Rail Planning Course Part A - Pieter Onderwater

2017/02/28

BSc Course TCVD3881

Railways and Public Transport
Systems

March – June 2017

Pieter Onderwater
[email protected]

Intro
Pg 1

Pieter Onderwater (1962)

Education:
• 1980 – 1988 Technical University Delft: Civil Engineer, MSc

Traffic & Transport: PT/Rail Planning
• 2016 – now University of Cape Town: PhD on PT Planning

Work:

• 1988 Swiss Railway Company, University Delft

• 1989 – 1991 Goudappel Coffeng T&T Consultancy

• 1991 – 1993 Municipality of The Hague

• 1995 – 2001 Goudappel Coffeng T&T Consultancy

• 2001 – 2006 Municipality / City Region of Rotterdam

• 2006 – 2011 DHV Consultants Rail, the Netherlands

• 2011 – 2013 SSI / Royal HaskoningDHV, South Africa

• 2013 – now SMEC, South Africa

• 2000 – now Lecturer at Universities in the Netherlands, and Cape Town

1

2017/02/28

Intro
Pg 2

PT / Rail Planning framework

Social, Culture

Urban Planning Passenger Passenger Economy
& Development Market Quality needs Ind. – Comp. – Nat.

Network Operational
Level of Service Business Case

Capacity Cost Benefit
Infrastructure Analyses

Policy, Organisation

Intro
Pg 3

Passenger’s position / influence

Citizen Indirect influence: Government
Passenger Elections • National
• Provincial
Direct influence: • Local
Mobility choice
Budget
Car Quality of Service
PT / Train Dep. of Transport
Walk Transport Authority
… or: no mobility Public Works

Funding

Infra Provider
• Road and Rail
PT Operator
• PT / Train Service

 Little influence by passenger  Task of PT/Rail Planner ….!

2

2017/02/28

A.2
Pg 1

Mobility – Public Transport

1. Mobility
2. Passenger’s mobility budgets
3. Definition and objectives of PT
4. PT Users and travel motives
5. Income and Car ownership
6. Mobility and Modal split

Goals:
• To understand current SA’s Mobility patterns and PT use
• Comparison to the Western world
• Possible future Mobility developments
• Why we need to improve PT

A.2.1
Pg 1

Mobility

Mobility is not a purpose on itself
• It is a means to get involved in economic and social activities:

– It allows the population to go to work, school, shopping, visit
– It supports economic and social development
Definitions:
• Mobility = movement of people (and goods)
– Measured by  passenger-kilometres, trips
– By different modes  access to these modes is important
• Accessibility = the ability to reach desired activities / opportunities
– Work, schools, shops, services, other contacts, etc.
– Measured by  person trips, time (Generalised Costs)
– By all modes (incl. NMT (even ICT ?))  access of the destinations by

different modes is equally important
– To support economic and social development

3

2017/02/28

A.2.1
Pg 2

Mobility influencing aspects

External influence aspects:
• Demographic:

– Size / growth of population, household size, age (pensioners, youth)
• Economic:

– Employment, jobs, income, car ownership; scale of development
• Spatial:

– Urban pattern, mix of functions, distances, density
• Social-cultural:

– Individualisation, job participation, leisure time

Internal influence aspects:
• Quality Level of Service (of all modes: car, PT/Train, walk)
• Personal mobility ‘budgets’

A.2.2
Pg 1

Mobility budgets

Personal Mobility Budgets:
• Money
• Time
• Effort (Physical / Mental)

Mobility is at the costs of these budgets
• Trip fare (or petrol, toll, parking costs)
• Trip time
• Effort: walking, understanding the system, stress, etc.
But the economic and social activities, charge your personal budgets:

– Money for work (education is a long-term investment: it provides
knowledge, for better work opportunities later on in life)

– Relaxation / socialising  charges your mental effort budget  and with
that, has impact on your physical effort budget

4

2017/02/28

A.2.2
Pg 2

Money budget

National Policy in SA:
• Households should not spend more then 10% of their income on

Transportation

• To reduce travel costs:
– Choose cheaper modes of transport: Car  PT  Walk
• At the costs of other budgets (time, effort)
• Use cheaper PT mode: Minibus  Bus  Train (or fare evasion…?)
– Or not travel at all  reducing economic and social development

• Benefit of the (trip to) work activity  it charges your financial budget

A.2.2
Pg 3

Time budget

People have limited time budget: 24 hr/day *: Maslow:

• Sleep = 8 hr Nice
to have
• Personal care, eating = 4 hr Good
to have
• Work, school, household = 8 hr Need to have

• Socialise, leisure, sport, etc. = 2½ hr

• Mobility = 1½ hr/day

(average: some people 0 hr, others >2 hrs)

General:
• Time spend on Mobility is Constant
• 45-60 min travel time is acceptable for a metropolitan commuter trip

– If transport is slow (e.g. walking)  accessibility is limited
– If it takes too much time, it will be at the expense of another activity
• Value of Time is different for Captives / Choice Users: “Time is Money”

* Values are rough indications

5

2017/02/28

A.2.2
Pg 4

Effort budget

• Physical effort
– Accessibility to PT  it takes effort to walk: long distances, hilly areas
– Disability  ‘physical effort budget’ is very limited  it takes too much
effort, or even inaccessible  Universal Access policy
– Also carrying bags, etc.

• Mental effort
– Unreliable time (e.g. delays, congestion)  stress
– PT is (often) a more relaxed mode of travel (work, read, sleep)
• These activities in PT ‘save’ time, otherwise spent at other times
• Compared to road congestion, stress, physical effort of driving yourself
– If the PT system is too complicated, it requires too much mental effort

• Benefit of the (trip to) social activity  it charges your mental effort budget
– And positive mental energy influences your physical effort / budget
– Subjectively influences time budget: “time flies when you’re having fun"

A.2.3
Pg 1

Public Transport definitions

Definition (1) of Public Transport:
• It brings you from where you are not, to a place you don’t want to be, at

an inconvenient time; it is expensive, dangerous, dirty and uncomfortable

Definition (2) of Public Transport:

• Public Transport = a shared passenger service which is available for use to

the general public:

– Passenger, not Freight

– Public, not Private: it is available, accessible for all

– Collective, not Individual: it combines travel needs of many

– Transport (of passengers) Traffic (of trains / buses)

– It is a Service You pay for it

• Public Transit, Mass Transit, Mass Rapid Transit

6

2017/02/28

A.2.3
Pg 2

Public Transport objectives

• Three main stakeholders: Passenger – Operator – Government

• Primary objectives of Public Transport:

– Social: provide transport to people without private transport

– Economic: provide connectivity to activity nodes

• Passenger, and Government

• Secondary objectives:

– Commercial: positive business case / sustainable subsidies

• Operator, and Government

– Environmental: public transport is more sustainable than car

• Government, and Passenger

– Strategic: Prevent monopolism / dependency on 1 mode

A.2.4
Pg 1

Public Transport users

Mobility user groups:

• PT Captives: people without private transport (social objective)

• Choice Users: people have a car available, and PT (economic objective)

Choice is made, depending on motive and quality

• Car Captives: where PT is (perceived to be) no alternative

(but other household members don’t have the car available...)

