Get documents about "Amajuba PTP Report Draft 4
Document Sample
Amajuba District
Municipality
Amajuba District
Municipality : Public
Transport Plan
Review Report
Black
FINAL DRAFT
Amajuba District
Municipality
Amajuba District
Municipality : Public
Transport Plan
Review Report
November 2008
Arup SA (Pty) Ltd This report takes into account the
Reg No. 1994/006098/07 particular instructions and requirements
Registered Firm of our client.
SA Association of Consulting Engineers It is not intended for and should not be
relied upon by any third party and no
Arup SA (Pty) Ltd responsibility is undertaken to any third
635 Ridge Road, Overport, Durban, 4091, party
P O Box 37002, Overport, 4067, South Africa
Tel +27 31 208 7171 Fax +27 31 209 7072
www.arup.com Job number T885
Document Verification
Page 1 of 1
Job title Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan Job number
T885
Document title Review Report File reference
Document ref
Revision Date Filename Amajuba Public Transport Plan Review Report – Draft Report.doc
Draft 1 26/02/08 Description First Draft
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Andile Gqaji / Ulrich Theo le Roux Allan Mason
Vosloo
Signature
Draft 2 25/06/08 Filename Amajuba Public Transport Plan Review Report - Draft Report.doc
Description Second Draft
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Andile Gqaji / Ulrich Theo le Roux Allan Mason
Vosloo
Signature
Final Draft 07/11/08 Filename Amajuba Public Transport Plan Review Report - Draft Report.doc
Description Third Draft
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Andile Gqaji / Ulrich Theo le Roux Allan Mason
Vosloo
Signature
Filename
Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name
Signature
Issue Document Verification with Document
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE-A5D5327F944E.DOC Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Contents
Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objective of the Report 2
1.3 Scope of the Study 2
1.4 Study Approach 3
1.5 Chapter Overview 4
2 METHODOLOGY 5
2.1 Review of Terms of Reference 5
2.2 Methodology Description 5
2.3 Issues To Be Addressed 5
3 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK AND ORIENTATION 5
3.1 Location 5
3.2 Demographics 6
3.3 Road Linkage 8
3.4 Local Municipalities 8
3.5 Settlements and Urbanisation 8
3.6 Integrated Development Plan (IDP) 9
3.7 Land Use Information 11
3.8 Physical Attributes 12
3.9 Social Facilities 14
4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT STATUS QUO 15
4.1 General Factors Affecting Travel Demand Patterns 15
4.2 Supply of Travel Facilities: Public Transport Interchanges (Ranks) 16
4.3 Supply of Travel Facilities: Public Transport Corridors 19
4.4 Supply of Travel Facilities: Fare and Costs 27
4.5 Passenger Travel Characteristics 27
4.6 Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities 30
4.7 Commuter Rail Service 31
5 PUBLIC TRANSPORT VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 31
5.1 Introduction 31
5.2 Vision 31
5.3 Goals 31
5.4 Objectives 32
6 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 33
6.1 Factors Affecting Future Travel Demand Patterns 33
6.2 Public Transport Demand Patterns 33
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE-A5D5327F944E.DOC Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
6.3 Cost Model Assessment 38
7 INITIAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROPOSAL 40
7.1 Introduction 40
7.2 Operating Licence Strategy 40
7.3 Rationalisation Strategy 44
7.4 Assistance to Local municipalities 46
7.5 Public Transport Facility Improvements 47
7.6 Road Infrastructure Improvements 47
7.7 Additional Planning Projects 48
8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 48
8.1 Consultations and Workshops 48
9 PRIORITISED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROPOSALS 49
10 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 49
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE-A5D5327F944E.DOC Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Arup (Pty) Ltd in Joint Venture with Paruk Consulting were appointed by Amajuba District
Municipality (ADM) to prepare a Current Public Transport Records (CPTR) for the whole of
Amajuba District for Phase 1 and 2. The CPTR’s for the two phases were completed in May
2003 and March 2004, respectively.
Subsequently, Arup (Pty) Ltd in Joint Venture with UWP Consulting were appointed by the
ADM to prepare a Public Transport Plan (PTP) for the whole district. The PTP was
successfully completed in November 2005.
Arup (Pty) Ltd was once again appointed in September 2007 by the ADM to review the
current PTP and hence this report. Figure 1 shows the location of the Amajuba District
Municipality in the KwaZulu Natal Region.
Figure 1: Extent of the Study Area
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 1 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
The changing nature of public transport in South Africa in recent years and the shift from
providing public transport based on the demand for public transport supply, resulted in the
KwaZulu Natal Department of Transport (KZNDoT) developing a planning approach to
accommodate this shift.
According to the Spatial Representation of Amajuba District : Profile 2006, it is shown that
approximately 62% of people make their work trips by foot, approximately 10% of
passengers are transported by car, approximately 8% of passengers are transported by taxi,
then approximately 5% of passengers by bus and the remainder is made up of train and
other (see the graph in profile for the discrepancy) .
Comparing the three dominant modes of public transport for work trips, it is shown that 59%
of passengers are transported by taxi, followed by bus at 39% and then train at 2%.
The recent Public Transport surveys as well as the information contained in the CPTR
shows that 1 670 public transport vehicles within Amajuba District transport approximately
40 000 passengers. The surveys results also showed that 66% of passengers are
transported by minibus-taxis, 22% by bus and the remaining 12% by bakkie or 4 + 1
vehicles. The details relating to these surveys and the status quo of public transport in ADM
are described in this report.
1.2 Objective of the Report
The aim of this report is to review the current PTP and to identify changes and recommend
those changes that will benefit everyone in the ADM. The objective of this report can be
summarised as follows:
Determine the extent of outstanding public transport information regarding the current
and planned services within the Amajuba area;
Re-define and confirm the vision, statement for Public Transport in Amajuba and
reassess if the goals and objectives which will enable Amajuba District Municipality to
attain the vision has changed since the completion of the PTP;
Confirming which of the proposals and projects for the short, medium and long term that
has been identified through the initial PTP has been implemented and which project
should be included in the review of the PTP;
Focus on the finalisation of the of the Operating Licensing Strategy (OLS) that will keep
the PTP focussed together with a Rationalisation Strategy that will ensure an affordable
Public Transport Service for all the people in Amajuba;
Reassess the Implementation and Financial Plan agreed to by all stakeholders during
the first PTP and include the costs for short and medium terms in the IDP;
The inclusion of the new and relevant data;
The assessment of the current Public Transport Service in Amajuba;
An analysis of land use and public transport integration; and
Prepare a final PTP Review document to be submitted to the MEC for comment and/or
approval and to be implemented in Amajuba and part of the development of the area.
1.3 Scope of the Study
The purpose of this report is to review the current PTP of the ADM. As part of this review
there is a need to analyses the land use and assess the public transport system of the
Amajuba to determine the functioning and efficiency. The assessment of the public
transport system will evaluate general factors that influence travel demand, facilities, fares
and costs, and finally an appraisal of the supply and demand patterns
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 2 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
1.4 Study Approach
The National Land Transport Transition Act (NLTTA), Act 22 of 2000, requires that each
planning authority, and in this case Amajuba, compile a package of plans to give effect to
the provisions of the NLTTA.
The KZNDoT in turn has embarked on a process to provide a provincial framework for the
implementation of these plans in a practical and consistent manner.
The guiding objective for all transport planning in the province is
“to endeavour to minimise the cost of transport that is necessary to satisfy people’s
requirements for carrying out activities.”
With this objective as background, the following principles have been adopted to guide the
PTP process as it did with the CPTR process;
“Actions taken in the short term should not conflict with/compromise long term plans.
Transport is about moving people between Origin and Destinations (O-D).
The actual pattern of movement (ito # of person trips between each O-D pair) will be a
direct function of the pattern of land use development and the transport
systems/services provided.
Before a long-term movement pattern can be established, it is necessary to start with
knowledge of the current movement pattern.
This shows what people ARE doing at the moment and it provides the basis for
identifying inefficiencies (primarily high costs) in the current pattern of land use
development and transport services.
Having identified these inefficiencies the land use and any other changes needed to
increase efficiencies can be evolved.”
The PTP should provide an assessment of the trilogy of movements as illustrated below:
Part 1: Existing Public Transport (PT) services
Part 2: People’s existing OD patterns
Part 3: Long term desired OD patterns
Figure 1.2: The KZNDoT Trilogy of Movement
WORK
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 3 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
1.5 Chapter Overview
This report is divided into several chapters and can be summarised as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the study, the objective of the study, the scope of the
study and the study approach followed. This section also provides a background on
previous work and the inclusion thereof in the report.
Chapter 2: Methodology
This chapter provides an insight into the methodology followed in the review of the PTP, the
relevance of this report in relation to the broader public transport planning process and the
problems identified during the execution of the study.
Chapter 3: Spatial Framework and Orientation
This section will focus on the study area and will provide general information on Amajuba.
This section will also address demographic information, information on roads, local
municipalities, land use, physical attributes, social facilities and public transport facilities.
Chapter 4: Public Transport Status Quo
This chapter of the report focuses on the public transport status quo and will address the
following aspects relating to the Public Transport Service in Amajuba:
Public Transport Facilities;
Road Infrastructure;
Public Transport Corridors;
Public Transport Supply and Utilisation;
Public Transport Demand; and
Roles and Responsibilities.
Chapter 5: Public Transport Vision, Goals and Objectives
Public Transport in Amajuba requires a vision. This chapter will provide a vision for public
transport in Amajuba. This vision will be guided through the development of goals and
objectives. The vision, goals and objectives are developed through a public participation
process. The vision, goals and objectives will however developed taking into account the
National and Provincial vision and goals as covered in the NLTTA, provincial policy and
PLTF.
Chapter 6: Needs Assessment
Chapter 6 is aimed at examining the new land use as obtained from the most up to date
information and the impact it will have on the provision of a Public Transport System. Any
changes to the Public Transport system will also be evaluated to determine its effect on land
use. Factors affecting travel demand patterns, cost of service as well as shortcomings will
be addressed in this chapter.
Chapter 7: Public Transport Proposal
The minimum requirements prescribed in the NLTTA and guidelines for preparing the PTP
requires that an Operating Strategy and Rationalisation Strategy be developed. These
strategies will form the basis for the public transport proposals. These proposals will
address any shortcomings and issues discussed in Chapter 6. This chapter will further
contain a concise Operating and Rationalisation Strategy.
Chapter 8: Stakeholder Consultation
This chapter will discuss the extent of the public participation process and the stakeholder
involvement in preparing the PTP.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 4 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Chapter 9: Prioritised Public Transport Proposals and Implementation Programme
A prioritised list of public transport proposals together with a proposed implementation
programme will be discussed as part of this chapter. This list of proposals and projects will
link with the implementation programme of the Integrated Development Plan (IDP).
Chapter 10: Financial Implications
The financial implication of the prioritised list of proposals will be discussed in this chapter.
No detailed cost assessment will be included in the PTP but reference is made to the
assumptions used in determining the cost of implementing the proposals. The financial
implications of Public Transport Proposals will form part of the IDP process and budget and
will be reviewed on an annual basis.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Review of Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference received, for the initial PTP, from Amajuba and the associated
KZNDoT guidelines clearly states that consultants are responsible to assist both District and
Local Municipalities with the following:
“an analysis of planning requirements or current transport plans, an operating licence
strategy, rationalisation plan and a PTP in terms of the NLTTA, 2000 and the assessment of
these requirements in terms of other existing or concurrent national and provincial
legislation.”
“determination of the practical provincial and municipal implementation of planning
requirements, including but not limited to the utilisation of planning in the delivery
requirements of the Local Road Transportation Board,”
“an investigation into the most cost-effective data collection and modelling methodologies to
assist the Department with the practical implementation of planning requirements and
development of an operating licensing strategy.”
2.2 Methodology Description
As in any project, the first step would have been to set up a project management team.
