affordability impact, a 10% of income travel budget applied for a maximum travel time of 120
mins, means only about 18% of the jobs reachable under 120 mins (without budget restriction) is
potentially accessible. While the average number of jobs potentially accessible from a zone in the
study area within 120 mins is around 200,000 jobs, with a budget limitation of 10% of income, the
average is reduced to about 40,000 jobs. Figure 2 (a) and (b) show the maps of potential
accessibility as a proportion of total jobs within the entire study area. While (a) shows accessibility
within travel of 120 mins, (b) shows accessibility level within same travel time but with 10% of
income budget restriction.
Figure 3.1: Impact of travel budget on job potential accessibility level for a low-income household
78
The analyses have demonstrated how the cost of travel by public transport could potentially reduce
the amount of opportunities accessible for the low-income households if we assume some common
percentage of income as benchmark for transport affordability. One of the key policy aspects that
this study has challenged is the fare policy of public transport in Cape Town, which uses a
distance-based pricing model for most of the modes. Though distance-based pricing has been
regarded as economically efficient and used by numerous agencies around the world, it could be
argued that such approach to pricing in the context of Cape Town has some social and equity
implications for the majority of the poor population who reside on the outskirts of the city, not as a
matter of their own choice but of the legacy of the apartheid planning system.
In terms of transport justice, a key question would be around the justification of such distance-
based pricing to the welfare of the poor, especially those who have been confined to situations
where they have to travel longer distances to access opportunities. Such pricing approach, as this
study has shown, can further disadvantage the already-disadvantaged in terms of accessibility.
Suggested policy measures would be a trip-based pricing structure sensitive enough for the welfare
of the low-income population. Other possible pricing mechanism would be a zone-based structure
that would allow trips originating from, or terminating at the predominantly low-income residential
zones to attract lower fares. Subsidy schemes could also be streamlined and directed towards the
benefit of those who are likely to suffer from the consequences of the current distance-based
pricing system. In other words, rather than having a holistic public transport subsidy which benefit
every user of public transport, including those who have the capacity to afford the system, subsidy
could be directed only towards the poor. The feasibility and potential impact of implementing some
of these policy measures would however require further investigation, which is beyond the scope of
this study.
(a)
Low income job accessibility
by Public Transit(Max 120mins)
Proportion of Total Jobs
0.00 - 0.07
0.08 - 0.13
0.14 - 0.20
0.21 - 0.27
0.28 - 0.33
0.34 - 0.40
0.41 - 0.47
0.48 - 0.53
0.54 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
±
04.5 913.5 182.25 Kilometers
79
(b)
Figure 3.2: Potential accessibility to low income jobs within 120 mins (a) without budget restriction (b) with
budget restriction of 10% income.
Affordable potential accessibility
to low income jobs by public transit
with 10% budget (max 120mins)
Proportion of total jobs
0.00 - 0.07
0.08 - 0.13
0.14 - 0.20
0.21 - 0.27
0.28 - 0.33
0.34 - 0.40
0.41 - 0.47
0.48 - 0.53
0.54 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
±
04.5 913.5 182.25 Kilometers
80
Research summary 4: Changing socio-spatial inequalities: Population change and the lived
experience of inequality in urban South Africa’
Wanga Zembe, Southern African Social Policy Research Institute
Background
This case study presents early findings related to transport justice and social exclusion from the
perspective of participants living in the Cape Town metropolitan area of South Africa who
participated in a qualitative study exploring the lived experience of inequality. The qualitative
study forms part of a larger ongoing research project focusing on changing socio-spatial
inequalities, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The research project is
a collaboration between the University of Liverpool, Southern African Social Policy Research
Insights (SASPRI) and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), funded by the ESRC, the
Newton Fund, and the South African National Research Foundation. This ongoing research project
aims to measure changing inequalities over time, and to produce improved measures of spatial
inequality and improved measures of attitudes to inequality.
Qualitative sub-study
The qualitative strand of the project aimed to tackle two separate but related broad research
questions:
What are the factors and processes that shape people’s lived experience of inequality?
Does people’s lived experience of inequality affect how they negotiate their day-to-day
lives, and or their attachment to place/sense of belonging?
Methods
Fifteen focus group discussions were undertaken in 2017 to explore people’s personal experiences
of inequality as they go about their daily lives across different areas in Cape Town. Areas were
chosen on the basis of their exposure to poverty and inequality. Thus we ended up with areas that
were high poverty and high exposure (high poverty areas located directly opposite to high income
areas), high poverty and low exposure (high poverty areas but geographically far from high income
areas), low poverty and high exposure (low poverty but located near high poverty areas), and low
poverty and low exposure to inequality (areas that are low poverty and far removed from high
poverty areas). Groups were differentiated from each other by key demographic indicators such as
employment status, age, type of work, and population group. The group sizes ranged from 5 to 8
members.