• Quality is perceived differently for Captives and Choice Users

• Compare PT quality with ‘competitors’:

– Between PT modes: train, bus, minibus-taxi

– With private transport: car, bicycle (?), walk

• In Africa: 90 % of PT = social objective for Captives
• In NL / Europe: But Africa is developing  more Choice Users
90 % of PT = economic objective for Choice Users
But Europe’s PT once was for PT-Captives

7

2017/02/28

A.2.4
Pg 2

Public Transport travel motives

• Travel motives: SA NL
40 %
– Work 45 % low
yes
• Unemployment = high 20 % (less youth, more cycling)
5%
– Business 35 % (high income, pensioners)

– School 40 %

– Shopping 5%

– Social / Leisure 10 %

• Quality of PT is perceived differently for different motives:
– Work related trips – private social trips
– Individual trips – family trips
– Value-of-Time is different for High – Low-Income / travel motive

A.2.5
Pg 1

Influence of income / car ownership

• The moment people have some income  they buy a car
– And as soon they can afford fuel  they use their car
– Car is a (social) status symbol
– Car is the key to development, it provides (economic) security

• No/Low-Income = PT Captives

– Quality  Affordability, connectivity

• Middle/High-Income = Choice Users

– Quality  Connectivity/time, safety/security, comfort, affordability

• (Very) High-Income = (perceived) Car Captives

– But adaptive to change (due to traffic congestion, sustainability)..?

– Quality  Safety/security, comfort, connectivity/time

8

2017/02/28

A.2.6
Pg 1

Travel pattern per household / person

Income level: No Low Middle High Very High
Trip purposes
in household Job seeking Job Job Job(s) Jobs, business
School, shop School, shop School, shop School, shop School, shop
Trips / person Social Social, leisure Social, leisure
Car availability 0.5 – 1 1 – 1.5
Modal Split 1.5 – 2 2 – 2.5 2.5 – 3
No Hardly
Partly Mostly Multiple
Walk = 50 % Walk = 40 %
PT = 50 % PT = 50 % Walk = 30 % Walk = 20 % Walk = 10 %
Car = 0 % Car = 10 % PT = 40 % PT = 20 % PT = 0 %
Car = 30 % Car = 60 % Car = 90 %

* Values are rough indications

Trips
PT %

A.2.6
Pg 2

Effect of future economic development

SA is partly a developing country, partly developed
Once development is ‘mature’ (in 20 or 50 years time?), then:
• Demographic changes:

– First a fast growth: due to increased life expectations
– Later consolidation: no growth of population
– More / smaller households: less youth, more retired people
• Economic changes:
– More employment  more mobility
– More income  more car ownership / use  more mobility
• Social-cultural changes:
– More social travel motives  more off-peak travel
– Some sustainability awareness  Choice Users  more PT use

Relatively much higher modal split % car, less % PT/Train
But nevertheless: absolute growth PT/Train use

9

2017/02/28

A.2.6
Pg 3

Can we learn from NL mobility ?

The Netherlands 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Km/year / person 4.000 6.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 12.500 13.000
. Car (driver + pass) %
. PT (train + bus) % 15 30 60 75 75 75 75
. NMT (walk + cycle) % 20+20 15+15 8+7 6+4 10+5 10+5 10+5
25 15 10 10 10
45 40

South Africa 2010 SA Dbn GP CT 2050
Km/year / person x2
. Car (driver + pass) % ???? 70
. PT (train + bus/taxi) % 10+10
. NMT (walk) % 25 30 35 35 10

5+20 5+35 10+25 15+20

50 30 30 30

* Values are rough indications

A.2.6
Pg 4

Future mobility and modal split

• Demographic: Population will grow

• Economic: Lower-Inc. groups will get smaller; Higher-Inc. groups will grow

 Less people with high PT use; more people with low PT use more Car !

• Policy: PT Modal split % for all groups will get higher…

 Overall: PT/Train % will decrease Car % up

 Overall: absolute number of PT/Train trips will increase Car also !!

current: future:

Trips Middle High No Low Middle High Very High
PT % Income

No Low
Income

10

2017/02/28

A.2
Pg 2

Wrap Up: Mobility Policy

Why improve Mobility – PT/Train quality – Modal split %:
• Offer better quality for existing passengers (Captives):

– Even “poor-men’s-transport” deserves better
– With economic growth the No/Low-Income market will become smaller
 Retain existing market
• Try to attract new passengers (Choice Users):
– Choice User (+ perceived Car Captives) market will grow
– Policy: Modal Shift from Car  PT/Train

• Via ‘Pull’ (improve PT quality), or via ‘Push’ (reduce Car quality)
– ‘Drivers’: Traffic congestion, Environmental sustainability awareness
 Attract new markets

A.2
Pg 3

Questions ?

Any questions ?

[email protected]

Time for a brief test…

11

2017/02/28

A.3
Pg 1

Passenger’s Quality needs

Quality needs:
1. Safety and Security
2. Travel Time
3. Convenience
4. Comfort
5. Experience

Goals:
• To understand different Quality aspects
• Based on personal needs (Maslow)
• Different for Captives / Choice Users
• Why and How to improve PT

A.3
Pg 2

Quality Pyramid

Based on ‘Maslow’

Nice to have

Good to have

Need to have And costs

Developed by: Dutch Railway Company
Mark van Hagen, 2003

12

2017/02/28

A.3.1
Pg 1

Quality aspect 1: Safety and Security

• Cheap fares
• Physical safety
• Personal safety

– Objective versus subjective perception

A.3.1.1
Pg 1

Quality 1: Security of cheap fares

At present in SA: Train is the cheapest mode of transport:
• ‘Social’ objective of PT transport

– Government policy: < 10 % of household income to spend on transport
– For the company: low revenues from passengers do not cover operational

costs  subsidies from government
Possible developments:
• Keep price low (fare increase == inflation / Consumer Price Index CPI)

– Compared to other modes (fuel prices go up faster…)
• With improved quality  increase the price ?
In NL / Europe:
• Bus is the cheapest mode of transport
• Fare price is hardly an issue (increase is mostly Government regulated: > CPI)
• Passengers are prepared to pay higher fares for more quality

– Train > Bus, 1st / 2nd class, High Speed supplement, etc.