Since this is a review of an existing PTP, the project management team for the current PTP
will remain as it is. The project management team will still include officials from Amajuba
District Municipality and the three local municipalities of Newcastle, Dannhauser and
Utrecht, representatives from KZNDoT as well as member of the Amajuba Public Transport
Forum. The consulting team is responsible for the management of the process and
ensuring continuous progress of the project.
A meeting was held on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 with Amajuba District Municipality
officials to discuss their latest Spatial Development Framework and planned land use
changes.
2.3 Issues To Be Addressed
No problems have been identified that will have a significant impact on the outcome of the
review of the PTP.
3 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK AND ORIENTATION
3.1 Location
The Amajuba District Municipality is located in the north-western corner of KwaZulu Natal
Province, as shown in Figure 1 and comprises of the three local municipalities.
The Amajuba District Municipality is constituted of the following three local municipalities:
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 5 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Newcastle (KZ252);
Utrecht (KZ253); and
Dannhauser (KZ254).
Figure 3.1: Study area of Amajuba District Municipality with Local Municipalities
In the Spatial Representation of Amajuba District : Profile 2006 it is shown that the ADM is
6 912 km² in size with Utrecht being the largest municipality occupying an area of 3 540 km²
with Newcastle and Dannhauser occupying 1 856 km² and 1 516 km², respectively.
The main transportation routes linking the District to its surroundings includes the N11 which
is the alternative route to Johannesburg from Durban, and the rail line which is the main line
from the Durban harbour to Gauteng. The R34 also bisects the District in an east-west
direction and provides a linkage from the port city of Richard Bay to the interior.
3.2 Demographics
According to the Amajuba Integrated Development Plan (IDP) First Draft of 2007/8, the
Amajuba District comprises areas of northern portions of the former uMzinyathi Regional
Council, the former Transitional Local Councils of Dannhauser, Newcastle, Hattingspruit and
Utrecht, and the Tribal Authority area of Buhle-Bomzinyathi and Nyanyadu.
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 shows the general demographic information for Amajuba District as
given in the IDP and Spatial Representation of Amajuba District : Profile 2006 as well as the
breakdown of male and female representation, respectively.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 6 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
As shown in the Spatial Representation of Amajuba District : Profile 2006, Newcastle has
the highest population of 376 111 people followed by Dannhauser with 1043 711 and then
Utrecht with 42 514. As shown in the Spatial Representation of Amajuba District : Profile
2006, Amajuba DM contributes to 5.03% of the total population of KwaZulu Natal. The 2006
Profile shows that the majority of the people in Amajuba are between the ages of 20 to 64.
Table 3.1: Demographic Information per Local Municipality
FIGURES
BASIC FACTS 2006
2001
(Profile 2006)
Total Population 468 037 522 340
Amajuba population as % of KZN 4.97% 5.03%
Newcastle – 332 981 (71%) Newcastle – 376 111 (72%)
Total population of DC25 per K Z area Dannhauser – 102 779 (22%) Dannhauser – 103 715 (20%)
Utrecht – 32 277 (7%) Utrecht – 42 514 (8%)
% of total population urbanised 57%
< 14 35.4% 0-4 12.17%
Age profile 15-34 35.2% 5 - 19 36.33%
35-64 24.9% 20 - 64 47.63%
Over 65 4.5% Over 65 3.87%
Unemployment 41% in 1996;
(% of income earning population) 55% in 2001
(Source – Amajuba District Municipality: Integrated Development Plan, 2002 and Spatial Representation of Amajuba District :
Profile 2006)
According to the Spatial Representation of Amajuba District : Profile 2006, there has been
an increase in the total population of all of the municipalities in the period 2001 to 2006.
Utrecht reflects the highest growth rate of 2.6% per annum.
In terms of the growth rate, the rate for the period 2001 to 2005 is lower than the growth rate
for the period 1996 to 2001 which shows a stabilisation in the District. This may also relate
to the high prevalence of HIV and Aids in the DM or due to levels of migration to other cities.
Table 3.2: Male and Female Distribution per Local Municipality
2001 2005
Local % of
Population Female Female
Municipality District Male (%) Male (%)
(%) (%)
Newcastle 351 075 72% N/A N/A 46.1% 53.9%
Dannhauser 104 065 21% N/A N/A 45.4% 54.6%
Utrecht 35 962 7% N/A N/A 48.2% 51.8%
Amajuba DM 491 102 100% 47.6% 52.6% 46.2% 53.8%
(Source – Amajuba District municipality: Integrated Development Plan, 2002 and 2007 First Draft)
The 2005 data shows that all municipalities are dominated by females. For Utrecht, this
may be due to the fact that up to 2001, the economy was largely dominated by Coal Mining
and around 2000 to 2001, a number of these mines closed down. After the mine closures,
these skilled and semi-skilled workers may have left the municipality for other coal mines.
The impact of HIV and Aids may not be discounted as well.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 7 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
3.3 Road Linkage
The study area is mainly served by the N11 North-South corridor between Ladysmith,
Newcastle and Volksrus. The P37 provincial road to the north of Newcastle provides further
access to Utrecht and Vryheid. The P483 provincial road forms the major access road from
Newcastle to Madadeni, Osizweni and Utrecht all located to the east of Newcastle. The rest
of Amajuba are served by lower order provincial surfaced roads as well as gravel roads.
Detailed description of the road infrastructure in Amajuba can be found in Chapter 4 of this
report.
3.4 Local Municipalities
Before 2001 local government elections, both Utrecht and Dannhauser were Transitional
Local Councils (TLCs) under the jurisdiction of Umzinyathi Regional Council. The previous
Councils of Utrecht and Dannhauser were responsible for the urban areas whilst services in
the rural areas were provided by the Umzinyathi Regional Council. Since local government
elections in December 2001, the larger portions of the Utrecht Municipal area now falls
under the jurisdiction of Utrecht Local Council. The same applies to Dannhauser Local
Municipality. Regional Councils have been replaced by District Councils and Utrecht,
Dannhauser and Newcastle Local Municipality are now falling under Amajuba District
Municipality (DC25).
Amajuba comprises of three Local Municipalities as shown in Figure 3.1.
Newcastle Municipality (KZ252). Newcastle is the main economic hub within Amajuba
with predominant urban population. The traditional townships of Madadeni and Osizweni
also fall within the Newcastle Municipal area.
Utrecht Municipality (KZ253). Utrecht is predominantly a rural area. The town of Utrecht
is situated in a nature reserve. The P37 provincial road is the main access road to Utrecht.
Dannhauser Municipality (KZ254). Dannhauser is situated halfway between Newcastle
and Dundee and has the same characteristics as that of Utrecht. Mdakane settlement to
the east of Dannhauser houses a large portion of the population of Dannhauser
Municipality.
3.5 Settlements and Urbanisation
Mostly rural settlement areas are scattered throughout the Amajuba region in 146
communities. The urban rural split is shown in Figure 3.2, overleaf. The main
concentration of rural settlements is between Mdakane and Osizweni with wider spread
throughout the rest of the district.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 8 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 3.2: Urban and Rural Settlements
The informal and tribal settlements have 35.2% of the total population within the majority
living within the urban areas of Newcastle, Utrecht and Dannhauser. The demographic in
formation earlier in the report clearly shows that Utrecht has the smallest population and
Newcastle the largest population.
3.6 Integrated Development Plan (IDP)
The 2007/8 IDP saw the updating of the Vision, Mission and the inclusion of Values.
The Vision for the ADM is as follows:
“Amajuba will be a fully developed district, with a vibrant and sustainable economy, a better
quality of life, preserved within its own cultural and traditional values”.
The amended Mission is as follows:
“The ADM will, through governance and management, strive to achieve its vision within the
legal framework by:
Promoting shared and integrated service delivery;
Creating an enabling environment for economic development;
Increasing opportunities for previously disadvantaged communities;
Providing and maintaining integrated, affordable, equitable and sustainable services;
Facilitating access to land and social services;
Promoting development of a safe and healthy environment; and
Effective planning of infrastructure and technical services.”
The following Values to be followed by the organisation were identified;
Accountability – we will discharge our responsibilities with the appreciation that we are
public servants and will hold ourselves accountable to them.
Transparency – we will make the necessary information available to our stakeholders.
Democracy – we will consult our stakeholders as prescribed.
Developmental Approach – we will seek, develop and implement solutions that will
contribute to the development o f our society.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 9 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
The IDP forms the basis for future planning in Amajuba. The constant review of the PTP will
always ensure the importance of providing reliable and efficient public transport to people of
Amajuba and should therefore feedback to the IDP process. The integration of public
transport and land use forms a critical part in the future development of Amajuba.
During this review process, the IDP was therefore, once again used as the starting point for
the public transport and land use integration as part of the status quo assessment. Special
attention was also given to the Amajuba District Municipality Spatial Development
Framework (ADMSDF) to determine future land development initiatives. The primary
purpose of a SDF is to provide spatial framework reference regarding public investment in
the medium to short term timeframes. The SDF is also used to inform:
Private decisions on location, intensity of development and land use;
Indicate the location of future physical development and the spatial implications of all
IDP programmes; and
Manage spatial change through integration.
The development nodes and corridors are shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Development Nodes and Corridors
By identifying a settlement hierarchy in the IDP and the Spatial Framework, which directly
influences the capital investment in the municipality over a five year period, urban sprawl is
discouraged and integrated settlements are encouraged.
The delineation of the urban edge again discourages urban sprawl and leads to greater
compaction and integration. These both impact positively on the natural environment. A
detail map showing the settlement hierarchy is available in the Spatial Development
Framework and is included in Appendix A. Therefore, public transport operations should
be aimed at settlement hubs and public transport facilities should focus around those
already identified hubs.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 10 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
3.7 Land Use Information
Figure 3.4 illustrates the land use distribution throughout Amajuba. Large areas of Amajuba
are still unoccupied land with limited economic activity. Forestry and cultivated land forms
only a small portion of Amajuba and are concentrated around the northern areas of
Amajuba. Subsistence farming mainly occurs between the Mdakane and Osizweni areas.
Two large dams are also located in Amajuba namely, Chelmsford Dam to the south of
Newcastle and Zaaihoek Dam south east of Volksrus.
Due to the past apartheid policies, the settlement patterns of the Amajuba District
Municipality is characterised by the concentration of a large number of the population of
Amajuba in Madadeni and Osizweni. Other people are settled in the Buffalo flats between
nodes of Utrecht and Dannhauser. The major sources of employment within Amajuba are
found in and around Newcastle, which are often a distance from the Buffalo Flats
community.
In Utrecht Municipality there are some emerging developments of the Amantungwa
Development Trust area as part of Land Reform project. In Dannhauser Municipality
integration should be encouraged on the road linking Dannhauser and Mdakane node. For
the Newcastle Municipality, greater integration is required to link the Newcastle West and
East through mix used development activity along MR483 corridor.
Figure 3.4: Land Use Patterns
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 11 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
3.8 Physical Attributes
Amajuba has limited natural resources in terms of agricultural development but provide
large number of historical tourist attractions. Detail physical attributes discussed in this
section includes:
Topography;
Rainfall; and
Soil Conditions.
3.8.1 Topography
The topography features of Amajuba are complex and include flat areas around Newcastle,
Dannhauser and Utrecht towns. The terrain becomes more extreme towards the northern,
north-eastern and western areas of Amajuba with altitudes increasing to 1,900m above sea
level. The topography and slope of Amajuba is presented in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6
respectively. Due to the extreme slopes and the scarcity of formal roads in the mountainous
areas, many communities have to cover great distances and/or very steep slopes to get
access to a road.
Much of the central portion is characterised by slopes less than 1:20, while slopes steeper
than1:5 can be found in the northern ‘Combination’ formations, extending along the higher
lying western boundaries.
Topography has influenced the settlement pattern in the DM with majority of the people
being located along the flat basin of the DM and in the three urban centres.
3.8.2 Rainfall and Temperature
Climatic conditions vary noticeably between summer and winter months ranging between
very cold temperatures during the winter and high summer temperatures. The average
temperature for Amajuba is about 17°C. The minimum temperature for Amajuba is below
0°C during winter months and often higher than 30°C in the summer months.
