Photo: Boy and Man, Mozambique by E.B. Sylvester
South Africa is strengthening its policy on non-motorised transport (NMT), in support of its already strong emphasis on improved public transport, and also as a mode in its own right. Late last year the government issued a national NMT policy, and some provinces and municipalities are following suit. I am currently assisting the Provincial Government of the Western Cape with its policy to provide a framework for local and district municipalities to establish plans and programmes that can be funded through the provincial administration.
One of the big challenges is lack of awareness, skills and resources needed to address NMT within broader transport planning. Many districts don't have dedicated transport planners; and those that have, don't necessarily understand the implications of designing for cyclists and pedestrians - much less other non-motorised modes of transport. There are countless books and standards published on the subject, but most concentrate on walking and cycling.
Traditional transport planning tends to focus on the commuter, since the peak commuter period is when road capacity is an issue. But if the planning perspective is broadened to account for all types of trip throughout the day, it becomes abundantly clear that there are other significant issues that are often ignored, including the use of modes such as wheelbarrows, horse-drawn carts, pedi-cabs, baby prams, inline skates, and so on. All trips considered, those made by non-motorised forms of transport actually outnumber trips made under power of the internal combustion engine. (And that's just considering NMT as the only mode used on a journey - public transport users also need to walk or use other NMT modes to reach a bus, train or taxi service.)
Planners tend to simplify things by assuming that low-income communities rely on public transport, while cars are used by the rich. A recent Botswana survey my firm undertook for the Ministry of Works and Transport showed that there is another group - the very poor unemployed and underemployed - who cannot afford even public transport, and who therefore rely on NMT. In South Africa the situation is similar. Poor people who can, spend an unduly large proportion of their income on public transport, while those who cannot are forced to walk long distances to work, clinics, schools and other social services. And then there is the high-income person who cycles for sport, recreation or tourism.
Social and economic wellbeing therefore depends on making sure that NMT is safe and convenient - and in most areas this is not yet the case, although some municipalities have limited bicycle networks in place. The first step is getting this infrastructure on the ground, but support programmes are just as important to raise awareness of safety issues, overcome cultural obstacles, and to make sure that people can actually afford bicycles.
The Department of Transport's Shova Kalula programme is distributing bicycles to a number of South African communities, and NGOs such as BEN are providing support. DoT is now planning to establish a bicycle manufacturing or assembly plant to produce bikes for this programme. Less than half of the 59,000 bikes already distributed were assembled in South Africa. Local production should not only reduce purchase cost and create employment, but should also ensure that purchasers can be supplied with spare parts.
And now a local company has designed a versatile bike that can be assembled in a variety of ways, depending on the user's needs, which may include the transport of containers or passengers.The Department of Transport is keen for successful prototypes to be commercialised.
Rugged, rural conditions – where access to suppliers is limited and skills are basic – were uppermost in the designers’ minds.
The bicycles can be assembled without the need for specialised equipment and, if need be, can be repaired with scrap metal, wood, fence wire, or whatever materials are on hand.
This is all very well, but there are a number of significant hurdles to be overcome, as outlined in this DoT paper [pdf]. One of the biggest challenges is to ensure that NMT planning becomes an integral part of general transport planning, and that this in turn is integrated more meaningfully with land use planning - an objective that is much spoken about but rarely put into practice to the extent necessary to improve the sustainabiliy of urban transportation.
In addition, regulations need to keep up with developments in the industry. Pedi-cabs, for example, don't fall under any appropriate category of transport in Cape Town - they carry passengers, but because they are non-motorised they aren't covered by existing permits for public transport. And animal-drawn carts have appeared in surprisingly large numbers, even in urban areas, and there are no vehicle safety standards that apply and no infrastructure or street signage to address traffic safety and animal welfare.
These shortcomings present obstacles for potential entrepreneurs who want to provide innovative forms of transport - and it is these service providers who are needed to respond to changing needs for mobility, particularly as policies in other sectors (such as tourism) generate a greater variety of mobility needs.
The now-ubiquitous minibus taxis exploded onto the South African transport scene more than 20 years ago as unregulated jitneys, and it was largely because regulations failed to respond to this new form of transport that they became unmanageable and unsafe. Government is still trying, with scant success, to change this situation. Whether applied to public transport or NMT, regulations need to provide a degree of control without stifling transport modes that fill gaps in the transport system. Where there is a transport need, it can usually be met, but legislation needs to provide an enabling environment to ensure this happens safely under sustainable business models.
Comments