13

2017/02/28

A.3.1.1
Pg 2

Ticket system and fares

• Train (25 km) =R7 (= 30ct / pass.km) E7
(E 4)
– Return ticket = R 10, weekly = 4 returns; monthly = 12 days (15ct)
same
–  Average =R4 (= 15ct / pass.km)

• Gautrain (25 km) = R 25 (= R1 / pass.km)

• Bus (25 km) = R 10 (= 40ct / pass.km) E4
(15ct)
– 10 trips = 10-20 % discount (= 60ct / pass.km) same
(= 50ct-R1 / pass.km) n/a
• BRT (25 km) = R 15

• Minibus-taxi (25 km) = R 12-20

• Car (25 km) = R 25 on fuel (= R1 / pass.km) E4
(E 10)
– + parking and toll (?), + maintenance, + instalments (40ct)

– Total costs = R 60-80 (= R3 / pass.km)

* Values are rough indications

A.3.1.1
Pg 3

Fare structures

Fare price

Flat fare Per km fare Entry fare + per km Staggered zone fare

Easy to operate ‘Logical’ system Avoid free ultra Easier to operate
Cheap for long Ultra short trips short trips Small inconveniences
trips almost ‘for free’
Expensive for
short trips

This model reflects best:
• Operational Costs
• Willingness to Pay
• Travel Time

14

2017/02/28

A.3.1.1
Pg 4

Fare integration

Fare price

Flat fare Per km fare Entry fare + per km Staggered zone fare

Influence on fares, by changing to another PT service:

Double fare No influence Double entry fare Irregular effects

Passengers prefer direct trips (to avoid additional costs), or walk…
 Fare integration will reduce these effects  equal price while changing

A.3.1.1
Pg 5

Reduced fares for target groups

Promotion of PT/Train  increase use, new markets

• Discounts:

– Regular users (reward regular users)  monthly tickets

– Off-peak (reduce peak travel)  half price

– Elderly (increase their mobility)  half price / free

– Students (development)  ‘free’ yearly ticket

– Etc.

• Peak supplements:

– Gautrain (to relieve AM peak)

• Combi-tickets:  event price incl. PT fare
– Sport events, etc. (reduce car peaks)  incl. Parking
– Jo’burg FNB stadium (plus extra trains)

15

2017/02/28

A.3.1.1
Pg 6

Fare evasion  Access Control

Fare evasion = approx. 5 or 20 % (train) ? None (?) for bus/minibus

• Electronic ticketing, access control versus Job creation …?!

• More revenue  Less passengers

 Improved sense of personal safety

A.3.1.2
Pg 1

Quality 1: Physical safety

Physical safety (accidents) = basic condition (dis-satisfier)  Safety first !!

• Subjective perception: PT/Train is not safe 
• Objective facts: Train is very safe.! 
Minibus-taxi not…! 

• Number of Train accidents, casualties = very low (compared to car, taxi):

– Passengers (hardly any accidents, but huge impact) 2

 upgrade infra / signalling, reduce human errors

– ‘Stupid’ behaviour passengers (train surfing, exit moving train)  20

 upgrade facilities, education

– ‘Stupid’ behaviour of others / non-passengers  200*

• Cars on level crossings  level-free crossings

• Pedestrians walking along / crossing PRASA tracks *

 fence-off rail track, pedestrian bridges

– Suicides… ? * * similar situation at Transnet tracks

16

2017/02/28

A.3.1.2
Pg 2

Compare to Traffic Safety

• PT safety:
– 20 passenger casualties in Train service
– 200 other casualties by train accidents
– Approx. 500 (?) passenger casualties in Bus / Minibus-taxi service

• Traffic safety in SA:
– 14,000 casualties, incl. other casualties (pedestrians) by car accidents

• So 5-10 % of casualties, with 50 % of mobility  PT is safe !

• Subjectively:
– In PT, you are not in control, you don’t trust others  people don’t feel
safe  but you should feel safe, and trust the professional driver..!
• Minibus-taxi drivers are an exception….
– In a car, (you think) you are in control, and everyone considers himself an
above-average driver  unrightfully so…

A.3.1.3
Pg 1

Quality 1: Personal safety

Personal safety (incidents) = basic condition (dis-satisfier)

• Subjective perception: PT/Train is not safe 

– Whites and Indians feel less safe then Blacks and Coloureds

• Objective facts: Crime rates are quite low

and improving

(or not reported anymore?)

• But still: (attempted) murder, rape, assault, robbery, theft

– Towards passengers and staff  700 security reports (= 2 / day)

• Decrease number of incidents, by:

– At stations  clean clear environment, more staff, cctv, etc.

– In vehicle  less overcrowding, more staff

– Clear sight: ‘be able to see, and to be seen’

– Police presence, law enforcement

– Perception, experience, marketing

17

2017/02/28

A.3.2
Pg 1

Quality aspect 2: Travel time

• Time budget = 45-60 min per trip
• Trip time:

– Access
– Wait
– Ride
– Change
– Egress
• Reliability
• In relation to car

A.3.2
Pg 2

Quality 2: Travel time

45-60 min travel time is acceptable for metropolitan commuter trips:

• Transport to/from station  max 10 min  influence area <1 km

• Waiting time  max 10 min  headway <15-20 min

• Time in vehicle  max 20-30 min  distance 10-20 km
• Change time

• Delays…

ride = 1

Perception of time: walk = 1½ - 2 (= physical effort)

* Values are rough indications wait = 2 - 3 (unless ‘entertained’)

18

2017/02/28

A.3.2.1
Pg 1

Travel time: Access / Egress

Transport to/from station: 10 min (max 15)
• Determines the primary station influence area  ½ / 1 / 2 km
• Improvements:

– Quality of walking links
 Provide pedestrian facilities

– Water streams, Freeways, etc.
 Short-cuts, pedestrian bridges

– ‘Vertical’ distance, cliffs, ridges, etc.