The average Annual rainfall for Amajuba is consistent throughout the district with no major
difference between the local municipalities. The average rainfall for Amajuba is between
650mm and 1 000mm per year.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 12 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 3.5: Topography of Amajuba
Figure 3.6: Terrain Analysis - Slope
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 13 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
3.8.3 Soil Conditions
Soils in Amajuba include sandstone, shale and coal with smaller sections of dolerite. High
rainfall steep slopes and poor soil conditions result in extremely poor road conditions for
unsurfaced roads.
3.9 Social Facilities
In 2003/ 2004 financial year Amajuba District Municipality undertook a project on GIS Data
Verification process within the area of its jurisdiction. The project included the GPS of all
social facilities such as clinics, schools, crèches, Police Stations, Libraries, etc. This
information is available at Amajuba Municipal Offices as per request.
Facilities that are both community and public transport destinations include schools and
clinics. Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8 shows the location of schools and clinics in Amajuba
respectively.
3.9.1 Schools
Schools are situated in or close to the numerous settlements between Mdakane and
Osizweni. The majority of the access roads to the schools are gravel roads and they are in
poor condition. The majority of the schools within Newcastle have access to fairly good
surfaced roads. There are currently 252 schools at both primary and secondary level in the
DM, 245 of these schools are being run by government.
Figure 3.7: Social Facilities – Schools
3.9.2 Clinics
The rural communities in Amajuba are served by 7 permanent clinics mainly located in
Madadeni and Osizweni. The access roads are mainly gravel roads and are in poor
conditions. Primary and specialist medical services are mainly provided in Newcastle.
It should also be noted that an extensive network of mobile clinics operate throughout the
District to ensure the efficient delivery of primary health care to all residents in the District.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 14 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 3.8: Social Facilities – Clinics
4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT STATUS QUO
The Public Transport Status Quo, based on the CPTR, describes the analyses of the
operating licenses and subsidised public transport as part of the OLS and RatPlan as well
as the relevant institutional structures This chapter will investigate the following:
Trip Generators and Attractors;
Public Transport Facilities;
Road Infrastructure and Public Transport Network;
Public Transport Cost and Fares;
Passenger Travel Characteristics; and
Passenger Demand Patterns.
4.1 General Factors Affecting Travel Demand Patterns
4.1.1 Trip Generators and Attractors
The majority of trip generations and trip attraction areas within Amajuba fall within
Newcastle municipal boundaries. The previous chapter provided a detailed discussion of
the spatial distribution of facilities and services that generally affect travel patterns. Most
passengers utilising public transport reside within the areas of Madadeni and Osizweni.
Closer examination of the latest District Spatial Development Framework (SDF) reveals that
the majority of major projects as well as the dominant development direction occur in the
area directly surrounding the town of Newcastle. This is a logical progression as the exiting
infrastructure to support short and medium term development id present in this area. It is
further important that the principles as mentioned in section 3.6 of this report, with specific
reference to containing urban sprawl as well as to encourage the formation of integrated
settlements, are adhered to as far as possible. The spatial representation of these
development directions are shown on the SDF map which is contained as Annexure A.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 15 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
The specific implications of these concepts on public transport planning is that public
transport operations should be aimed at settlement hubs and public transport facilities
should focus around those already identified hubs to ensure integration and the creation of
the most efficient and cost effective system.
In addition to this it should also be noted that based on recent work carried out by the
District through its MI2 initiative it is anticipated that some form of economic development
will be stimulated through the re-commissioning of currently dormant power stations and
plant. It is believed that this avenue for development is a result of the current electricity crisis
facing the country as a whole.
The importance of this initiative and its potential impact on public transport planning should
not be underestimated and as such mention thereof in this reviewed document should be
made. Although it will be difficult at this stage in the project to quantify the exact impact this
may have on public transport planning it is anticipated that once more details become
available the issue of providing some form of public transport to these facilities would need
to be included in future reviews of the plan. These initiatives will mainly focus on the
Ngagane and Kilbrachen areas and as such it is indicated on the SDF map as one of the
key LED projects. It is also noted that this proposed project is located within the area of
proposed expansion as shown on the SDF map which fits in well with the principles of
promoting integration and limitation of urban sprawl.
4.1.2 Unstable areas
There were no unstable areas identified where surveys could not take place. The PTP is
therefore representative of all the areas within Amajuba District.
4.2 Supply of Travel Facilities: Public Transport Interchanges (Ranks)
4.2.1 Policies and Standard on Provision
The Minibus-taxi recapitalisation process proposed by DOT resulted in a change in the size
of vehicles to be used as well as changes in the design requirements of Public Transport
Interchanges. The new design standards for mini-buses and midi-buses to be used for
Public Transport are given in the Notice 459 of 2005 “Amendment of National Road Traffic
Regulations.
4.2.2 Level of Provision of Facilities
The detailed information of the relevant Public Transport Facilities was covered and is
available in the CPTR document and will not form part of this report. The Public Transport
Facility information was gathered using Global Positioning System (GPS) and are linked to
the Geographic Information System (GIS) that is used for this study. Figure 4.1, overleaf,
shows the location of all the Public Transport Facilities in Amajuba as contained in the
CPRT. The following information on each Public Transport Facility was gathered:
Facility Name,
Status and Type and Ownership of the Facility,
Available Amenities and the Conditions, and
Dimensions of each Facility.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 16 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 4.1: Public Transport Facilities
4.2.3 Minibus Taxi Ranks
According to the 2004 CPTR, there are a total of 20 public transport facilities within the
Amajuba area with 16 minibus-taxi ranks, 3 bus ranks and 1 minibus-taxi and bus rank. The
4+1 and bakkie ranks form part of the Minibus-taxi ranks. The majority of these facilities fall
within the Newcastle, Madadeni and Osizweni areas with limited facilities in Utrecht and
Dannhauser. There is an equal split of formal and informal facilities with the formal facilities
mainly located in the urban areas and informal facilities located in the rural settlements. The
status and ownership of the Minibus-taxi facilities is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Status of Minibus-Taxi Facilities
No. Facility Name Status Ownership Location
Newcastle Municipality
1 Osizweni Formal Taxi Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
3 Makhanya Informal Taxi Rank Informal Municipal On street
4 Top Rank Informal Taxi Rank Informal Municipal On street
6 9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
7 Moyomuhle Informal Taxi Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
8 Madadeni Sec 4&5 Informal Taxi Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
9 Madadeni Shoprite Checkers Informal Taxi Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
10 Madadeni Court Informal Taxi Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
11 Newcastle Formal Taxi Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
12 Charlestown Informal Minibus-Taxi Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
13 Ingogo Informal Minibus-Taxi Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
Utrecht Municipality
14 Utrecht Minibus-Taxi and Bus Rank Formal Municipal On street
Dannhauser Municipality
15 Dannhauser Taxi Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
16 Mdakane Cross Roads Taxi Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 17 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
4.2.4 Bus Ranks
According to the 2004 CPTR, several public transport facilities cater for minibus-taxi and
bus operations. There are three dedicated bus ranks and a one combined bus and minibus-
taxi rank in Amajuba. Table 4.2 shows the status and ownership of the bus facilities in
Amajuba.
Table 4.2: Status of Bus Facilities
No. Facility Name Status Ownership Location
Newcastle Municipality
1 Macadam Informal Bus Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
2 Newcastle Formal Bus Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
Utrecht Municipality
3 Utrecht Minibus-Taxi and Bus Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
Dannhauser Municipality
4 Dannhauser Bus Rank Informal Municipal Off Street
4.2.5 Bakkie & 4+1 Ranks
According to the 2004 CPTR most of the bakkie and 4+1 vehicles operating in Amajuba
operate from the same ranks used by minibus-taxis. The only facility that provide for the
exclusive use by 4+1 taxis is Central Car Park in Newcastle. The 4+1 taxis operating from
this facility provides a similar service as that of the traditional metered taxi.
Table 4.3 shows the status and ownership of the bakkie and 4+1 facilities.
This table clearly illustrates this sharing of facilities with minibus-taxi. Bakkie and 4+1 taxis
operate on the same associations as that of the minibus-taxi operators expect for the 4+1
taxis operating from Central Car Park, which belongs to its own association.
Table 4.3: Bakkie and 4+1 taxi Trips and Passengers
No. Facility Name (physical location) Status Ownership Location
Newcastle Municipality
1 Osizweni Formal Taxi Rank (Osizweni) Formal Municipal Off Street
2 Makhanya Informal Taxi Rank (Makhanya Street – Informal Municipal On street
Osizweni)
3 Top Rank Informal Taxi Rank ((Osizweni) Informal Municipal On street
4 Khuzani Informal 4+1 Taxi Rank (Khuzani Street – Informal Municipal Off Street
Osizweni)
5 9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank (c/o Utrech and P483 – Informal Municipal Off Street
Osizweni))
6 Madadeni Sec 4&5 Informal Taxi Rank (Section 4 Informal Municipal Off Street
and 5 Madadeni)
7 Madadeni Shoprite Checkers Informal Taxi Rank Formal Municipal Off Street
(Madadeni Shoprite/Checkers)
8 Madadeni Court Informal Taxi Rank (Madadeni Informal Municipal Off Street
Court and Labour Offices)
9 Central Car Park 4+1 Taxi Rank (Murchason Formal Municipal On street
Street – Newcastle)
10 Newcastle Formal Taxi Rank (Terminus Street – Formal Municipal Off Street
Newcastle)
11 Charlestown Informal Minibus-Taxi Rank (next to Informal Municipal Off Street
Charlestown Industrial Area)
12 Ingogo Informal Minibus-Taxi Rank (next to Main Informal Municipal Off Street
Entrance Road to Ingogo
Utrecht Municipality
13 Utrecht Informal Bakkie Rank (Voor Street – Informal Municipal On street
Utrecht)
Dannhauser Municipality
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 18 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
14 Dannhauser Taxi Rank (127 Main Street – Formal Municipal Off Street
Dannhauser)
15 Mdakane Cross Roads (next to the Cross Roads Formal Municipal Off Street
at Mdakane)
4.3 Supply of Travel Facilities: Public Transport Corridors
4.3.1 Public Transport Corridors (PTC)
The assessment of the public transport service will be covered in this section. Public
Transport Corridors (PTC) were identified based on public transport routes, land use
information as well as taking physical attributes into account. To be able to present useful
figures on route and node utilisation, levels of service and user cost it is necessary to
combine the approximately 250 public transport routes into more manageable PTC for
modelling and cost purpose only. These PTC were developed using the identified IDP
development corridors, the existing road network, topography as well as the requirements
for public transport routes. The following data sets were used to develop the PTCs as
illustrated in Figure 4.6, overleaf.
IDP Development Corridors
Road Classification
Public Transport Routes
Topography
It becomes evident that upon closer examination of the Reviewed Spatial Development
Framework that the major transport corridors as shown in the PTP has not undergone any
substantial changes and that the direction of development as shown in the previous SDF
and that now contained in the reviewed plan is substantially the same. The implication of
this is that there should not be any major deviation in travel patterns thus allowing the
review of the PTP to rely on similar data as that which is contained in the original CPTR.
It should be noted that the impact of freight and other vehicle usage was not considered as
part of the PTC development. The combination of the different datasets resulted in the
identification of the PTC network that will be used to determine public transport utilisation,
the level of service and user costs.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 19 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 4.6: Public Transport Corridors
4.3.2 Description of PTC Links
In order to determine the public transport utilisation of each link of any corridor, it was
necessary to relate the public transport routes and road network with the public transport
corridor.
A public transport link (e.g. P1), is defined by the public transport corridor that represents
several public transport routes and considers the various characteristics of the individual
public transport routes. Public Transport Corridors with higher passengers and vehicle
numbers is classified as Primary Corridor and those with less passengers and vehicles
classified as Secondary Corridors. The integration of public transport routes and IDP
development corridors further produced tertiary corridors with low passenger volumes but
clearly showing the need of providing public transport. Public transport route distances have
been based on the proximity of the public transport route to the public transport corridor
keeping in mind any physical attributes of the area.
