Civil Engineering October 2021 | Vol 29 No 9

Civil Engineering October 2021 19 P ublic transport (PT) is one of the top concerns for communities. In rural areas, PT is poorly available and unsafe, with long trips which are slow, infrequent and expensive. In urban and metropolitan areas PT is better available but trips still long, slow and expensive; and Metrorail is deteriorating rapidly. Furthermore, the various modes of PT are hardly integrated. The quality of service that the passengers experience is very much dependent on the planning capabili- ties of government and, to be honest, that is not always adequate. The National Land Transport Act (NLTA) requires that transport planning be developed by the lowest competent level of government. As a result, the responsibilities for PT are scattered over multiple spheres of government and enti- ties. For example, planning for rural and urban minibus taxis is a responsibility of municipalities, however, licencing of minibus taxis is a duty of provinces, as are subsidised buses. Similarly, the introduc- tion of BRT systems is a metro respon- sibility, while metropolitan rail is the responsibility of PRASA and the National Department of Transport (DoT), and Gautrain is coordinated by the provincial Gautrain Management Agency. Therefore, implementing an over- arching Integrated PT Network (IPTN) depends on too many parties, each of which tends to look mainly at its own responsibility and not the overarching system. Furthermore, most municipali- ties and some provincial departments have insufficient capabilities for the transport planning functions. This does not improve the overall quality level of service for passengers, nor the financial position of PT operators, and does not achieve government’s mission “to provide reliable, safe, affordable, efficient, and effective transport”. These issues are also indicated by the Competition Commission of South Africa, which studied public passenger transport over the last few years. A discussion regarding certain is- sues in the NLTA is currently ongoing and could lead to a National Land Transport Amendment Bill. It has been proposed that many transport functions be centralised at provincial and national level. Although this would improve the effectiveness of transport planning functions for many smaller municipalities, it takes away the inclusion of these municipalities, which is their constitutional right. The authors propose an alternative solution: the provinces should support the smaller municipalities through the creation of provincial transport planning entities. The current NLTA already provides for this option which could be further facilitated by the Minister of Transport. TRANSPORT PLANNING FUNCTIONS AS PER NLTA The NLTA outlines the transport func- tions and locates them in the appropriate sphere of government. National government is responsible for, among others: Q Q Formulating legislation Q Q Publishing national land transport policy, with the aim to increase the use of public transport Q Q Setting regulations and requirements for a wide array of transport issues Q Q Monitoring policies and planning Q Q Establishing national information systems Q Q The National Land Transport Strategic Framework. The National DoT has indeed developed numerous legislative documents, national policies, and discussion papers on several transport issues. The challenge however is on the implementation of these policies. Provincial government is responsible for, among others: Bundle transport planning capabilities to improve public transport Mpilo Mbambisa Civil engineer Hatch Africa mpilo.mbambisa@hatch.com Pieter Onderwater Pr Tech Eng Public transport planner Hatch Africa pieter.onderwater@hatch.com The provinces should support the smaller municipalities through the creation of provincial transport planning entities