A.3.2.1
Pg 2

Access and Egress to/from stations

10 (max 15) min to/from the station = MBT Metrorail Gautrain NL train

• At the origin (access):

– ½ – 1 km walk 100 % 80 % 10 % 30 %

– 2 – 5 km cycling (incl. parking) 0 0 35 %

– 2 – 3 km PT (incl. walking and waiting) 20 % 10 % 25 %

– 2 – 5 km car (incl. parking and walking) 0 80 % 10 %

• At the destination (egress):

– ½ – 1 km walk 100 % 85 % 40 % 60 %

– 2 – 3 km PT (incl. walking and waiting) 15 % 35 % 30 %

– no cycling, no car (metered cab, pick-up) 0 25 % 10 %

* Values are rough indications

19

2017/02/28

A.3.2.1
Pg 3

Access to different PT systems

• Access PT systems

– Minibus-taxi  street corners  very short access time

• Or only at taxi ranks ?  long access time

– Bus  at bus stops  short access time

• BRT has less stops  medium access time

– Train  at stations  long access time

A.3.2.2
Pg 1

Travel time: Wait

Pass.Waiting time: max 10 min  headway <15-20 min
• Average waiting time = half of headway (people come to station randomly)
• Unless timetable is known (and easy to memorise)  max 5-10 min

– Leave at last moment  spend time at home/work, more useful
• Very high frequency = ‘no’ waiting time

Average waiting time

20

2017/02/28

A.3.2.3
Pg 1

Travel time: Ride

Time in vehicle: max 20-30 min  distance 10-20 km
• Depends on max speed (infra, vehicle), stops (time loss)
• How to reduce in-vehicle time:

– Higher max speed: infra and rolling stock
• Not always possible: winding hilly conditions

– Improve rolling stock (braking, acceleration, stop-procedure time)
– Less stops (close down stations…)  consider Express service

A.3.2.4
Pg 1

Travel time: Change

Change time:  Walk to next platform
• Actual time  Half of headway, or Timetable coordination
• Waiting time  Discomfort: walking, waiting, find a seat
• ‘Time Penalty’
Subjective penalty = 10 min ?

21

2017/02/28

A.3.2.5
Pg 1

Travel time: delays

Delays / unreliability in time:
• Due to ‘failures’ in infra, vehicles, operational plan, staff  Operations
• Secondary delays: when 1st service is late, you might miss connection to 2nd

service

Impact of delays:

• Longer trip time  late arrival

 lose your job, miss exam, disappoint a date

• Compensate for possible delay  leave early

 mostly you would arrive too early

By-the-way: unreliability of (congested!) road traffic is worse than PT

A.3.2
Pg 3

Quality 2: Travel time, compared with Car

So 45-60 min travel time by train equals a distance of 10-20 km
By car: 10-20 km only takes 15-20 min…  PT time = x 3 – 4

PT can ‘never’ be faster than Car, unless:
• Unreliable time due to Congestion and searching for Parking (5-10min)
PT travel time of x 1 – 1.5 (long dist.) / x 1.5 – 2 (short) is acceptable

22

2017/02/28

A.3.3
Pg 1

Quality aspect 3: Convenience

Easiness of Accessibility / Availability:
• Place: is PT/Train close by, or far away?  influence area
• Time: frequent or incidental?  waiting time

– Service period: peaks, day, evening  operations
• Capacity: supply – demand  operations
• Accessibility: for handicapped, elderly, luggage

–  universal access programme
• Information: on train services, station areas

– Understandable: is system logical?
• Reliability: is the service as promised?
• Etc.

A.3.3.1
Pg 1

Quality 3: Universal Access

“Equal opportunity and access to service, regardless of social class, ethnicity,
background or physical disabilities.”

• Special needs Passengers:

 Not only ‘wheelchair-proof’ design <1%

– Impaired: sight, hearing, speech, physical, mental < 3 % is disabled

– Also for: elderly, pregnant women, children, etc. > 15 %

– Illiterate (reading problem), tourists (language problem)

 also provide information via graphics (not only text)

• Universal design:

– Facilities / information  simple, intuitive, flexible, perceptible

– Space  low physical effort, sufficient size, etc.

– And useful for all: also for the ‘majority’

• Whole trip: at home – to station – at station – in vehicle – to destination

23

2017/02/28

A.3.3.2
Pg 1

Quality 3: Information

If you don’t know about PT/Train service  PT/Train is not available for you..!
• Routing to station
• Signage in station to ticket office, platforms, facilities, etc.
• Information about service: destinations, time, delays, etc.
• Even more so at your destination: area plan, signage, routing

Modes of information:
• Info at the stations (static / dynamic)
• Prints to take home
• Internet (but beware: only 35 % have access to internet (at school / office))
Accurate..!
• Metrorail website in 2012 had the 2008 timetable…
Working..!

A.3.3.2
Pg 2

Information / Logical structure

Make PT/Train so logical, that information is not necessary:

• Daily regular passenger  will know the system ‘blindly’

• Incidental passenger  should need minimal information

 Logical understandable service

Information should merely be supportive:

• As confirmation

• In case of disruption of normal service

Regular (predictable) service:
• Same destinations  corridor service

– Branch services, or Short / Long service permitted
• Same times  clock-face timetable (peak / off-peak)
• Same departure platform  corridor service

– Same type of rolling stock / same staff ?

24

2017/02/28

A.3.3.3
Pg 1

Clock-face timetable schedule

• Convenient for passenger
– Easy to memorise
– Remember 1 time (and frequency); it is the same all day
• Departure time, platform, rolling stock, etc.
– Go to the station few minutes before departure

• Convenient for planner ( see Operations, timetable scheduling)
– Easy to plan
– Plan 1 hour, and copy it for the whole day
– Conflicts once solved, work the whole day:
• Optimum use of infrastructure
– Easy to operate; same rhythm, no confusion / mistakes:
• Less cause for delays

A.3.3.3
Pg 2

Example: clock-face timetable

Example: Pinetown – Durban line: 04:08
04:44
Currently: 05:36
• Headways 38 – 52 min (or 2hr) 06:15
• Not easy to memorise 07:10
• Irregular trip time: 53 – 60 min 07:58
09:56
11:28
13:26
14:23
15:15
16:11
16:45
17:29
18:22

25

2017/02/28

A.3.3.3
Pg 3

Example: clock-face timetable

Example: Pinetown – Durban line: 04:08 04:16 05:50
04:44 05:16 06:50
Currently: 05:36 06:16 07:50
• Headways 38 – 52 min (or 2hr) 06:15 07:16
• Not easy to memorise 07:10 08:16 15:50
• Irregular trip time: 53 – 60 min 07:58 09:16 16:50
09:56 10:16 17:50
Proposed: 11:28 11:16
• 1-hr service, clock-face 13:26 12:16
14:23 13:16
– Constant trip time: 54 min 15:15 14:16
• Plus express service in peak 16:11 15:16
16:45 16:16
– Express service: 42 min 17:29 17:16
 See Timetable operations 18:22 18:16
19:16

A.3.3.4
Pg 1

Quality 3: Ticket integration

Costs for passenger ( see Quality aspect 1):
• Affordability: price / quality
• Discounts for off-peak, regular users, elderly, students, etc.
• Combi-tickets for events (sport, concert, etc.)