4.3.3 Public Transport Route Distance Estimation
An important element of the minibus-bus taxi and bakkie utilisation is the distance between
an origin and destination linked by a straight line against the actual assessed distance as
measured along the physical road. These were done using the GIS established for this
project.
The actual public transport routes as determined through the public transport surveys at
rank facilities has been captured in the GIS and linked to the Public Transport Corridors.
Origin Destination (O-D) distances based on the survey results were used to determine the
total distance (the sum of all the distances of each public transport route) as well as the
straight-line distances for each PTC. Table 4.4, overleaf, shows the route distance
estimation figures for each PTC link.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 20 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 4.4: PTC Route Distances
Plan Dist Road Distance Number of PT
PTC Description
(km) (km) Routes
P1 – N11 from Volksrus to R34 Intersection 32.2 43.9 10
P2 – N11 from R34 to Newcastle 14.1 17.5 41
P3 – N11 from Newcastle to R621 intersection 15.1 81.5 13
P4 – N11 from R621 to border (Ladysmith) 25.9 87.1 11
P5 – Newcastle to Osizweni 16.2 59.5 53
P6 – Osizweni to Utrecht 23.5 84.9 15
S1 – R34 from N11 to Utrecht 39.5 124.7 2
S2 – From Utrecht to Utrecht rural areas 18.7 165.9 2
S3 – R34 from Utrecht to border (Vryheid) 39.4 154.0 7
S4 – Osizweni to Mdakane 16.4 50.1 29
S5 – Dannhauser to Mdakane 18.6 56.2 17
S6 – R621 from N11 to Dannhauser 14.9 54.7 3
S7 – R621 from Dannhauser to border (Dundee) 18.3 86.0 6
S8 – Newcastle to border (Memel) 28.9 34.7 3
T1 – Newcastle to Normandien 35.1 39.6 1
T2 – Mdakane to Dundee/Vryheid road 21.1 102.6 5
T3 – Utrecht to Wakkerstroom 34.6 39.5 4
4.3.4 Minibus-taxi Trips and Passenger Volumes (Supply)
Information on the public transport operations in Amajuba was collected as part of the CPTR
process. The results of these surveys showed that approximately 23 350 passengers are
transported by 1928 minibus-taxi trips in Amajuba. This equates to an average of 12
passengers per minibus-bus trip. Table 4.5 illustrates the number of minibus-taxi trips,
unique minibus-taxis and the number of passengers transported for each facility.
Table 4.5: Minibus-taxi Trips and Passengers
Average
# OF # of # of Average # of
Location (Rank) # Trips
Trips Unique Taxis Pass Pass / Trip
/ Taxi
9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank 58 50 1.16 766 13.21
Charlestown Informal Rank 25 18 1.39 343 13.72
Dannhauser Taxi Rank 178 17 10.47 1 728 9.71
Ingogo Informal Taxi Rank 1 1 1.00 5 5.00
Madadeni Court Informal Rank 8 8 1.00 100 12.50
Madadeni Section 4+5 Informal Rank 136 115 1.18 935 6.88
Madadeni Shoprite Rank 21 18 1.17 225 10.71
Makhanya Rank 95 78 1.22 652 6.86
Mdakane Taxi Rank 226 104 2.17 2 057 9.10
Moyomuhle Informal Taxi Rank 37 33 1.12 502 13.57
Newcastle Local Destinations Rank 116 52 2.23 1 679 14.47
Newcastle Long Distance Destinations Rank 78 70 1.11 1 144 14.67
Newcastle Madadeni Rank 659 386 1.71 9 785 14.85
Newcastle Osizweni & Blaauwbosch Rank 119 58 2.05 1 738 14.61
Osizweni Main Rank 22 21 1.05 318 14.45
Top Rank 123 109 1.13 1 020 8.29
Utrecht Informal Bakkie Rank 2 2 1.00 19 9.50
Utrect Bus & Taxi Rank 24 20 1.20 335 13.96
Amajuba 1928 1160 23 351 12
4.3.5 Bus Trips and Passenger Volumes (Supply)
Information on the public transport operations in Amajuba collected as part of the 2004
CPTR process showed that although there are only 4 dedicated bus facilities in Amajuba
buses do operate through the other facilities mainly used by minibus-taxi operators. The
surveys showed that 13807 passengers are transported by 299 bus trips resulting in an
average of 46 passengers per bus.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 21 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 4.6 shows the number of trips, unique buses and passengers transported as per the
2004 CPTR.
Table 4.6: Average Bus Trips and Passengers per Rank
# of Unique # Trips / # of # of Pass /
Location (Rank) # of Trips
Buses Bus Pass Trip
9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank 26 22 1.18 953 36.65
Dannhauser Busses 43 21 2.05 2 595 60.35
Macadam Bus Rank 8 8 1.00 598 74.75
Madadeni Section 4+5 Informal Rank 1 1 1.00 35 35.00
Makhanya Rank 7 7 1.00 326 46.57
Mdakane Stop Street Busses 24 17 1.41 1 314 54.75
Moyomuhle Informal Taxi Rank 5 5 1.00 195 39.00
Newcastle Bus Main 136 87 1.56 5 495 40.40
Top Rank 42 31 1.35 2 095 49.88
Utrecht Bus & Taxi Rank 7 6 1.17 201 28.71
Amajuba 299 205 13 807 46
Table 4.7 below shows the status quo of subsidies paid by KZNDOT for public transport in
Amajuba.
Table 4.7: Bus Subsidies Paid
Buses required
Bus Average subsidy
Contract No. Area Ave per bus
company Peak Spare Total p.m.
R
ZNT 1165 New Castle 22 7 29 R 18,102.67
524,977.41
TRANSNAT R
ZNT 1166 New Castle 45 7 52 R 19,302.43
COACH 1,003,726.34
LINES R
ZNT 1167 New Castle 5 2 7 R 18,910.69
132,374.86
Based on more recent (March 2008) bus data received from the KZN Department of
Transport it shows that, for Contract Number ZNT 1165_99 T which cover areas such as
Iscor, Newcastle to Madadeni, Osizweni, Annievale and Durnacol, 85 025 passengers were
transported by 1112 bus trips which resulted in an average of 76 passengers per bus.
Contract Number ZNT 1166_99 T which cover areas such as Utrecht, Osizweni and
Madadeni to Newcastle and Ncandu Park, 183 005 passengers were transported by 1 908
bus trips which resulted in an average of 96 passengers per bus. This shows that most of
the routes in this contract are over capacity.
Contract ZNT 1167_99 T which cover areas such as Dundee to Annievale and Surrounding
Area, 24 899 passengers were transported by 310 bus trips which resulted in an average of
80 passengers per bus.
4.3.6 Bakkie and 4+1 taxi Trips and Passenger Volumes (Supply)
The CPTR surveyes conducted at the different public transport facilities showed that
approximately 452 passengers are transported by 70 bakkie trips at an average of 6
passengers per trip. The surveys also showed that the 501 4+1 taxi trips transported 1298
passengers. This results in an average of 3 passengers per 4+1 taxi trip. Table 4.8 shows
the detail information per facility for both bakkie and 4+1 taxis.
Table 4.8: Bakkie and 4+1 taxi Trips and Passengers
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 22 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
# of # of Unique # Trips / # of # of Pass /
Location (Rank)
Trips Taxis Taxi Pass Trip
9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank 1 1 1.00 9 9.00
Charlestown Informal Rank 21 14 1.50 143 6.81
Dannhauser Taxi Rank 6 2 3.00 41 6.83
Khuzani 4+1 Informal Rank 3 2 1.50 14 4.67
Madadeni Section 4+5 Informal Rank 8 8 1.00 48 6.00
Madadeni Shoprite Rank 3 3 1.00 16 5.33
Makhanya Rank 6 5 1.20 40 6.67
Osizweni Main 1 1 1.00 10 10.00
# of # of Unique # Trips / # of # of Pass /
Location (Rank)
Trips Taxis Taxi Pass Trip
Top Rank 10 10 1.00 69 6.90
Utrecht Informal Bakkie 11 10 1.10 62 5.64
Amajuba (Bakkie) 70 56 452 6
Central Car Park (4+1 taxis) 158 34 4.65 353 2.23
Dannhauser Taxi Rank (4+1 taxis) 1 1 1.00 1 1.00
Khuzani 4+1 Informal Rank (4+1 taxis) 112 73 1.53 361 3.22
Makhanya Rank (4+1 taxis) 162 90 1.80 393 2.43
Top Rank (4+1 taxis) 68 53 1.28 190 2.79
Amajuba (4+1 taxis) 501 251 1298 3
4.3.7 Road Infrastructure and Network
This section of the report focuses on the road infrastructure in the study area and will
provide detail information of the following:
Road Classification
Road Surface and
Traffic Volumes
Road Classification
Four types of road classes have been identified according to the KZNDOT database. These
types include the following:
National Roads
These roads denoted with the prefix ‘N’ e.g. N11 and are primarily the responsibility of DOT
and are maintained through the South African Roads Agency.
Provincial Main Roads
These are higher order provincial roads all with the prefix ‘P’ e.g. P296. There is a further
breakdown of this class into types of main roads, each type meeting certain requirements
pertaining to traffic volumes, freight requirements etc and hence not all main roads are
surfaced roads.
Provincial District Roads
All these roads are the responsibility of the KZNDOT and the majority of which are not
surfaced. Again there is a further breakdown into types of district roads, each allocated
different design and maintenance specifications. These roads normal have a prefix ‘D’ e.g.
D5241.
Provincial Local Roads
Formerly these were termed “Community Access Roads” and are classified as third order
roads with minimum design requirements. In this class there is a further breakdown into two
types, namely gravel and earth roads (tracks). These roads generally have a prefix ‘A’ e.g.
A3265.
Figure 4.2 illustrates the road classification of the roads in Amajuba.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 23 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 4.2: Road Classification
4.3.8 Road Surface
The national and provincial main roads are mainly surfaced whilst the majority of district and
community access roads are not. Figure 4.3 shows the extent of surfaced and gravel roads
within Amajuba. Table 4.9 gives an indication of the length of surfaced and gravel roads for
each local municipality. Most community access unsurfaced roads are not constructed to
proper geometric design standards due to the rough terrain and limited funding available.
Several of these access roads are used by public transport vehicles, resulting in high
maintenance cost of vehicles and unsafe travel conditions for passengers. Unsurfaced
roads are often very slippery during the rainy season due to flooding and poor in-situ soil
conditions, which results in the rural communities having no vehicle access or an unreliable
public transport service.
Figure 4.3: Road Surfaced
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 24 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 4.9: Surfacing of roads in Amajuba
Surfaced Unsurfaced Total
Local Municipality Roads (km) Roads (km) Length
Length (%) Length (%) (km)
Newcastle (KZ252) 162,7 44,4% 203,9 55,6% 366,6
Utrecht (KZ253) 115,2 16,3% 592,9 83,7% 708,1
Dannhauser (KZ254) 240,5 46,5% 277,2 53,5% 517,7
Amajuba 518,4 32,6% 1 074,0 67,4% 1 592,4
4.3.9 Traffic Volumes
The highest number of vehicles in Amajuba is on the N11 south of Newcastle with high
traffic volumes on the main provincial road P483 between Newcastle, Madadeni and
Osizweni. The N11 between the P204 (turn-off to Dannhauser) and Newcastle carries in
excess of 10 000 vehicles per day while the P483 carries between 5 000 and 10 000
vehicles per day.
Figure 4.4 shows the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for roads in Amajuba.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 25 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 4.4: AADT volumes of roads in Amajuba
Figure 4.5 shows the Heavy Vehicle AADT in Amajuba. When comparing these two figures
it can be seen that high heavy vehicle volumes occur on the P483 between Madadeni and
the industrial area to the east of Madadeni.
Figure 4.5: AADT volumes of roads in Amajuba .
