Taxis can do their bit in bus transit system
SA’s bus rapid-transit (BRT) programme aims to meet citizens’ continuing transport challenges and to transcend the sprawling spatial planning inherited from apartheid. But to make the system work, the programme should be part of a hybrid solution tailored to SA’s unique conditions.
Poor South Africans often spend more than 10% of their income on public transport. To alleviate that, the Department of Transport decided in the ’90s to provide a broader, more practical and affordable transport network. SA’s urban transport tends to be “tidal” — commuters move in one direction in the morning and in the opposite direction in the afternoon. This does not lend itself to a viable public transport system, which requires movement in several directions throughout the day.
In SA, even the busiest BRT routes will have a full bus in one direction and an empty bus in the opposite direction — effectively only 50% usage.
The state and city subsidies required to run such a system are prohibitive.
Cape Town has a large tax base, but a smaller city such as Port Elizabeth will struggle to support a BRT programme and its inevitable subsidy shortfall.
One of the key components of BRT success, and how it was introduced in South America, is that BRT lanes are segregated from big traffic.
The bus runs in a dedicated lane, with reduced conflict points with mixed traffic. BRT carries more people per vehicle at more frequent time intervals than private vehicles, minibus taxis or conventional buses, though fewer than rail systems.
Other BRT system advantages are rapid boarding and alighting at stations, passing lanes at stations and intelligent fare collection.
BRT is less effective running in mixed traffic, as it does in SA. Because SA has a retrofitted system, it has a hybrid BRT programme that is closer to a goodquality bus system than a BRT system. We have found we cannot carry the volumes of the South American cities or achieve the speeds they do.
A uniquely South African issue is the incumbent operators, the minibus taxi industry. They pioneered an urban transport solution that is highly effective, without state subsidies. Like BRT, they optimise operations with fast transitions and high passenger volumes.
With the introduction of BRT, the initial idea was that the taxi industry should operate the BRT system on behalf of the vehicle-operating company as shareholders in the company.
Subsequently, cities in SA have signed “negotiated contracts”, with the incumbent operators. This is not a competitive tendering process, since the taxi operators are already operating routes. In some cases, this has meant unsustainable costs.
Sometimes disagreement occurs among taxi operators themselves over how or whether to be part of the formalised public transport system. This can cause protracted, expensive negotiations.
Port Elizabeth’s negotiated BRT solution is likely to see the buses running only on one route, from the northern areas to the city centre, in partnership with taxi associations.
In Johannesburg, the vision is more ambitious.
Public transport is seen as a way to restructure the entire urban fabric. The idea is that over time, with the establishment of new transport nodes, residential patterns will shift as people move closer to the major transport nodes.
A good public transport system can reshape a city. BRT is seen as only one of a series of interventions that can make cities more inclusive.
This transport-oriented development is best expressed in the City of Johannesburg’s Corridors of Freedom project.
Corridors of Freedom aims to provide safe, pedestrianfriendly neighbourhoods; calm streets with low vehicle speeds that discourage private cars; mixed-use living and working districts where rich and poor live side by side; and convenient transit stops and stations.
Restructuring cities’ urban fabric is a noble undertaking, but the services will be expensive.
The BRT business model certainly needs reviewing. Perhaps it will be more effective in the very long term as living patterns change and people move closer to the nodes.
Cities also need to be more strategic in terms of where they roll out BRT routes. Cape Town may turn over the unprofitable BRT feeder routes to the taxi operators, who have the knowledge and nimble business model to make them work.
Given SA’s spatial dynamics, it is not viable for the BRT system to cover an entire city. The hybrid solution sees the BRT on the major routes, where buses are full, with feeder routes being served by taxis. The taxis will possibly even have BRT branding and receive subsidies.
The key will be to design a system that uses the correct vehicles for the existing and future passenger demand. Adaptation, customisation and fitness for purpose will ultimately ensure BRT finds its ideal role in the South African urban transport matrix.