Bus Rapid Transit As Formalization: Accessibility Impacts of Transport Reform in Cape Town, South Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bus rapid transit as formalization: Accessibility impacts of transport reform in Cape Town, South Africa by Lisa Rayle A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City & Regional Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Daniel Chatman, Chair Professor Emeritus Robert Cervero Professor Emerita Elizabeth Deakin Associate Professor Alison Post Fall 2017 Bus rapid transit as formalization: Accessibility impacts of transport reform in Cape Town, South Africa Copyright 2017 by Lisa Rayle 1 Abstract Bus rapid transit as formalization: Accessibility impacts of transport reform in Cape Town, South Africa by Lisa Rayle Doctor of Philosophy in City & Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Daniel Chatman, Chair Many cities worldwide are introducing bus rapid transit (BRT) into contexts where informal transport modes serve a substantial part of the public transport market. These BRT initia- tives are intended, among other goals, to formalize existing transport systems and to improve accessibility. However, the extent to which BRT reforms actually improve residents' ability to reach activities remains in question. In this dissertation, I contribute to the empirical and theoretical literature on informal transport by investigating how BRT reform has impacted accessibility for residents of Cape Town, South Africa. How have Cape Town's transport reforms affected accessibility and its distribution amongst different population groups? Why have reforms had these effects? I address these questions using three methods: (1) an accessibility index computed using a transport network model, (2) a difference-in-difference approach using intercept survey data, and (3) interviews with users and stakeholders. The accessibility model suggested that, in this specific case, the BRT reforms slightly im- proved accessibility to retail, office, and hospital uses for the majority of residents. Because informal modes were only partially removed, only a small fraction of residents experienced reduced accessibility. The survey findings showed BRT was more effective as an upgrade of existing formal modes than as a replacement for informal transport. Survey respondents re- alized travel time benefits not by switching to BRT from informal transport, but by switching to BRT from existing formal transit { conventional bus and train. Shifting from conventional bus to BRT was associated with an average commute time savings of 10 minutes. The BRT appears to differentially provide better accessibility to white and high-income residents, al- though black residents realized the greater travel time savings because they were more likely to switch from conventional bus and train. Evidence suggests these particular outcome are best explained by changes in the institu- tional and incentive structures behind transport provision. The shift from informal transport to BRT involved: formalizing multiple dimensions of transport provision in multiple dimen- sions; expanding the scope of goals for public transport; and changing the relationship be- 2 tween transport providers and users. These changes in transport provision help explain why BRT reforms were more effective as an upgrade for formal transport than as a replacement for informal modes. i Contents Contents i List of Figures iii List of Tables v 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Formalization and accessibility . 2 1.2 What we know about how BRT affects accessibility . 5 1.3 Research questions and hypotheses . 6 1.4 Methodology . 8 1.5 Selection of Cape Town as a case study . 10 1.6 Summary of findings . 10 1.7 Contributions to the literature . 13 1.8 Policy implications . 14 1.9 Organization . 14 2 Bus Rapid Transit as a transport reform 16 2.1 Informality in transport, and its formalization . 17 2.2 When BRT involves formalizing existing informal transport . 27 2.3 When BRT involves reform of existing formal transport modes . 28 2.4 Alternatives to BRT; alternative responses to informality . 29 2.5 Advantages of BRT, and why it's a popular choice . 33 2.6 How do BRT reforms affect accessibility? . 34 3 Introducing the Cape Town case study: context 40 3.1 An overview of Cape Town . 41 3.2 How Cape Town's socio-spatial landscape affects transportation . 41 3.3 A profile of transportation in Cape Town today . 49 3.4 Cape Town's institutional context . 53 3.5 Cape Town as an extreme case . 54 4 Cape Town's BRT reforms 59 ii 4.1 Methodology . 59 4.2 Minibus taxis: emergence and workings of Cape Town's informal transport . 62 4.3 MyCiTi: Cape Town's BRT as transport reform . 78 4.4 Expectations for how BRT reforms affected accessibility . 