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 26 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
4.4 Supply of Travel Facilities: Fare and Costs
4.4.1 Passenger User Cost
In order to determine the user cost of the public transport service the KZNDOT in
association with Prof Del Mistro developed a cost model taking into account several
parameters. The user cost is determined for each public transport corridor and averaged for
the district.
This model will however only be introduced later on in the project and user cost has
therefore been calculated as the fare paid for the distance travelled thus resulting in cost per
kilometre travelled.
Table 4.10 shows the average user cost per kilometre travelled for each Local Municipality.
Table 4.10: Average User Cost Per Km Travelled per Local Municipality
Local Municipality Cost/Kilometre
Newcastle Municipality R 0.37
Utrecht Municipality R 0.14
Dannhauser Municipality R 0.17
Amajuba (Weighted Average) R 0.36
The average user cost per kilometre travelled shows that there is a major difference
between Newcastle and the other two Local Municipalities, Utrecht and Dannhauser. The
weighted average for Amajuba (R0.36/km) however is an indication that the majority of
travel occurs within the Newcastle area and is of short distance. The lower cost/kilometre for
both Dannhauser and Utrecht is the results of longer distances that passengers travel. The
average user cost per kilometre based on distance ranges is shown in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Average User Cost Per Km Travelled according to Distance ranges
User Cost / Km
Local Municipality
0 - 5km 5 - 15km 15 - 30km >30km
Newcastle Municipality R 0.43 R 0.60 R 0.36 R 0.33
Utrecht Municipality R 0.00 R 0.00 R 0.21 R 0.18
Dannhauser Municipality R 0.00 R 0.00 R 0.22 R 0.17
Amajuba R 0.43 R 0.60 R 0.34 R 0.31
The table clearly shows that the shorter distance ranges result in higher user cost per
kilometre. Long distance trips (> 30km) have the lowest cost per kilometre. The results
showed that both Utrecht and Dannhauser has no trips and user cost information for trips
less than 15km.
4.5 Passenger Travel Characteristics
4.5.1 Trip Purpose
The purpose of public transport trips within Amajuba is classified into work and non-work
related trip purposes and is shown in Table 4.12. These figures are based on the
Passenger surveys conducted at the different public transport facilities. The purpose of
these trips has been calculated for work and non-work purposes only. For Amajuba, only
13,5% of all public transport trips is work related trips. The facilities in general located within
the urban areas of Amajuba experienced higher percentages of work related trips. Surveys
within Madadeni and Osizweni showed that less than 10% of all public transport trips are
work related.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 27 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 4.12: Trip Purpose according to Public Transport Facilities
Non-Work
Local Municipality Rank Name Work Related
Related
Dannhauser Municipality Dannhauser Bus & Taxi Rank 10.11% 89.89%
Mdakane Rank 18.25% 81.75%
Newcastle Municipality 9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank 12.50% 87.50%
Central Car Park 4+1 14.44% 85.56%
Charlestown Informal Taxi Rank 11.11% 88.89%
Ingogo 10.53% 89.47%
Khuzani 4+1Informal Rank 11.27% 88.73%
Macadam Bus Rank 25.00% 75.00%
Madadeni Court Informal Rank 25.00% 75.00%
Madadeni Sec 4&5 Informal Rank 3.57% 96.43%
Madadeni Shoprite Rank 7.35% 92.65%
Makhanya 8.70% 91.30%
Moyomuhle Informal Taxi Rank 10.34% 89.66%
Newcastle Bus 22.99% 77.01%
Newcastle Local Rank 15.91% 84.09%
Newcastle Long Distance 12.27% 87.73%
Newcastle Madadeni 4.84% 95.16%
Newcastle Osizweni and Blaauwbosch 8.76% 91.24%
Osizweni Busses 14.93% 85.07%
Top Rank 19.67% 80.33%
Utrect Municipality Utrect Bus & Taxi Rank 15.71% 84.29%
Utrect Informal Bakkie 14.29% 85.71%
Amajuba 13.52% 86.48%
Trips purpose was also calculated for the peak and off peak periods. Table 4.13 shows the
distribution of work and non-work related trips during the peak and off-peak periods. The
peak period includes both AM and PM peak periods.
Table 4.13: Trip Purpose according to Peak Periods
Trip Purpose Peak Off Peak
Work 18.21% 81.79%
Non Work 11.23% 88.77%
4.5.2 Passenger Travel Distance
The difference between the straight line distance and that of the actual road length shown in
the table above might imply that certain roads have higher priority because of the longer
length. It is however necessary to determine the importance of these links based on the
number of public transport trips and passenger volumes and not the link length.
Table 4.14 shows the passenger volumes based on the distance ranges as well as the
percentage utilisation for each distance range. From this table it appears as if the majority of
trips in Amajuba exceed 30 km. Although this information is based on the findings of the
2004 CPTR it is anticipated that no major changes would have occurred as an analysis of
the most recent IDP and its associated SDF does not show any major changes to the
settlement patterns within the district. This will mean that the average distances travelled by
passengers on a daily basis would fundamentally remain the same as those observed in
2004.
Table 4.14: Passenger Volumes per Distance Range
Distance range Number of Trips Number of Pass % Utilisation
0-5 km 266 2270 57
5-15 km 69 1017 77
15-30 km 204 3523 81
> 30km 1 382 20 260 78
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 28 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 4.15 compares the passenger kilometres travelled between the straight line and
actual road lengths for each PTC link. From this table it is clear that although some PTC
links might be short in distance, the passenger kilometres travelled on these links are higher
than for the longer links.
Table 4.15: Passenger Kilometres travelled according to PTC
Distance Passenger KM
PTC Description
Straight Line Road Straight Line Road
P1 – N11 from Volksrus to R34 Intersection 32.2 43.9 331493 452325
P2 – N11 from R34 to Newcastle 14.1 17.5 1536678 1901280
P3 – N11 from Newcastle to R621 intersection 15.1 81.5 30809 166150
P4 – N11 from R621 to border (Ladysmith) 25.9 87.1 129043 434688
P5 – Newcastle to Osizweni 16.2 59.5 2007408 7360210
P6 – Osizweni to Utrecht 23.5 84.9 420274 1518045
S1 – R34 from N11 to Utrecht 39.5 124.7 249514 787794
S2 – From Utrecht to Utrecht rural areas 18.7 165.9 65805 583697
S3 – R34 from Utrecht to border (Vryheid) 39.4 154.0 782282 3060525
S4 – Osizweni to Mdakane 16.4 50.1 453474 1384324
S5 – Dannhauser to Mdakane 18.6 56.2 1245103 3759603
S6 – R621 from N11 to Dannhauser 14.9 54.7 6934 25468
S7 – R621 from Dannhauser to border (Dundee) 18.3 86.0 55882 262602
S8 – Newcastle to border (Memel) 28.9 34.7 2023 2430
T1 – Newcastle to Normandien 35.1 39.6 2460 2770
T2 – Mdakane to Dundee/Vryheid road 21.1 102.6 487279 2365284
T3 – Utrecht to Wakkerstroom 34.6 39.5 5709 6521
Total 412.5 1282.2 7 812 169 24 073 718
4.5.3 Passenger Level of Service (LOS) and Delay
The level of service (LOS) is based on the delay experienced by passengers using any
public transport service. Waiting time surveys conducted at each public transport facility
have been used together with a delay model developed by the KZNDOT to determine the
anticipated delay experienced within Amajuba. The LOS only looks at the delay experienced
at the facility and do not include the actual travel time associated with the trip. Delay is
normally expressed in minutes. The average delay is an indication of the efficiency of the
public transport service. There are passenger delays of more than 2 hours especially at the
smaller ranks with limited services or long distance trips. Table 4.16 shows the average
waiting time per public transport facility.
On the basis of the above waiting time / delay the following levels of services are suggested:
Level of Service A - < 10 minutes
Level of Service B - 10 – 20 minutes
Level of Service C - 20 – 30 minutes
Level of Service D - 30 – 60 minutes
Level of Service E - > 60 minutes
Level of Service A represents in reality “No Delay” with a very efficient service provided to
the passengers. Level of Service E represents an “Unacceptable Delay” and refers to an
insufficient public transport service.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 29 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 4.16: Average Waiting Time and Level of Service at PT Facilities
Public Transport Facility AVERAGE LONGEST WAIT LOS
9 Mile Informal Taxi Rank 0:16 0:56:00 B
Charlestown Informal Rank 0:08 0:20:00 A
Khuzani 4+1 Informal Rank 0:10 1:20:00 A
Madadeni Court Informal Rank 0:22 1:32:00 C
Madadeni Section 4+5 Informal Rank 0:10 0:31:00 A
Madadeni Shoprite Rank 0:20 2:46:00 B
Makhanya Rank 0:04 0:34:00 A
Mdakane Taxi Rank 0:14 1:00:00 B
Moyomuhle Informal Taxi Rank 0:24 0:57:00 C
Newcastle 4+1 0:03 1:02:00 A
Newcastle Bus Industrial 0:08 0:26:00 A
Newcastle Bus Main 0:36 2:00:00 D
Newcastle Local Rank 0:09 2:13:00 A
Newcastle Long Distance 0:58 3:05:00 E
Newcastle Madadeni Rank 0:08 1:15:00 A
Newcastle, Osizweni & Blaauwbosch 0:09 1:26:00 A
Osizweni Busses 0:08 1:18:00 A
Top Rank 0:04 0:31:00 A
Utrect Bus & Taxi Rank 0:15 1:17:00 B
Amajuba 0:15 B
4.6 Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities
The status quo of institutional structures can be summarised based on the capability to
perform planning, regulatory and administrative tasks in terms of transport. Table 4.17
shows the capabilities of the six local and district municipalities .
Table 4.17: Status Quo of Institutional Structures
Function Performed
Municipality Name
Planning Regulatory Administrative
KZ252 – Newcastle LM Yes No Yes
KZ253 – Utrecht LM No No No
KZ254 – Dannhauser LM No No No
Amajuba Yes No No
From the table it is clear that most of the local municipalities have limited or no capabilities
in terms of planning, regulatory and administrative functions. Newcastle Municipality
currently has capacity to perform most of these functions relating to public transport.
Against the background of the Constitution, the development of a transport policy and
legislation creates the framework within which the roles and responsibilities of the various
levels of government are defined with regards to matters of transport and within this context,
public transport. The roles and responsibilities of the institutional structures are evolving
within the context of the legislation set out in the first instance in the Constitution, the
Municipal Structures Act and the Municipal Systems Act.
Further, the development of the National Department of Transport (NDOT) White Paper on
National Transport Policy 1996 followed by the National Land Transport Transition Act
(NLTTA 2000) establishes an expanded definition of roles and responsibilities for public
transport at all levels of government. A draft Provincial Transport Framework is currently
being finalised and when available this document should give further direction to this
evolutionary process within KwaZulu-Natal.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 30 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
4.7 Commuter Rail Service
No commuter rail service currently exists within the Amajuba area and is mainly the result of
the location of the Newcastle station in relation to the actual residential areas and the
employments centres. Spoornet is the landowner of the station as well as the rail line
running from Newcastle past Madadeni and Osizweni towards Utrecht. Although the
alignment of the railway line lends itself to the provision of a rail commuter service several
factors hamper the actual provision of such a service. These include:
High capital investment for the provision of rolling stock
Increase is the annual maintenance of the rail line because of the inclusion of
passenger transport service and not only freight service
High capital investment for the provision of suitable stations along the rail line in the
areas of Madadeni and Osizweni
Remote location of the current station in terms of residential areas and employment
opportunities
It is however important to further investigate the possibility to establish a rail commuter
service that will complement the existing public transport service and have a negative
impact on the livelihood of other modes of transport.
5 PUBLIC TRANSPORT VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
5.1 Introduction
Since the promulgation of the NLTTA, Act 22 in 2000 several guidelines have been
developed by National Department of Transport to enable Local Governments and Planning
Authorities to engage in preparing PTPs to further PT within their areas. These planning
authorities in turn are required to develop a Vision, Goals and Objectives relating to National
and Provincial policy. This section of the PTP presents the Vision, Goals and Objectives of
the Public Transport Plan.