Ticket integration:
• Use the same (electronic) ticket for all PT services in a Municipality
• And throughout the whole country ?
• Who will distribute revenues to different operators, how ?

Fare integration:
• No additional (entry) fares when changing PT services…!

26

2017/02/28

A.3.4
Pg 1

Quality aspect 4: Comfort

Comfort:
• In vehicle:

– driving characteristics
– climate (open windows or aircon?)
– seating / standing
– toilet, facilities, etc.
Overcrowding
• At stations:
– waiting space, shelter from rain/sun, benches
– facilities, ablution
– kiosk, shop, bar/restaurant
– Sufficient light, little noise, background music, TV entertainment, etc.

A.3.4
Pg 2

Clean, Clear, and Working

All facilities should be clean and clear
• Maintenance

 Situation in SA is quite good…!
• Employing (cleaning) staff is relatively cheap = Job Creation
And working…
• Poor quality of sound system…
• Sometimes facilities are available, but not working…

27

2017/02/28

A.3.5
Pg 1

Quality aspect 5: Experience

Positive image of PT/Train
• Lifestyle
• Proud user !!!

– You talk about PT/Train at parties
• Train / minibus used in adverts of other products

– To support a positive feeling about that product

A.3.5
Pg 2

Experience

Social aspects
• People travel together in the same train:

– Colleagues discussing work, socialise, playing cards
– Church service
• Staff on Bus
– Same driver on same route at same times: ‘Host’
• Different ‘atmospheres’ for different market groups
– School bus
– Commuters and Business people
– Family car on long distance train, with children’s play ground

28

2017/02/28

A.3.5
Pg 3

Marketing

Marketing:
• Appeal to the positive aspects of PT/Train travel

– Compare with ‘competitors’ (car, taxi)..?
– Focus on Safety, Costs, Congestion, Sustainability, etc.
• But…!:
– First the PT quality must be good (almost perfect)
– Any bad experience will set back all previous efforts…!
• Also: manage expectations

A.3
Pg 3

Wrap Up: PT Quality

Increased PT/Train quality  reduce total travel time (walk, wait, ride)
 and improve other qualities !

Either increase potential travel distance (within the same time budget)
• You increase the accessibility of (variety of) job opportunities, etc.
Or decrease time spent on travel
• You increase the available time for other activities
So it improves people’s economic / social position
And it improves the quality of PT in relation to its ‘competitors’
• Increase the use of PT/Train
• And improve sustainability

29

2017/02/28

A.4
Pg 1

PT Network hierarchy

1. Dilemmas in Quality aspects

2. Hierarchy of PT Networks:
– Local PT
– Metropolitan PT
– Regional PT
– Provincial PT
– National PT

• Preferred quality per network

Goals:
• To understand the need for hierarchy of PT Networks
• Each with different Quality Level of Service

A.4.1
Pg 1

Dilemmas in different Quality aspects

• Capital and Operational Costs
– High quality does cost money
• (high quality can reduce costs: high speed = better use of rolling stock)
– Paid by: passenger’s revenues, or government subsidies ?

• Travel time:
– Fast trip time = fewer stops = longer access time
– Short walking time = parallel corridors = low frequency per corridor
– No changing = direct connections = low frequency per line = waiting time
– Etc.

• Different for:
– Short (urban) trips  Long (regional) trips
– Social (Captives)   Economic (Choice Users) objectives
– Trip purposes

30

2017/02/28

A.4.1
Pg 2

Different Quality aspects per Network

Shorter trips Longer trips
Urban Regional

Travel time: frequency speed
high frequency lower frequency
Influence area: short walk time to station few stops
Reliability: 10 min (walk) 20-30 min (car / PT feeder)
Comfort : high freq  regular low freq  on time
seating and standing seating mostly
Fares: basic more space, facilities
basic high quality  high price?

Shorter (urban) trips: A.4.1
Relatively less seating Pg 3
 Less Quality
More standing space Seating / Standing Capacity
 More Capacity
Longer (regional, Express) trips:
Relatively more seating
 More Quality
Less standing space
 Less Capacity

31

2017/02/28

A.4.2
Pg 1

Hierarchy of PT / Rail networks

• Connecting networks / trunk routes:  possible PT Technique:
– Local (1 – 10 km*)  BRT, minibus-taxi, bus, train
– Metropolitan (10 – 30 km)  train, BRT, minibus-taxi, bus
– Regional (30 – 100 km)  Express/Rapid rail, minibus-taxi
– Provincial (100 – 300 km)  LD bus, minibus-taxi
– National (300 – 1.000 km)  Plane, LD bus, HS-train
– International (>1.000 km)  Plane

* Values are rough indications

• Feeder systems:  bus, minibus-taxi
– Urban  minibus-taxi, bus, bakkie
– Rural

• Other systems:
– Semi-private, shuttle service, etc.

A.4.2
Pg 2

Suitability of systems

• Each (hierarchy) system is suitable for certain travel distance
– In terms of preferred average speed, station distance, frequency, etc.

1 3 10 30 100 300 km More
Suitable
• More systems 
too much ‘overlap’ / inefficiency Less

Fewer systems 
too big ‘gaps’ / insufficient quality

If the market is limited  combine

32

2017/02/28

A.4.2
Pg 3

Suitability of systems

• Each (hierarchy) system is suitable for certain travel distance
– In terms of preferred average speed, station distance, frequency, etc.