103 5 Measuring accessibility with a network model 105 5.1 Hypotheses . 105 5.2 Accessibility index methodology . 106 5.3 Findings . 135 5.4 Discussion . 155 5.5 Limitations . 159 6 Analysis of survey data 161 6.1 Research questions . 162 6.2 Methodology . 162 6.3 Findings . 173 6.4 Discussion . 198 7 Findings from user interviews 201 7.1 Interview methodology . 202 7.2 Findings from user interviews . 205 7.3 Discussion and conclusions from user interviews . 222 8 Conclusions 223 8.1 Summary . 223 8.2 Discussion . 224 8.3 Limitations . 233 8.4 Generalizability . 234 8.5 Contributions . 235 8.6 Policy implications . 236 8.7 Future research . 237 Appendix A: Details of the accessibility model 239 Details on estimating minibus taxi travel times . 239 Full accessibility index results . 247 Appendix B: Questionnaire 262 Bibliography 267 iii List of Figures 2.1 Conceptual relationships between citizens, government, and transport providers 18 2.2 Conceptual relationships between citizens, government, and transport providers 28 3.1 Map of City of Cape Town with general areas and neighborhoods . 42 3.2 Average annual household income in South Africa by race, 2006-2011 . 45 3.3 Percentage of residents in each racial group for each Census spatial unit, Census 2011 . 46 3.4 Percentage of households by income for each Census spatial unit, Census 2011 . 48 3.5 Minibus taxi and MyCiTi networks . 56 3.6 Cape Town's commuter train network, Metrorail, with selected stations . 57 3.7 Cape Town's conventional bus network, Golden Arrow . 58 4.1 Minibus taxi rank, Dunoon, Cape Town . 63 4.2 Minibus taxi terminal, Mitchell's Plain, Cape Town . 64 4.3 Minibus taxi routes to be removed with MyCiTi reforms . 79 4.4 The MyCiTi BRT system in 2015 . 82 5.1 Land use activities by type . 115 5.2 Land use activities by type . 116 5.3 Modules in the minibus taxi travel time and accessibility model . 118 5.4 Idealized minibus taxi network graph. 119 5.5 Congestion index for Cape Town 2009-2016 . 121 5.6 Probability distribution for queue length, 2012 and 2015 combined, AM peak only 124 5.7 Probability distribution for queue length in 2012 . 125 5.8 Probability distribution for queue length in 2015 . 125 5.9 Seat availability probability distribution for all ranks, 2011, AM peak only . 127 5.10 Seat availability probability distribution for all ranks, 2015, AM peak only . 127 5.11 Distribution of the probability that no seats are available, by taxi rank, 2011 and 2015 combined . 128 5.12 Accessibility scores to retail within 45 mins by minibus taxi in (a) 2011 and (b) 2015 . 138 5.13 Detail of accessibility scores to retail uses within 60 mins by (a) MyCiTi and (b) minibus taxi in 2011 . 140 iv 5.14 Citywide accessibility scores by mode . 142 5.15 Accessibility scores by BRT area - Retail space . 143 5.16 Change between 2011 taxi accessibility and 2015 combined modes accessibility, by income. 144 5.17 Change between 2011 taxi accessibility and 2015 combined modes accessibility, by race . 145 5.18 Change between 2011 taxi accessibility and 2015 combined modes accessibility, by BRT area . 145 5.19 Change between 2011 taxi accessibility and 2015 combined modes accessibility, for office 30 . 146 5.20 Change between 2011 taxi and 2015 combined modes accessibility for retail 45, using (a) baseline values for wait time and (b) constant wait time values . 148 5.21 Change between 2011 taxi and 2015 combined modes accessibility, 60 minutes, for (a) office and (b) retail uses . 149 5.22 Change between 2011 taxi and 2015 combined modes accessibility, for retail 45, using (a) baseline values for wait time and (b) constant wait time values . 150 5.23 Change between 2011 taxi and 2015 combined modes accessibility, 30 minutes, for (a) retail and (b) hospital uses . 151 5.24 Change between 2011 taxi and 2015 combined modes accessibility, 45 minutes, for (a) retail and (b) hospital uses . 152 5.25 Accessibility scores by income - Retail space . 153 5.26 Accessibility scores by race - Retail space . 154 5.27 A comparison of MyCiTi and taxi fares for 219 origin-destination pairs . 158 6.1 Locations of survey intercept points . 166 6.2 Distribution of commute times in 2015 for survey respondents . 178 6.3 Distribution of shopping/personal visit travel times in 2015 for survey respondents179 1 Estimated vs. validation travel time values - Car model . 242 2 Error vs. estimated values - Car model . 243 3 Histogram of error (estimated-validation) - Car model . 243 4 Example of costs assigned to edges in the taxi network graph . 245 5 Histogram of difference between headway values from EMME2 data and rank survey data . 245 6 Histogram of difference between headway values from EMME2 data and rank survey data . 246 7 Joint plot of estimated travel time vs. validation travel time - Taxi 2011 (base model) and HHTS data . ..