Through the public participation process, which took place during the preparation of the first
PTP, the consultancy team developed the following Vision, Goals and Objectives for Public
Transport within Amajuba. These were debated at the Project Steering Committee meetings
and adopted for the PTP. These Visions, Goals and Objectives will still apply and
confirmation thereof was received during the Steering Committee meeting held on Tuesday,
15 April 2008.
5.2 Vision
The following vision has been adopted as the vision for public transport in Amajuba:
“To provide and maintain a safe, reliable, effective and sustainable Public
Transport System and Service, which addresses the transport needs of the
people, supports integrated development and is affordable to both the
community as well as local, provincial and national government.”
5.3 Goals
To enable Amajuba to attain it’s vision several goals were developed taking into account the
packaging of subsidised services and the associated policy, the levels of service to be
provided, the integration with land use development, addressing travel demand
management and the modal integration of services where applicable, hence the following
goals. These goals have been divided into four broad categories namely:
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 31 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Public Transport Operational Goal;
Public Transport Planning and Development Goal;
Road and Facility Infrastructure Goal; and
Public Transport Demand and Safety Goal.
5.3.1 Goal 1: Public Transport Operational Goal
“To promote a cost effective, manageable and reliable Public Transport
Service that will be affordable for Public Transport Users as well as for
Public Transport Suppliers.”
5.3.2 Goal 2: Public Transport Planning and Development Goal
“To provide assistance to Local Government with the implementation of proposals
contained in the Public Transport Plan and to encourage the Integration of Public
Transport Services and Facilities with Land Use Development and the IDP”
5.3.3 Goal 3: Road and Facility Infrastructure Goal
“Improve and Invest in Public Transport Infrastructure (Roads and Facilities) based
on the identified needs and proposals thereby improving the Accessibility to the
Public Transport Service especially in Rural and Deep Rural Areas”
5.3.4 Goal 4: Public Transport Demand and Safety Goal
“To strive to provide a Safe, Reliable, Affordable and Sustainable Public Transport
Service that is based on the Public Transport Demand yet accommodating current
levels of Public Transport Supply”Objectives
In order to attain these goals objectives have been formulated and are also based on the
four broad categories. These objectives include the following: I believe we need to include
something to ensure we establish a state of readiness.
5.4.1 Public Transport Operational Objectives
Objective: To increase public transport usage that will ensure sustainability of the service
without the need to utilise government subsidies. To promote the use of Public Transport
over the use of Private Transport.
Objective: Facilitate and Implement the Operating and Rationalisation Strategy developed
by the District Municipality to ensure safe, reliable, effective and efficient Public Transport
Service for Amajuba.
5.4.2 Public Transport Planning and Development Objectives
Objective: Identify and Agree to the Role and Responsibilities of all Stakeholders regarding
Infrastructure provision, funding, policy development and maintenance.
Objective: Assist Local Government with implementation of the PTP and ensure the
integration with Land Use Planning and the IDP.
Objective: Annual Review of CPTR information and Projects and Proposals as per the
PTP. Review should address gaps in the available information to address any outstanding
issues in the PTP.
5.4.3 Road and Facility Infrastructure Objectives
Objective: Identify Road and Facility related projects to be implemented to will be cost
effective and practical.
Objective: Ensure Continuous Upgrading and Maintenance of Infrastructure to increase the
Accessibility to Public Transport Service for all users in Amajuba.
5.4.4 Public Transport Demand and Safety Objectives
Objective: Promote Proactive Law Enforcement at Provincial and Local Government level
to Reduce Illegal Operations and Improve Road Safety to all Road Users.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 32 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Objective: Encourage the Upgrading and Maintenance of Public Transport Facilities and
Vehicles to align with the new requirements of the Taxi Recapitalisation project.
Objective: Address the needs of special passengers such as scholars and handicapped
people utilising public transport.
6 NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6.1 Factors Affecting Future Travel Demand Patterns
Information relating to these factors has been obtained using existing documentation
amongst others being the latest IDP, SDF and also work done through the MI2 Economic
Development project.
This matter is further described under the relevant section dealing with land use and its
impact on the future transport demands.
Another key aspect in the determination of demand which has been taken into account is
the provision of employment opportunities as the location thereof will have a direct bearing
on passengers travel patterns. These issues are more fully described in the section dealing
with Demand Patterns.
6.2 Public Transport Demand Patterns
The demand for public transport based on the Origin-Destination surveys conducted at the
different public transport facilities throughout the district is presented in this section.
Passenger desire lines are compiled using the sample gathered through the surveys at each
public transport facility and factored to arrive at the population (number of passengers
departing form each public transport facility).
Figures 6.1 to 6.8 shows the public transport desire lines based on the O-D surveys
conducted at the different public transport facilities. The survey (sample) was then factored
to arrive at the Desire Lines based on the population size. The population size is the actual
number of passengers departing from the different public transport facilities during the
survey period. It is anticipated that these tendencies, although observed during surveys
undertaken in 2004, would remain the same as the direction of economic growth in the
District has remained the same. This is clear from the reviewed SDF as well as from
discussions that has taken place with planning staff from the District.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 33 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 6.1: Desire Lines from Charlestown
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 34 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 6.2: Desire Lines from Dannhauser
Figure 6.3: Desire Lines from Ingogo
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 35 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 6.4: Desire Lines from Madadeni
Figure 6.5: Desire Lines from Newcastle
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 36 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 6.6: Desire Lines from Osizweni
Figure 6.7: Desire Lines from Utrecht
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 37 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Figure 6.8: Desire Lines from All Facilities with PTC
6.3 Cost Model Assessment
Kwa-Zulu Natal Department of Transport introduced a Cost Model, developed by Prof Del
Mistro, to be used as part of the assessment of Public Transport Needs in Amajuba. This
cost model allowed for the incorporation of available CPTR data into this model, thus
enabling the consultants to do a quantitative needs assessment of public transport.
This Cost Model however requires data not collected as part of the Current Public Transport
Record.
The purpose of the Cost Model will be to answer the following questions:
What number of vehicle seats should be provided on each Public Transport Corridor to
cater for the needs of public transport users,
Is there an under or over supply of vehicle seats on the different Public Transport
Corridors
Between Minibus-taxi and Bus, which is the more economic mode on each corridor,
What magnitude of Subsidy is needed per Public Transport Corridor? It is important to
note that the subsidy given by the model will be the cumulative subsidy of all the routes
included in the relevant Public Transport Corridor,
In order to be able to answer these questions certain assumptions had to be made
regarding the data input and sections of the model where data is not available. This will
ensure that the cost model provides useful comparative results that can be used as part of
the Needs Assessment. In order to be conservative in the use of the cost model the
following criteria is to be used based on the assumptions:
Determine the number of minibus taxis required to provide the service to address the
demand based on the following assumptions: 100% occupancy rate of vehicles with a
minimum frequency of zero during peak hour, peak period and outside the peak.
Assume a 0% standby fleet; and assume all passengers travel by taxi. Multiply the
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 38 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
number of vehicles required by 15 to obtain the number of seats required on the
corridor.
There has been extensive research done on the cost to operate bus and minibus-taxi
services and so it is assumed that the figures used in the cost model are reliable.
Therefore based on the number of passenger trips on the corridor and minimum
frequencies of 1 vehicle per hour in the peak hour, determine the most economical
mode between bus and minibus assuming: Bus occupancies of 90% with a maximum
standing time of 15 minutes and a minimum 10% standby fleet. For minibus-taxi assume
vehicle occupancies of 100% with no standing time allowance and a minimum of 5%
standby fleet. The most economical mode is then determined by comparing the annual
subsidy required at year 20. Where the subsidy required differs by less than 10% the
modes are assumed to be equally economical. Again it is important to note that the
subsidy results will be for public transport corridors and not individual routes.
It was also assumed that all tickets used are cash tickets with no discounted fares for
either bus or minibus-taxi users.
The needs assessment also included the analysis of the public transport service in
Amajuba based on a Cost Model developed by the KZNDOT. The current passenger
numbers on the different Public Transport Corridors, combined with the passenger
Demand as contained in the above mentioned desire lines were used to prepare the
cost model. The results of the cost model therefore provide an assessment based on
the actual needs of the passengers.
The cost model results provides information on the following issues namely:
Total passenger transport on each PTC,
Estimated Subsidy to determine which mode would be most suitable for each PTC,
Seats required per PTC,
Seats provided per PTC per Public Transport mode,
Estimated Over or Under Supply of seats per transport mode, and
Preferred Mode based on the Estimated subsidy to be paid.
The results of the cost model undertaken in the original PTP are shown in Table 6.1
overleaf.
The figures clearly show that there is not a significant over or under supply of seats with
PTC S4 the highest under supply. Public Transport Corridors with high passenger numbers
in general have either a small percentage over or under supply of seats and it can therefore
be said that the Public Transport Service in Amajuba operate at efficient and effective
levels.
For the purposes of the PTP and the development of the Operating Strategy it is necessary
to establish the preferred mode of transport for each corridor and to advise the relevant
authority on the issuing of future route based permits. It is, however required to do further
detail assessments of each PTC prior, to be able to determine the required number of
permits, if any, per route.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 39 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 6.1: Cost Model Assessment based on the Passenger Demand
Public Total Estimated Seats Minibus Bus Seats Over (+) / Under (-) Over (+) / Under (-) Proposed
Transport Passengers Subsidy Required Seats Provided Supply based on Supply based on vehicle size
Corridor Transported Difference Provided Taxi Seats Bus Seats (Larger /
ID (Bus + / Taxi -) Smaller)
P01 6986 -1.51 2460 1335 2700 -1125 240 Smaller
P02 35024 2.17 5070 5280 5220 210 150 Larger
P03 1721 -1.44 240 345 600 105 360 Smaller
P04 3926 1.29 1560 1920 1860 360 300 Larger
P05 45310 2.48 8985 9585 7380 600 -1605 Larger
P06 15022 -0.23 3255 2310 1620 -945 -1635 Smaller
S01 4150 0.04 1125 840 1380 -285 255 Larger
S02 2718 2.04 1035 1170 2520 135 1485 Larger
S03 8705 -1.09 1650 1395 4200 -255 2550 Smaller
S04 21063 -0.28 6945 4695 3480 -2250 -3465 Smaller
S05 15224 -2.74 2280 1815 420 -465 -1860 Smaller
S06 449 -0.61 75 195 1260 120 1185 Smaller
S07 1767 -1.50 270 285 120 15 -150 Smaller
S08 35 -2.09 15 45 120 30 105 Smaller
T01 35 -1.86 30 30 2280 0 2250 Smaller
T02 10074 16.29 3930 3195 120 -735 -3810 Larger
T03 83 -1.24 60 105 0 45 -60 Smaller
7 INITIAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROPOSAL
7.1 Introduction
Prior to the identification of initial proposals, an Operating Strategy and Rationalisation
Strategy needs to be developed. In order to create practical solutions that can be
implemented it is necessary to identify public transport proposals and projects that would
address the needs of passengers and public transport operators.
For the purpose of this PTP the initial public transport proposals and projects will be
categorised as follows:
Type 1 proposals: Assistance to Local Municipalities
Type 2 proposals: Public Transport Facility Improvements
Type 3 proposals: Road Infrastructure Improvements
Type 4 proposals: Additional Planning Projects
7.2 Operating Licence Strategy
The OLS must provide guidance to the operating licensing board in disposing of applications
for operating licences with particular reference to the following:
The role of each public transport mode and identification of the preferred road-based
mode or modes;
The circumstances in which operating licences or permits should be allowed;
The use of public transport facilities within its area;
The avoidance of wasteful competition between transport operators;
The conclusion of commercial service contracts for unsubsidised public transport
services; and
The conditions that should be imposed by the board in respect of operating licenses.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 40 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
The Operating Licensing Permit application process as obtained from the Public Transport
Licensing Board is shown in Figure 7.1 below.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY DIRECTORATE
PUBLIC TRANSPORT LICENCING BOARD
WORK-FLOW CHART
APPLICATION FORM
1. Applicant obtain application form.
SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FORM
1. Applicant fills in the application and submits it with supporting documents for processing. Before
an application gets processed, the regulatory authority sends an enquiry to the concerned Local
Municipality to determine if there is sufficient spare capacity at the taxi rank. And if there is spare
capacity, then the application goes to the Help Desk.