Emerging Findings
The focus group material provides a rich insight into people’s different lived experiences of
inequality in Cape Town. As part of the ongoing analysis phase, several prominent themes around
transport and social exclusion have emerged. The findings suggest that the lived experience of
inequality for low-income people in Cape Town is closely linked to transport (in)justice and social
exclusion, impacting on people’s day-to-day negotiation of their lives, limiting where they go,
where and how they work and seek work, and how they spend their leisure time. The analysis is
ongoing, but the table below summarizes some of the emerging themes related to transport and
social exclusion.
81
1
Lack of provision of transport as structural exclusion - Some participants talked about
how their areas do not have accessible safe transport hubs within walking distance, even
though surrounding neighbouring areas do.
EXAMPLE - “There is a [transport] place near Heideveld that is close to schools near the Junction,
there is one in Langa, there is one in Section 2, but we don’t have one in Gugulethu. A child from
Gugulethu has to take a taxi to Langa. They have to take a taxi and go far to the Junction. I am talking
about things like that” (Elderly Group, Gugulethu)
2
Safety concerns as structural exclusion - In some areas transport was described as
being accessible but unsafe, leading to some participants opting for expensive
alternatives, and limiting their movements.
EXAMPLE - “…..well I don't have a car so I rely heavily on public transport….and even that, I'd rather
Uber than take a taxi anywhere and I live 10 minutes away from work….but I’ll still Uber instead of
taking a taxi. ……, so when it comes to travelling in Cape Town I’ve never been to anywhere else besides
the nicer parts of Cape Town….. The taxi is cheaper than Uber, its waay cheaper! But because it’s safer
for me to Uber instead (sigh) and I don't live far from taxis, I live out in Main Road so I walk out my door
and the taxis are right there. But….because it’s safer for me to travel by Uber then I’d rather pay for that
cost,…. I don't go to other parts because then if I Uber everywhere then that's expensive to travel to other
parts…” (Office Workers Group, Claremont)
3
Costliness as structural exclusion - For some participants access to transport was
constrained by affordability resulting in limited movements.
EXAMPLE - It comes back to this thing of…showing that you don't really have the means. That's
another touchy topic because I have meals three times a day sure, I can attend classes…because someone
is paying for me. But now when I have to go to town, I have to take out money and get a taxi and go
somewhere and do...I don't have that money…. so more than often…I will stay within my lane, this space I
can move around and manoeuvre in because that's...as much as I was able to afford, even though there’s
someone else, I've gone out here and there to go see Khayelitsha…Mzoli's, Table Mountain, no not Table
Mountain, Lions Head, places like that just for extra mural activities and stuff like that…..but other than
that there hasn't really been much [travel] outside this space that I was afforded.” (Students Group,
Rondebosch)
4
Unreliability as structural exclusion - Cheaper forms of transport (trains) can be
unreliable forcing low-paid workers to spend a large proportion of their low earnings on
expensive alternatives.
EXAMPLE - “Starting from January this year the trains have been running badly all the time….
…….You find that even though you are sitting with her [the employer]- explaining to her that now it's not
the same as when I used to buy a monthly [train] ticket, now I use R50 a day, it's not the same as when I
was using the ticket for the train and using that all the time. ….It's the taxi because I want to make your
time. Can't you increase the money and she will say that no, she cannot do that. But you left your house at
7 [am] to be on time at work at 8 [am] but you know you will leave at 4 [pm]. Even when you tell them
that there is a traffic jam or that the taxi you are in has been stopped by traffic [officers], she won't
understand that. She doesn't even want you to be five minutes late. You have to make her time because she
is rushing to her own important places…..I mean the issue of transport affects us a lot, anything to do with
transport….” (Domestic Workers Group, Masiphumelele)
5
Transport as a vehicle of exposure to inequality and to opportunities - Some
participants described their direct exposure to inequality as they moved from area to area
using transport going from better off areas to more deprived areas (or vice versa) as they
moved along transport networks.
EXAMPLE Like when you get to certain parts of Woodstock, especially on the Main Road, you'll see
that it changes to something else (inaudible). Even Mowbray certain parts of Mowbray on Main Road, you
go there and just past Rosebank its nice studenty and then all of the sudden you start getting a bit shady
like Mowbray side Woodstock and then all of the sudden it starts looking nice again ….” (Office Workers
Group, Claremont)
82
Research summary 5: Temporal aspects of transport-related social exclusion: Spatial-
temporal analysis of access to places for leisure and other life
enhancing opportunities during off-peak hours from a township
neighbourhood in Cape Town
Ayanda Fuma, University of Cape Town
This study questions issues of accessibility to places for leisure and other life enhancing
(discretionary) opportunities after peak-hour for township-dwelling individuals who mostly rely on
public transportation. Acceptable levels of access to public transportation during off-peak periods
in the day and by extension to discretionary activities is a challenge in any society, but in South
Africa in particular. This phenomenon is tied to concepts in transportation literature such as
accessibility and transport-related social exclusion. These concepts especially apply to the Cape
Town and South African context given the historically determined inequalities that still affect
issues of accessibility today.