More
Suitable

Less

1 3 10 30 100 300 km

• Current Metrorail tries to be Why not a 2/3-train-system ?
“one-size-fits-all” BRT/LR – Metrorail – Express/Rapid

More
Suitable

Less

1 3 10 30 100 km

A.4.2
Pg 4

Preferred Quality of PT

For Choice Users (and eventually Captives will become Choice Users):

• Total trip time PT should be in same order of magnitude as time by Car:

– Local (1 – 10 km*) x2

• It is accepted / ‘impossible’ to be faster

– Metropolitan (10 – 30 km)  x 1.5 – 2

– Regional (30 – 100 km)  x 1.2 – 1.5

– Provincial (100 – 300 km)  x 1 – 1.2

– National (300 – 1.000 km) x1

* Values are rough indications

• In absolute value:

– Door-to-door trip time: approx. 15-30 min longer is acceptable (short

distance) / similar (long distance)

– PT In-Vehicle time: should be similar (short distance) / faster (long

distance)

33

2017/02/28

A.4.2.1
Pg 1

Preferred quality of Local PT

System Trip Total trip Av / Max Station Frequency
distance time speed distance headway
(km) (rel. to car) (km/h) (km) (x/hr)

Car 3 – 10 km 10 – 15 min 30 / 60 1 > 10
1 > 20
Local PT 3 – 10 km x 2 40 / 100 1.5 – 3 >8*
1 > 10
BRT x 2 40 / 80 0.5 >6

Metrorail x 3 30 / 100

NL: metro x 2 40 / 80

NL: tram/bus x 3 20 / 60

* Values are rough indications

 BRT can provide good quality
 Plus (Modernised) Metrorail corridors…

A.4.2.2
Pg 1

Preferred quality of Metropolitan PT

System Trip Total trip Av / Max Station Frequency
distance time speed distance headway
(km) (rel. to car) (km/h) (km) (x/hr)

Car 10 – 30 km 15 – 30 min 40 / 100 2–3 4–6
1 > 20
Metro PT 10 – 30 km x 1.5 – 2 50 / 120 1.5 – 3 <2–8*
1.5 – 3 4 – 8 / 12
BRT x 3 40 / 80 3–5 4

Metrorail x3–4 30 / 100
 Modern. x2–3 40 / 120

NL: Stoptrain x 2 60 / 140

* Values are rough indications

 (Modernised) Metrorail can provide good quality
 BRT is less suitable, unless there is no Train
 BRT Express service ?

34

2017/02/28

A.4.2.3
Pg 1

Preferred quality of Regional PT

System Trip Total trip Av / Max Station Frequency
distance time speed distance
(km) (rel. to car) (km/h) (km) (x/hr)
60 / 120
Car 30 – 100 km 30 – 60 min 80 / 160 5 – 20 2–4
40 / 100 2–5 <1–3
Regional PT 30 – 100 km x 1 – 1.5 50 / 100 5 – 15 1 x/day !
60 / 120 5 – 15 2
Metrorail x3–4 80 / 160 10 – 20 3–6
80 / 140 10 – 30 4
Business Ex. x3?

 Express x 2 – 2.5

Gautrain x 1.5 – 2

NL: InterCity x 1 – 1.5

* Values are rough indications

 Rapid Rail (when viable)?
 Introduce regular Express services

Metrorail, BRT, regional bus, minibus-taxi

A.4.2.4
Pg 1

Preferred quality of Long Distance PT

System Trip Total trip Av / Max Station Frequency
distance time speed distance
(km) (rel. to car) (km/h) (km) (x/hr)
90 / 120
Car > 300 km 200 min 120 / 200 30 – 100 2
80 / 120 100 – 300 <1
Regional PT > 300 km x 1 70 / 100 100 – 300 2 x/day !
50 / 100 50 – 100 1 x/day !
Minibus x 1.5 – 2 180 / 300 100 – 200 1–2
150 / 300 50 – 100 1–2
Long-Dist. Bus x2? 600 / 900 > 300 1–2

Train x3?
 High Speed <1

Europe: HST <1

Plane <1

* Values are rough indications

 LD Bus plus Plane seem sufficient 1 3 10 30 100 300 km
 Introduce High Speed Train ?

35

2017/02/28

A.4.2.4
Pg 2

Long-Distance Public Transport

Long-distance trips are defined as:
• Trips > 300 km

– Or even >1.000 km, >1 day
– Trip frequency: 1/few times per day, convenient departure/arrival times

• For trips >600 km: an overnight trip could be convenient
• Mostly social trips, on a irregular basis: monthly, holiday, wedding/funeral

– Not commuter (too long distance / time)
– Not business (too slow compared to plane / car)
– Not shopping (although that could be part of the social trip purpose)
•  Origins and Destinations are in residential areas (very dispersed)
• Mostly Low/Middle-Income groups
– For whom plane, car is too expensive
• Tourists…?

A.4.2.4
Pg 3

Long-Distance PT System

Long-distance PT system:
• Fixed route  mostly point-to-point (sometimes line-service)
• Fixed stops  1 station node
• Fixed timetable  relatively short waiting time < ½-1 hr (incl. check-in)
• Ticket reservation, or buy ticket at departure (but no guarantee)

Long-distance PT nodes:

• As origins and destinations are in residential areas (dispersed)

•  collect at a central station node

•  a feeder / distribution facility is required:

– Public Transport: train station, BRT node, minibus-taxi rank

– Metered cab: rank

– Car: drop-off / pick-up by family / friends  parking

36

2017/02/28

A.4.2.4
Pg 4

Long-Distance PT Modes

• Plane: Point-to-point service, fixed schedule

– Capacity = 200 (or only 50)  big market = high frequency

– Toilet, meal/snacks

• Train: Line service, fixed schedule

– Vehicle capacity = 500  big market = low frequency

– Bed, toilet, meals, snacks, drinks

• LD Bus: Point-to-point service, fixed schedule

– Vehicle capacity = 50  big market = high freq / small market = low freq

– Sometimes: toilet, snacks, drinks; refreshment stops en-route

• Minibus: Point-to-point service, no fixed schedule…

– Vehicle capacity = 20  small market = high freq / very small = low freq

– Hardly any facilities

A.4
Pg 2

Wrap Up: PT Network hierarchy

There is ‘space’ for different PT Networks:

• Local scale  BRT (and Metrorail)  new, under construction

• Metropolitan  Metrorail (and BRT)  to improve, Modernisation

• Regional  Rapid Rail, Express bus  new feature in SA !

• Provincial  Bus, minibus-taxi  too little basis for Rail ?

• National  Plane, LD Bus  HSR is too expensive (and ‘slow’)

• Feeders (urban/rural)  Bus, minibus/taxi

37

2017/02/28

A.4
Pg 3

Questions ?