HELP DESK
1. Checking of Income applications
2. Advising applicants on outstanding documents
3. Recording of all applicants
4. Issuing of acknowledgement
CASHIER
1. Receiving Payments.
2. Receipting of applications
REGISTRY / COUNTER STAFF
REGISTRY:
1. Opening of sub-files for applications
2. Recording of all applicants
3. Applications to be wrapped in a batch
4. Send applications for approval to be gazetted
COUNTER:
Processing of applications: COV’s duplicate permits, temps newly granted permits
AUTHORISATION FOR GAZETTING
1. Checking of all applications and authorize them to be gazetted
2. Recording of all applications.
GAZETTE SECTION
1. Record and gazetting of applications
Registry to intergrate with Main File
AGENDA SECTION
1. Arranging dates for Board Meeting
2. Compilation of Agenda
3. Set applications down for hearing
4. Recording of all heard applications
BOARD’S SECRETARY
1. Recording of all applications
2. Recording of Board’s decision
3. Board’s secretary; Issuance of decision letters
BOARD
Board
1. Recording Board’s decisions
2. Confirming of Minutes of the meeting / decisions
3. Receiving, considering and deciding on applications
ISSUING SECTION
1. Issuance of Permits / Operating Licences
2. Recording of all issued permits / Operating Licences.
Figure 7.1: Operating Licencing Permit Application Process
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 41 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Route list is attached as Annexure B for reference. All the corridors have a combination of
all modes of transport from a 4+1 mode, taxi mode to a bus mode. From Table 6.1 and the
discussion in section 6.3 it is clear that:
PTC P1
Based on required minibus-taxis seats there would be a need for more minibus-taxi of this
corridor should this be the preferred mode. There is not a significant difference in estimated
subsidy and therefore both larger and smaller vehicles would be appropriate modes. PTC
P1 serves mainly long distance travels between Newcastle and Gauteng and the lower
passenger volumes suggest that smaller vehicles be the preferred mode due to the shorter
travel time.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 60% to 100%. Routes KA0188FE, KA0190FE and
KA0193FE operate at 100% capacity and therefore more permits need to be granted.
Routes KA0038FE and KA0173FL operate at 60% and 61%, respectively, therefore some
permits on these routes need to be reduced and passed on to those routes that operate at
100% capacity.
PTC P2
The PTC P2, however, shows much higher passenger volumes than that of P1 and although
there is no significant difference in the estimated subsidy between larger and smaller
vehicles, it is suggested that larger vehicles be the preferred mode to be able to transport
more passengers per trip and thus reduce the traffic volumes on the PTC P2.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 1.67% (this is on route KA0083FL where a vehicle
with an average total capacity of 60 is used to transport 1 person) to 113%. Route
KA0083FL needs to be passed on to a smaller vehicle. The following routes KA0185FE,
KA0211FL and KA0088FL have an average capacity of 100%, 107% and 113%,
respectively capacity and therefore more permits need to be granted.
PTC P3
The PTC P3 shows lower passenger volumes than that of P1 and P2 and the distance of
travel are also much shorter. The cost model results shows no significant difference in the
estimated subsidy between larger and smaller vehicles and it is thus suggested that smaller
vehicles be the preferred mode since less passengers need to be transported.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 40% on route KA0229FI to 115% on route
KA0170FI. Routes KA0179FE, KA0189FE, KA0180FE, KA0186FE, KA0206FL and
KA0170FI operate at 100% capacity and above, therefore more permits need to be granted
on these routes.
PTC P4
The PTC P4 shows similar passenger volumes as that of P3. The cost model results shows
no significant difference in the estimated subsidy between larger and smaller vehicles and it
is thus suggested that larger vehicles be the preferred mode.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 40% on route KA0229FI to 100% on route
KA0186FE. Routes KA0179FE, KA0189FE, KA0180FE and KA0186FE operate at 100%
capacity, therefore more permits need to be granted on these routes.
PTC P5
PTC P5 between Newcastle and Madadeni and Osizweni carries the highest number of
passengers in Amajuba and is the only link between Newcastle and Madadeni and
Osizweni. The current level of traffic congestion on this corridor warrants an increase in the
usage of public transport in the form of larger vehicles. The cost model assessment
however showed the there is no significant difference in the estimated subsidy between
larger and smaller vehicles. The current passenger volumes however suggest that larger
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 42 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
vehicles would be the preferred mode and that the use of larger vehicles would result in less
traffic on this corridor.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 1.67% (this is on route KA0083FL where a vehicle
with an average total capacity of 60 is used to transport 1 person) to 133% on route
KA0066FL. Route KA0083FL needs to be passed on to a smaller vehicle. The following
routes KA0211FL, KA0088FL, KA0206FL, KA0066FL, KA0136FL, KA0137FL, KA0210FL,
KA0213FL, KA0187FE, KA0163FI, KA0063FL, KA0067FL, KAS0094FI, KA0098FI,
KA0138FL, KA0147FI, KA0214FL and KA0001FI have an average capacity of 100% up to
133%, therefore more permits need to be granted on these routes.
PTC P6
The assessment of PTC P6 clearly shows the significant difference between estimated
subsidy between larger and smaller vehicles. This corridor is also one of the few corridors
which shows an under supply in seats for both minibus-taxi and buses. Based on the
assessment it is suggested that smaller vehicles be the preferred mode on P6.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 20% on route KA0232FI to 110% on routes
KA0163FI and KA0089FI. Routes KA0187FE, KA0163FI and KA0089FI operate at 100%
capacity and above, therefore more permits need to be granted on these routes.
PTC S1
According to the assessment of PTC S1 it is suggested that larger vehicles be the preferred
mode. This is based on the difference between the estimated subsidy between buses and
minibus-taxis and the fact that larger vehicle type would be able to provide the most cost
effective service on PTC S1.
Route KA0229FI has an average capacity utilisation of 40%, no more permits needed on
this route and route KA0185FE has an average capacity utilisation of 100% and therefore
some permits need to be reduced from KA0229FI and passed on to route KA0185FE.
PTC S2
The assessment for PTC S2 showed similar results as that of S1 and it is therefore
suggested that larger vehicles be the preferred mode. This is based on the difference
between the estimated subsidy between buses and minibus-taxis and the fact that larger
vehicle type would be able to provide the most cost effective service on PTC S2.
On this corridor route KA0185FE and KA0187FE operate with a 15 capacity vehicle and
have an average capacity utilisation of 100% and therefore more permits need to be
granted.
PTC S3
PTC S3 transports less than 10 000 passengers and the assessment showed that the
estimated subsidy required to render an effective service would favour smaller vehicles.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 88% on route KA0051FI to 110% on routes
KA0163FI. Routes KA0185FE, KA0187FE, KA0163FI and KA00234FI operate at 100%
capacity and above, therefore more permits need to be granted on these routes.
PTC S4
Although this corridor has been classified as a secondary corridor the passenger volumes
on the corridor suggests a much higher priority than initially anticipated. The assessment
indicated that based on the current passenger demand and the difference in required
subsidy PTC S4 should favour smaller vehicles. The assessment also showed that PTC S4
generally has an under supply of seats for both buses and minibus-taxis.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 20% to 142%. Routes KA0088FL, KA0063FL,
KA0067FL, KA0094FI, KA0098FI, KA0138FL, KA0147FI, KA0214FL, KA0001FI, KA0097FI
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 43 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
operate at 100% capacity and above, therefore more permits need to be granted on these
routes.
PTC S5
This corridor showed similar results as that of S4. The high passenger volumes on the
corridor suggest a much higher priority than initially anticipated. The assessment indicated
that the current passenger demand and the difference in required subsidy PTC S4 should
favour smaller vehicles. The assessment also showed that PTC S4 generally has an under
supply of seats for both buses and minibus-taxis.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 27% to 180% on route KA0056FI. Routes
KA0170FI, KA0001FI, KA0056FI and KA0091FL operate at 100% capacity and up to 180%,
therefore more permits need to be granted on these routes.
PTC S6, S7 and S8
The cost assessment for all three of these PTCs showed no significant difference in the
estimated subsidy. The low passenger volumes on all three corridors suggest that smaller
vehicles be the preferred mode on these corridors.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 20% on route KA0044FE to 115% on route
KA0170FI. Routes KA0180FE, KA0186FE, KA0206FL, KA0170FI, KA0170FI and
KA0042FI operate at 100% capacity and up to 115%, therefore more permits need to be
granted on these routes.
PTC T1 and T3
Both PTC T1 and T3 has very low passenger numbers and although the assessment
showed that smaller vehicles be the preferred mode no additional permit be allowed on
these corridors.
Route KA0177FI has an average capacity utilisation of 93% and operating close to capacity,
however, no permit need to be granted on this route.
PTC T2
PTC T2 was initially categorised as a tertiary corridor. The passenger volumes in excess of
10000 however suggest that this corridor is in fact more important. The cost assessment
also showed that taking into account the difference between estimated subsidies larger
vehicles would be the preferred mode of transport on this corridor.
Average capacity utilisation ranges from 44% on route KA0092FI to 88% on route
KA0164FI, however, no permits need to be granted on these routes.
7.3 Rationalisation Strategy
It is important not to only target issues affecting the operational aspects of the public
transport service but to identify routes and services to be targeted for rationalisation. The
aim of the rationalisation plan is to prevent duplications of services on routes, limiting
subsidies paid and reduce over and under utilisation of services.
The development of the Rationalisation Strategy should have both a short-term focus
relating to subsidised interim contracts and current tendered contracts expiring in the near
future, and a long-term focus relating to the overall restructuring of the subsidised public
transport system as a whole, including rail where applicable.
Based on the standard 60 seater and 22 standing bus that was used for the analysis to
prepare the Amajuba CPTR, the bus contracts information received, although limited to the
month of March, was analysed and summarised. The bus contract information was
compared with the bus timetable that was obtained from the KZN Department of Transport.
Discrepancies were picked up where some information appeared on the timetables but did
not appear on bus contract information and visa-versa. In order to rectify these anomalies
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 44 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
the information contained in this report only applies to that information which appears on
both the bus contracts and timetables. It should also be noted that the bus contract
information received did not show the subsidy amounts which are received by the various
bus operators.
The data used to inform the outcomes as list below is attached as Annexure C.
In order to meaningfully analyse the received information it was broken down per route
description on an origin and destination basis.
Description of Routes:
The description of routes for the purposes of the report only describes the major roads
covered by the specific route. In other words the route description indicates the destination
via a certain route.
An example of a route description would be as follows:
Origin: Annievale
Destination: Newcastle
Description: via the internal road network of Springboklaagte to Newcastle.
% of capacity: 100%
The summary is as follows:
Contract Number ZNT 1165_99 T, covers areas such as Iscor, Newcastle to Madadeni,
Osizweni, Annievale and Durnacol.
The following table shows the routes that need some attention as they operate over
capacity:
Origin Destination Description % of Capacity
Surrey Newcastle via Stephenson Street 109%
Newcastle Flip Farm via Stephenson Street 107%
Ama 4 Newcastle via Stephenson Street 107%
Currah Newcastle via Westpoort 101%
All the other routes in this contract operate well within capacity varying from 76% with some
routes operating at 100% capacity.
In this contract not many trips are overcrowded and in instances where it is occurring it is
not of a significant nature. It is therefore recommended that consideration to the granting of
additional minibus taxi permits to take up these numbers be considered. Extension of bus
subsidies in this scenario will not be feasible due to the relatively low numbers which would
not necessarily warrant an additional bus unit.