The proposed research focuses on the study of spatial-temporal accessibility in relation to human
development. It argues that access to transportation should offer people the means to life enhancing
opportunities regardless of the time of day, regardless of spatial disparities of the city. The study
research questions and objectives ask for in-depth, detailed narratives and technical information to
understand experiences of township-dwelling individuals with accessing opportunities after peak-
hours, relying on public transportation in Cape Town. The overarching research question wants to
know how spatial-temporal accessibility to discretionary activities for township dwellers is linked
to transport-related social exclusion.
In the literature, discussions on temporal accessibility emphasises the significance for studies to
focus more on researching person-based accessibility by linking temporal accessibility dimensions
and inclusive accessibility in transportation, as people experience variations of accessibility
throughout a day. There are some gaps highlighted which speak to the need for more in-depth
investigations that can better measure and understand individual’s spatial-temporal accessibility.
Furthermore, there are methodological flaws related to the study of accessibility since studies on
the temporal accessibility component is pointedly absent. Some scholars have noted how studies
generally tend to view the concept of accessibility as a largely spatial problem (see Okafor, 1990;
Kwan and Weber, 2003; Kwan, 2013), therefore there is better focus on place-based accessibility
analyses. Other methodological challenges relate to analysing temporal accessibility particularly
because often, full time-space approach requires large amounts of data and requires effort to
implement thoroughly. Authors Geurs and Van Wee (2004) remark particularly that person-based
measures require detailed and large data, while Kaza (2015) comments that this kind of data is
generally hard to come by. This study hopes to get more clarity regarding these issues.
Therefore, this study anticipates making an original contribution to knowledge in the following
areas:
A focus on the temporal dimension of accessibility
Understanding transport-related social exclusion in a township environment
Renewed interest and application of time-space geography concepts
Mixed methods, incl. the use of GIS mapping in a township environment
To this end, the study’s research design is one of mixed methods. One component relies on an
exploratory qualitative method, using in-depth interviewing research techniques with 30
respondents from a township area. A second component will utilise a time-geographic model as a
visualization tool and to simulate travel diary information to help shed new light on the
phenomenon under study.
83
The study methodology aims to bring together two methodological styles.
Collecting data will initially be done by recruiting respondents from a township area in Cape Town
to complete a three-day travel diary. The travel diary logs will rely on a pen-and-paper format,
where respondent’s fill in their daily activities on a form which they receive upon consenting to
participating. Thereafter, a tablet computer will be used in follow-up interviews with respondents to
display the adapted time-geographic tool’s software for rebuilding daily activities.
The outlined study time frame will allow several months for data collection beginning in June
2018. Because of budget limitations, the study areas and the ability to hire additional assistance for
field work is limited. Study limitations additionally include the researcher’s need to receive training
assistance with applying and analysing using the time-geography tool. This study is also limited in
that eventually the study findings cannot be generalised outside the study site where the research
will be carried out. The findings should predominantly assist to produce a more nuanced
understanding of the spatial-temporal accessibility challenges experienced by township-dwellers
especially from Cape Town.
... Despite its importance as a major transport mode, there is not yet an extensive body of knowledge and scholarly work regarding walking in Africa (Behrens et al., 2016;Jennings et al., 2019;Loo and Siiba, 2019;Porter, Abane and Lucas, 2020). Much of the research and policy attention on walking resides in developed countries, especially in North America, Europe and Australia (Bassett et al., 2008;Jennings, 2020). ...
... There is little social science, or qualitative work, undertaken to understand the political economy of pedestrian travel, and the majority of scholarly studies in Africa are within engineering or public health disciplines (Sagaris et al., 2022). As a result, from a policy perspective, there is currently a limited understanding of the underlying barriers and enablers that may influence the development of new transport and urban planning policies and the implementation of existing policies (Figueroa, Fulton and Tiwari, 2013;Behrens et al., 2016;Khayesi et al., 2017;Jennings et al., 2019;Tiwari et al., 2020). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
There is currently a limited understanding of the underlying barriers and enablers in African cities that may influence the development of walking or pedestrian policies and the implementation of existing policies. A recent review of institutional and political factors affecting walking and urban transport policy in Africa suggested that more insight is needed into the political processes and decision-making in transport in Africa. This paper contributes insight into these processes by sharing formative research around the gaps between walking (or NMT/Non-Motorised Transport) policy statements, and policy outcomes, in African cities. This research involved in-depth interviews with thirteen key informants from transport and planning sectors across the continent, undertaken to facilitate further engagement with policy and decision-makers in African cities as part of a training event