Any questions ?
[email protected]

Time for a brief test…

A.5
Pg 1

Land Use – Public Transport

• PT = sustainable use of space
• Integrated Urban – T&T – PT Planning
• Hierarchy of Nodes
• Station influence area and Chain mobility
• Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

– Density and Mixed land use
Goals:
• To understand the relation Urban – Transportation Planning
• Chain Mobility (NMT and P&R)
• Benefits (and limitations) of TOD
• Station design

38

2017/02/28

A.5.1
Pg 1

Sustainable use of space

• Required space per person per mode: stand-still free-moving
1 m2
– Walking 0.2 m2 10 m2
100 m2
– Cycle 2 m2 10 m2

– Car 20 m2

– Bus / train 0.5 m2

A.5.1
Pg 2

Sustainable use of space

• How much space is needed for 10.000 pass/hr/dir? and for 20.000

– Train/Bus = 2x1 tracks = 10m infra + 10m reserve same

• Station = 30m

– Car = 2x5 lanes = 50m infra + 30m reserve x2

• Interchange = 150m

• How much parking is needed for 10.000 pass’ vehicles? and for 20.000

– Train = 7 trains = 1 ha (overnight only) x2

– Bus = 150 buses = 2 ha

– Car = 7.000 cars = 20 ha (or 2 ha, 10 floors high) x 2

(x 2: overnight, and day-time)

39

2017/02/28

A.5.2
Pg 1

Integrated Urban – T&T – PT Planning

• Interaction Urban Network   T&T (PT/Rail) network

– Urban pattern  Requires T&T network

– Chances for new urban dev.  Spare capacity T&T network

– Attracts new urban dev.  High quality T&T network

(= Transit Oriented Development) (only very high quality)

Integrated Urban / PT Rail Planning:

A.5.2
Pg 2

Nodes = Stations

Public Rail Transport is connection between activity nodes:

• 3 types of nodes:

– Origins (residential areas)  production

– Destinations (work, CBD, leisure)  attraction

– Interchange (transport modes)  connection

• Most station nodes have a mixed function

40

2017/02/28

A.5.2
Pg 3

Spatial areas of nodes

Nodal areas:
• Size (width x length)  physical footprint
• Development buffer  ideal for TOD (= primary influence area)
• Wider influence area  attracting passengers

PT Node Footprint Development Influence
Area
International Airport Width Buffer 50 km
Domestic Airport 20 km
L-Dist Pass Railway station 1 km 10 km 10 km
Rapid Rail Station (Gautrain) 5 km
Commuter Railway station 500 m 5 km 2 km
PT Rank 2 km
BRT Station 100 m 2 km 2 km
Bus Stop 1 km
Minibus-taxi Route 50 m 1 km 1 km

50 m 1 km

100 m 1 km

20 m 1 km

10 m 0.5 km

10 m 0.5 km
* Values are rough indications

A.5.3
Pg 1

Hierarchy of Nodes in Network

• Hierarchy of activity nodes  Hierarchy of network  PT System

– National nodes (Inter)national Plane (HSR) LD bus

– Regional nodes Provincial Express train/bus

– Metropolitan nodes Regional Rapid Express

– Local nodes Metropolitan Metrorail, BRT

• Size  more likelihood for higher scale trips

– Big nodes  higher and lower hierarchy networks

– Small nodes  lower hierarchy network only

Network connections
• Most higher hierarchy stations should be lower hierarchy nodes as well

 Inter-modal interchanges
 So: bus/taxi ranks at train stations …!

41

2017/02/28

A.5.3
Pg 2

Origin nodes (population)

Residential Area Size of Pop * Size of Area * PT Network PT System

Metro > 0.5 – 1 mil 30 km National Plane / (HSR)

Sub area > 1 – 200,000 10 km Regional Express

Suburb > 20 – 50,000 3 km Metro Metrorail / BRT

Quarter 1 km - Feeder - (minibus)

City / Big Town > 1 – 200,000 10 km Regional Express

Suburb > 20 – 50,000 3 km Metro Metrorail / BRT

Quarter 1 km - Feeder - (minibus)

Small Town > 20 – 50,000 3 km Metro Metrorail / Bus

Village / Rural 3 km - Feeder - (minibus)

* Values are rough indications

Consider CBD / shopping nodes as centre of Residential area  station
• People already see this as a natural node / destination  mixed trips

A.5.3
Pg 3

Destination nodes (activities)

Activity Area Catchment * PT Network PT System

Commercial (multi functional) areas Workers and visitors Plane / (HSR)
Express
National / Provincial CBD 100 km National Metrorail / BRT
BRT / minibus
Metropolitan Sub CBD 30 km Regional
Metrorail / BRT
Local / Sub node 10 km Metro BRT / minibus
Local Shopping Centre 3 km Local

Working areas (mono functional) Workers

Big Industrial concentration 30 km Metro
Small areas 10 km Local

* Values are rough indications

42

2017/02/28

A.5.3
Pg 4

Destination nodes (activities)

Activity Area Catchment * PT Network PT System

Education Learners and staff Metrorail / BRT
- (minibus)
Higher, University 30 km Metro
BRT
Secondary, Primary 3 km - (walk) - (minibus)

Health Workers, patients and visitors Metrorail / BRT
- incidental
Big Hospitals 10 km Local

Clinics, Health Centres 3 km - (walk)

Sports and Recreation Visitors and workers

Tourist Attraction 30 km Metro

Big Sport Stadium 30 km Metro

* Values are rough indications

A.5.3
Pg 5

Destination nodes (airports)

Activity Area Catchment * PT Network PT System

Airports (example in SA) Air pax and workers Plane / (HSR)
Express
Continental Hub (JHB) 15 – 50 mil pax National Shuttle
- bus, cab
International (CT) 5 – 15 mil pax Regional - cab

Regional (DBN) 2 – 5 mil pax Metro

Small (PE) ½ - 2 mil pax - Local

Very small (PMB) < ½ mil pax - Feeder

* Values are rough indications

Also considering quantities:

– Small airport  few flights/day  low frequency of PT
 low volume of PT
– Small airport  few passengers

43

2017/02/28

A.5.4
Pg 1

Chain Mobility

10 (max 15) min to/from the station = Metrorail Gautrain NL
• At the origin (access):
80 % 10 % 25 %
– ½ – 1 km walking 0 0 % 40 %
– 2 – 5 km cycling (incl. parking) 20 % 10 % 25 %
– 2 – 3 km PT (incl. walking and waiting) 0 80 % 10 %
– 2 – 5 km car (incl. parking and walking)

• At the destination (egress): 85 % 40 % 60 %
– ½ – 1 km walking 15 % 35 % 30 %
– 2 – 3 km PT (incl. walking and waiting) 0 25 % 10 %
– no cycling, no car (metered cab, pick-up)

* Values are rough indications

• Extreme differences for Captives – Choice Users !