Contract Number ZNT 1166_99 T, cover areas such as Utrecht, Osizweni and
Madadeni to Newcastle and Ncandu Park.
The following table shows the routes that operate close to capacity:
Origin Destination Description % of Capacity
Newcastle Terminus New Stands via Stephenson 99%
Sandown Stafford Hill - 99%
Newcastle Terminus Section 4 Power Station - 99%
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 45 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
The following routes operate at capacity:
Origin Destination Description % of Capacity
Ezinkonjaneni Newcastle Terminus via Stephenson Street 100%
And all the other remaining 76 routes operate above capacity from 101% to well over
capacity at 178%. On average trips on these routes operate at an unacceptable 140% to
capacity.
In this contract 76 routes are overcrowded and the overcrowding is significant. On average
the routes are overcrowded by approximately 33 passengers per trip. In light of this it is
recommendation that a 35-seater minibus taxi permit be granted per route or alternatively
the operation of a smaller bus type vehicle should it be considered desirable to rather
extend an existing subsidy as opposed to granting additional taxi permits.
Contract Number ZNT 1167_99 T, cover areas such as Dundee to Annevale and
Surrounding Area.
The following table shows routes that need some attention as they operate over capacity:
Origin Destination Description % of Capacity
Dundee Annievale via Emasangweni 101%
Annievale Dundee via Rutland/Tayside 101%
Fairbreeze T-off Dundee via Emasangweni 105%
Dundee Annievale via Tayside/Westpoort 107%
Fairbreeze T-off Dundee via Hattingspruit 105%
Dundee Annievale via Tayside/Fairbreeze 102%
Dundee Fairbreeze T-off via Tayside/Banff 107%
Fairbreeze T-off Dundee via Banff/Hattingspruit 101%
All the other routes in this contract operate well within capacity from 74% with some routes
operating at 100% capacity.
In this contract not many trips are overcrowded and in instances where it is occurring it is
not of a significant nature. It is therefore recommended that consideration to the granting of
additional minibus taxi permits to take up these numbers be considered. Extension of bus
subsidies in this scenario will not be feasible due to the relatively low numbers which would
not necessarily warrant an additional bus unit.
7.4 Assistance to Local municipalities
Projects to assist Local Municipalities should include among others:
Consultation with ALL stakeholders including operators (bus taxi & bakkie), PT users,
local municipalities, other government departments;
Establishing a Section 78 process to assess the capacity and capability of Local
Municipalities to be able to implement the proposals - e.g. assigning responsibility to
comment on PT operating licence applications, assigning responsibility for the
management of PT facilities, investigating the establishment of a transport authority,
funding systems, etc;
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 46 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
7.5 Public Transport Facility Improvements
The proposed projects are summarised below for consideration. The prioritisation of these
proposals is based on the passenger demand as determined by the CPTR. Criteria should
be developed regarding the minimum standards and amenities to be provided at the
different public transport facilities. Special requirements to accommodate disable persons
should also be included in these standards. For the purposes of the PTP ranks with more
than 700 passengers is earmarked for an upgrade and the building of new facilities.
Table 7.1: Proposed Public Transport Facility Improvements
Number of
Name of Facility Type of Improvement Expected Cost
Passengers
Top Rank 3374 New Ranking facility > R 1.5 mil
Dannhauser Bus Rank 2595 New Ranking facility > R 1.5 mil
9 Mile Rank 1738 New Ranking facility Between R 1 mil and R1.5 mil
Madadeni sec 4&5 1018 New Loading facility Less than R 1 mil
Moyomuhle Rank 703 New Ranking facility Between R 1 mil and R 1.5 mil
Madadeni Sec 7 N/A New Ranking facility Less than R 1 mil
Dannhauser Taxi Rank 1728 Rank upgrade Less than R 1 mil
Additional Ranking facility – >32 000 Additional ranking facility > R 1.5 mil
New Castle Taxi/Bus rank
Bus and Taxi rank at N/A New Ranking facility Less than R1 mil
Amantungwa
Shelters and seating at pick N/A Shelters and seating Less than R 1 mil
points on PT routes in rural
areas
The location of minibus-taxi facilities are normally identified spontaneously by minibus-taxi
operators wherever open space is available and where it is convenient for their business to
draw as many passengers as possible. Little consideration is given to the areas already
identified through the town planning scheme as possible public transport facilities or to the
actual ownership of these open space they occupy. Any future locations of minibus-taxi
facilities should be done in accordance with the town planning scheme and suitable land
identified by both local municipalities and public transport operators.
7.6 Road Infrastructure Improvements
The identification of these road infrastructure improvements in based on the need to
increase accessibility to certain communities, passengers demand and reducing the
distance passengers need to travel and passenger volumes on a road. The proposed
projects are summarised below.
Table 7.2: Proposed Road Infrastructure Improvements
Local Estimated
Road No Distance Passengers Type of Improvement
Municipality Cost
P272 Dannhauser 25km > 21 000 Upgrade and maintenance > R 10 000
000
New Road Newcastle 5km > 15 000 New Road between > R 10 000
expected Madadeni and Newcastle 000
industrial area including the
upgrade of current
pedestrian bridge to
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 47 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
accommodate vehicles
New Road Newcastle 15km > 5 000 New road between 9 Mile > R 10 000
and Kilbargan to allow for 000
direct access to mines in the
area
New Road Utrecht 45km > 1 500 New road between Utrecht > R 50 000
and Wakkerstroom to 000
encourage economic
development in Utrecht and
accommodate passenger
needs
Knights Hill Utrecht N/A N/A Surfacing of gravel passes < R 10 000
and Burgers to improve accessibility 000
passess
Road Utrecht N/A N/A Re-opening of the road < R 5 000 000
between between Iscor and Utrecht
ICOR and via Kruger bridge
Utrech
Access Utrecht N/A N/A Upgrading existing access < R 10 000
Road to road 000
Nzima
7.7 Additional Planning Projects
The PTP is aimed at improving public transport and making it more accessible the all PT
users. The information contained in the CPTR and the PTP however do not allow for detail
assessments on major public transport corridors. Several PTC have been identified for
further Public Transport related planning projects and are summarised below:
Table 7.3: Additional Planning Projects
Public Transport Corridor ID Passenger Volumes Expected Cost
P02 (Newcastle Municipal Area) > 35 000 Between R 200 000 and R 300 000
P05 and P06 (Newcastle to Utrecht via MR483) > 55 000 Between R 350 000 and R 500 000
S04 (Osizweni to Mdakane) > 21 000 Between R 200 000 and R 300 000
S05 (Mdakane to Dannhauser) > 15 000 Between R 200 000 and R 300 000
T02 (Mdakane to P34-2) > 10 000 Between R 200 000 and R 300 000
/investigation input the Feasibility of reinstating > 20 000 Between R 350 000 and R 500 000
the Commuter rail service
8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
8.1 Consultations and Workshops
This section of the report will be completed at the end of the process to ensure that all
consultation is accurately recorded.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 48 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
9 PRIORITISED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROPOSALS
Information required to do a detailed assessment and prioritisation of projects and proposals
was not available as part of preparing the CPTR or PTP. Because of insufficient data as a
result of the prescribed process followed during the data collection phase of the CPTR no
information is available to prepare a list of quantitative prioritised multi-modal transport
proposals.
Therefore a method has been developed to at least attempt to prioritise listed projects and
proposals. It is however suggested that the different projects and proposals are prioritised at
least according to the following five factors:
Number of daily passenger that are using the facility (road, rank, etc.);
The importance of rural upliftment; (high, medium, limited; this is a judgement)
A cost factor, (cost per capita using, benefits, etc); the higher the return on the
investment the higher the likelihood to implement the project; (high, medium, low; this is
an estimate)
Improvement of safety aspects; (High, medium or low; this is a judgement)
Level of sophistication required to implement the project; (high, medium, low; this is a
judgement)
The above are presented in Chapter 10.
10 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The list below provides guidelines to the different spheres of government regarding the
prioritisation and possible financial implications of the projects and proposals identified
through the PTP. It is important to mention that no funding has been allocated to any of
these projects and possible sources of funding should be determined at an appropriate time.
The estimated cost for implementing the different projects is purely an indication of what the
cost could be and how much funding is required to implement the identified projects. Funds
are limited over the next few years because of the DM dealing with a backlog of projects.
The table gives an estimation of project proposals and project costs. An attempt to prioritise
the projects was also done using the criteria mentioned in Chapter 9. The following ranking
criteria are suggested:
A: Projects are extremely important. Funding to be allocated within the next three
years;
B: Projects are important. Funding needs to be allocated between three and 5 years
form now;
C: Projects are required but due to more important projects, these may be funded after
year 5.
In Table 10.1 shows the list of projects. Funding has not been allocated to any of these
projects. This must change once these have been included into the Amajuba IDP.
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 49 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
Amajuba District Municipality Amajuba District Municipality : Public Transport Plan
Review Report
Table 10.1: Project Proposals
Project Estimated Cost
Local Funding
Project
Name of Project Type of project Municipal Responsibility Allocated
Minimum Maximum Priority
area (Yes/No)
Workshops with Taxi Operators State of Readiness R 20,000 R 40,000 A Amajuba DM No
Workshops with Bus Operators State of Readiness R 20,000 R 40,000 A Amajuba DM No
Section 78 Assessment State of Readiness R 500,000 R 500,000 A Amajuba DM No
Top rank: New ranking Facility Facility R 2,000,000 R 2,000,000 B Newcastle LM No
Dannhauser Bus Rnk: New bus rank Facility R 2,500,000 R 2,500,000 B Dannhauser LM No
9 Mile Rank: New Ranking facility Facility R 1,000,000 R 1,500,000 B Newcastle LM No
Madadeni Sec 4 & 5: New ranking Facility Facility R 750,000 R 1,000,000 C Newcastle LM No
Moyomuhle Rank: New ranking facility Facility R 1,000,000 R 1,500,000 B Newcastle LM No
Madadeni Sec 7: New ranking facility Facility R 750,000 R 1,000,000 C Newcastle LM No
Dannhauser taxi rank: Rank upgrade Facility R 500,000 R 750,000 C Dannhauser LM No
P272 Road R 5,000,000 R 10,000,000 A Newcastle KZN DOT No
Madadeni Bridge link Road/Bridge R 10,000,000 R 20,000,000 A Newcastle KZN DOT No
9 Mile to Kilbargan Road R 10,000,000 R 15,000,000 B Newcastle KZN DOT No
Utrecht to Wakkerstroom Road R 50,000,000 R 60,000,000 A Utrecht ARUPP Yes
Public Transport Corridor Study 1: P02 Planning R 200,000 R 300,000 A Amajuba DM No
Public Transport Corridor Study 2: P05 and P06 Planning R 350,000 R 500,000 A Amajuba DM No
Public Transport Corridor Study 3: S4 Planning R 200,000 R 300,000 A Amajuba DM No
Public Transport Corridor Study 4: S5 Planning R 200,000 R 300,000 A Amajuba DM No
Public Transport Corridor Study 4: T02 Planning R 200,000 R 300,000 A Amajuba DM No
Surface Knights Hill and Burgers Passes Road R 4,000,000 R 4,200,000 A Utrecht LM No
Re-open Iscor Utrecht Road Road R 3,000,000 R 3,600,000 A Utrecht LM & DM No
Nzima access road Road R 7,000,000 R 7,200,000 A Utrecht LM No
Public transport facility at Amantungwa Facility R 800,000 R 1,200,000 C Utrecht LM No
Shelters and seats at pickup points Facility R 600,000 R 800,000 C Utrecht LM No
Feasibility study into reinstatement of rail commuter services Planning R 300,000 R 500,000 C Amajuba LM No
D:\DOCSTOC\WORKING\PDF\D2F394DA-CEEF-4DA1-8DDE- Page 50 Arup SA (Pty) Ltd
A5D5327F944E.DOC Final Draft 7 November 2008
