Transcript Some issues of public transport system governance

Centre for Transport Studies
Some issues of public transport
system governance, planning and
regulation in South African cities
Peter Wilkinson
School of Architecture, Planning & Geomatics
University of Cape Town ▪ Private Bag X3 ▪ RONDEBOSCH 7701
([email protected] ▪ 021 650 2387)
South African Cities Network : Seminar on Sustainable Public Transport
Cape Town : 14-15 August 2008
Preliminary remarks
• ‘commuter-led transit planning’ – what should it mean?
• presumably, not full-on ‘collaborative’ or ‘deliberative’
planning in the sense of decision-making through public
argumentation employed by (some) planning theorists …
• rather, an approach to planning which:
– recognises actual (rather than assumed) mobility needs and
constraints of (differentiated) public transport user groups
– seeks to actively solicit and respond to users’ views at various
stages or moments of planning process
– monitors effectiveness of service provision and adjusts planning
and regulatory action to accommodate changing context
i.e. attempts to operationalise established commitments to instituting
‘customer facing’ provision (embodied in Moving South Africa
strategic framework,1999) and ‘user-oriented’ public transport
networks (re-articulated in NDoT Public Transport Strategy, 2006)
Current institutional framework governing
provision of public transport services
… highly fragmented and incoherently configured system: modes not
integrated or even effectively coordinated
… planning disconnected from regulation and operational management, as
well as from public funding streams required to implement systemic
transformation
Institutional reform proposed in National Land
Transport Bill (2008)
… functions of planning and regulating road-based public transport services plus
management of subsidised (and commercial) service contracts to be consolidated
at local level in major cities (DPA/TA) to facilitate installation of IRPTNs
… existing rail functions to remain in place – to be coordinated at local level
through inter-modal planning committees’
… minibus-taxi operations to be incorporated into IRPTNs as feeder services or
absorbed into new BRT or other scheduled service operating entities
Schematic diagram of possible ‘integrated
rapid public transport network’
express services operating
between major nodes
‘transit-oriented development’
precincts around major stations
or interchanges ?
line-haul services
(road- or rail-based)
embedded in higher
density, mixed land
use development
corridors
feeder services connecting to
line-haul and express service
stations or interchanges
Proposed IRPTN for Cape Town (February 2007)
• Phase 1 includes
inner city system
and West Coast
and CTI airport
links (+ associated
feeder services?)
• estimated cost to
establish ‘full BRT’
system for Phase 1:
R2.9 billion
Some governance issues raised by proposed
transformation of public transport systems (1)
• three primary aspects/dimensions of public transport system
transformation:
– technical: complex operational design and management issues
to be resolved in planning and installing fully integrated system
to enable ‘seamless’ passage by users (routing, scheduling,
vehicle selection, ticketing, etc)
– financial: establishing appropriate funding/contractual
arrangements i.t.o.
– provision/maintenance of necessary infrastructure (and
possibly addition/replacement of vehicle fleets or rolling
stock)
– possible operational subsidies (to supplement appropriate
and sustainable tariff/fare structure)
– institutional: developing appropriate framework for system
governance (where ‘governance’ = direction/management
achieved through self-organising interorganisational or
stakeholder networks)
Some governance issues raised by proposed
transformation of public transport systems (2)
• resolving governance issue is probably most problematic, given
disparate, currently disordered array of ‘stakeholders’ involved:
– formal (private and parastatal sector) operators
– partially ‘formalised’ /regulated minibus-taxi operators – significantly
disaffected, prone to wildcat interventions
– agencies in all three spheres of government (NDoT, PDoT,
municipality/TA)
– (various) public transport user groups – at present largely ‘voiceless’,
occasionally venting frustration in violent protests
… plus need to interact with other ‘stakeholders’ in broader urban
transport system, including:
– freight transport operators
– private transport users (motorists and motorcyclists)
– the NMT constituency (pedestrians and cyclists)
… others: land use/spatial development planning agencies with their
own constituencies of stakeholders?
Some governance issues raised by proposed
transformation of public transport systems (3)
• formation of local DPA/TA may be a necessary, but in and of itself is
unlikely to be a sufficient condition for effective governance in
context of proposed systemic transformation
 what institutional framework would enable adoption of more
collaborative/interactive approach?
– representation on local ‘land transport advisory boards’ should
be broadened beyond ‘government’ and ‘private sector’ (as
specified in NLT Bill) to include other stakeholders – certainly PT
users and operators
– LTAB mandates should be framed to include consideration of
issues related to planning and regulation, as well as routine
operation, of public transport system
– monitoring and evaluation of transformation programme
outcomes should be reported to, and considered, by LTABs on
an ongoing basis
Some governance issues raised by proposed
transformation of public transport systems (4)
• involvement of MBT operators in transformation programme is likely
to prove particularly problematic:
– justified or not, widely-shared perception is that programme is
being imposed ‘top-down’ without adequate consultation or
recognition of de facto rights (“we developed and own the routes
… and we did it with no assistance or subsidy from
government”)
– established ‘informal’ operating practices and business models
may be hard for more ‘survivalist’ stratum within industry to
abandon in favour of ‘formalised’ and highly structured
management and control systems required for scheduling and
monitoring IRPTN operations (“we don’t want to change …”
 potential ‘spoiling’ role a key concern for international operators and
banks considering involvement in programme
– possibility that significant job-shedding will occur as currently
overtraded (and largely underquklaified) MBT sector is
incorporated into rationalised and scheduled IRPTNs
Conclusion: no easy road or quick fix ahead?
• initial phases in implementing IRPTN programmes will require
intensive negotiation and careful (possibly lengthy) preparation if
(some?) disaffected MBT operators are not to emerge as disruptive
‘spoilers’ … ‘Day 1’ failure could set transformational project back
several years
• at present, first phases of programme appear to have been ‘fasttracked’, presumably to meet ‘host city’ expectations associated with
holding of 2010 World Cup event
… not clear that this is sensible, particularly given the extended (10year plus?) delay in getting to this point, at which the absolute
necessity of transforming public transport systems in the major cities
has finally been recognised
 overarching objective must be to accommodate routine, everyday
mobility needs of resident populations rather than those of transient
visitors: emphasis on ‘catalysing’ role of 2010 preparations should
not be allowed to deflect attention from this more fundamental and
strategically central requirement