A.5.4
Pg 2

Chain Mobility

Increase influence area of a station by:
• Facilitate P&R / cycling:

– (current Metrorail market  no car / bicycle)
– Accessible, safe and pleasant routes
– Parking facilities, secure parking, safety !!!
• Inter-modal PT feeder services:
– (current fare structure makes inter-modal expensive)
– Rail as part of IRPTN (BRT) Network

• No parallel services
• Feeder bus/taxi services
– Rank facilities, information, etc.
• Increase influence area 1 km (walk)  2-5 km
– Still 10-15min (ride)…!

44

2017/02/28

A.5.4
Pg 3

NL example: cycling

Utrecht (NL): 20.000 bicycles parked (150.000 train pass/day)
• To the station (access)

– Commuters
• From station (egress)

– Students, workers
– Avoid overcrowded bus

• > 4 ha of bicycle parking
– Undercover / open air
– Secured / unattended
– Paid (E.1) / free
– Always > 90 % full
– Some ‘semi-permanent’
– Sometimes a mess…

A.5.4
Pg 4

Park & Ride

• Most Metrorail stations have Parking

– But only in use by 1-3 cars  staff Situation in CT is better..!

– Captive passengers don’t have a car…! CT has more Choice Users

• Gautrain stations have much more Parking (even more than in Europe):

– Most stations  > 1000 Parking bays  full / over-utilised

• Choice Users prefer private car (over PT feeder / walk) to access ‘origin’

station

– Safety/security, Time, Comfort/convenience

• So if you want to attract Choice Users…  Provide P&R !!

• With good quality:

– Safe/secure  guarded (also after hours)

– Close to station  <100m

– Sufficient capacity  to avoid parking outside / disappointment

– With additional facilities ?  car service, laundry, shops, etc..?

45

2017/02/28

A.5.5
Pg 1

Land-use (TOD) Policy  High Densities

• ‘TOD’ policy requests high densities: 250 housing units / ha
– Transit Oriented Development
– In 1st km around PT nodes
– Not only high density, also: mixed use

• Benefits of high densities and mixed use:

– Less and shorter trips  walking

– Good basis for Quality PT  Train, BRT

– Liveable cities, quality of life  social and economic development

A.5.5
Pg 2

Density

A viable PT/Train system needs high gross densities:

• 200 (pop + job) / ha  Urban Rail > 1 million pop

• 100  BRT / Light Rail

• 50  bus

• 20  minibus-taxi

100%

Situation in S-Africa: Modal split % NMT + PT Africa Asia
• Densities are low… L-America
50% W-Europe
– Jo’burg: 20-25 p/ha
– Cape Town: 40 p/ha USA
– Corridors more dense
• Car availability low (still….) 0 50 100 150 200
– Therefore PT % high Density: pop/ha

* Values are rough indications

46

2017/02/28

A.5.5
Pg 3

Cultural aspects of High density

• People in the world (even within SA) look differently to densities
– Personal space, individuality, privacy  social space, community
– Availability and affordability of space: Low – High-Income
– Transportation aspects

• World-wide examples:
– W-Europe, USA, East Asia
– S-Africa
• Rural, urban
• Income

A.5.5
Pg 4

Example: W-Europe

• W-Europe: Delft, the Netherlands
– 17th/18th century cities  defence wall  limiting further developments
– 19th century developments within walking distance (30-45 min max) 
high densities: 100 units/ha, small housing units, and mixed use
– 20th century  car made city growth possible within 45 min commuting
– Land is scarcely available  high densities: 40 units/ha, and relatively big
housing units (100m2 each)

47

2017/02/28

A.5.5
Pg 5

Density development

• The uncomfortable truth about Density development in the Netherlands:

Year Units / ha Household req. ha per Population Required
(new-towns) size 1000 pop space
1950 4 10 mln
1975 100 3.5 2.5 13½ mln x3
2000 50 2.5 6 16 mln x2
2025 40 2 10 17½ mln x 1½
30 (?) 16

* Values are rough indications

• Same for South Africa… (?):

Year Units / ha Household req. ha per Population Required

(new-towns) size 1000 pop space

Now 30 4 8 55 mln

+25y 20 (?) 3 (?) 16 70 mln x 2½

A.5.5
Pg 6

Example: United States

• United States
– No historic development (>20th century).
– Car-based development  spread cities, low densities: 10 units/ha
– Big house (>150m2) with car-port (cars, stuff), garden (kids, dogs)

48

2017/02/28

A.5.5
Pg 7

Example: Hong Kong

High density residential in Asia
• High rise, small units (40m2)
• Mixed use:

– Commercial on ground floor
– SME businesses on other floors
– Residential
– Parking in basement
– Narrow streets, little public space…

A.5.5
Pg 8

African density

• S-African people originate from rural areas:
– Yard for life stock and crops: density < 1-2 units/ha
– Now some don’t farm anymore, but keep their land  bigger house

• Moving to towns / townships:
– They still have their yard (although smaller): not for live stock and crops
• Some rent out shacks on their yard
– Apartheid planning: not too high densities  controlled

49

2017/02/28

A.5.5
Pg 9

(not so) High densities in SA

Net-net densities seem quite high (with 4 persons / unit)

Examples from Johannesburg: Soweto and Midrand

No-Income Low-Income Mid-Income High-Income
(5-10) 20-30
(50 units) 200-300 p/ha (25) 100-150 (25) 80-100

Gross / net densities:
• Includes: agricultural and undevelopable land, main infrastructure,

working areas, facilities, parks, sport fields, etc.

•  Johannesburg: gross average 20 p/ha, urban area: net max 40-50 p/ha
– Johannesburg and Cape Town are most dense city in S-Africa…

A.5.5
Pg 10

Example: TOD at Pretoria Centurion

Centurion: 1 km
walking area (250 ha)

• Residential (‘high’
density =25 units/ha)
– Indirect access…

• Offices, Mall (+parking..!)
• Green, watercourse,

sport fields
• Main road infra + rail +

Gautrain Parking (6 ha)
So: 60 ha x 25 units/ha =
1.500 units
Wishful TOD policy:
250 units/ha: where? how?

50