skip to Main Content

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning

Integrated and Sustainable Development?

A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning

in South Africa

September 2003

Tony Barbour (Environmental Evaluation Unit)
Lisa Kane (Urban Transport Research Group)
University of Cape Town

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the USA, and managed
on their behalf by ICF Consulting. Thanks are due to Roger Gorham of EPA and Bill Cowart of ICF
for their assistance in the earliest conceptual development of the project. Thanks are also due to
Jonathan Kass of ICF for practical input and support throughout the project duration. The project was
managed by Tony Barbour of the Environmental Evaluation Unit, UCT and co-developed by Lisa
Kane of the Urban Transport Research Group at UCT. Other Urban Transport Research Group
members (Roger Behrens, Peter Wilkinson and Marianne Vanderschuren) provided strategic input at
workshops during the project. Chiedza Dondo and Lynette Kruger deserve acknowledgement for their
important contributions at all stages. Emma Witbooi also provided valuable input in later stages. The
report was reviewed by Associate Professor Romano Del Mistro (Department of Civil Engineering,
UCT) and the checklist was reviewed by Dr Merle Sowman (Environmental Evaluation Unit). The
work would not have been possible without the contribution of time from more twenty anonymous
interviewees, our greatest thanks to them.
Responsibility for any errors remains that of the authors.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa iii
ACRONYMS
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
COLTO Committee of Land and Transport Officials
CSIR Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research
DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
EEU Environmental Evaluation Unit
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
IDP Integrated Development Plan
IEM Integrated Environmental Management
ITP Integrated Transport Plan
MCA Multi Criteria Analysis
MSA Municipal Systems Act (Act No. 32 of 2000)
MSA Moving South Africa (1999) : The Action Agenda. A 20-year Strategic Checklist for

Transport in South Africa
NDoT National Department of Transport
NEMA National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998)
NLTTA National Land Transport Transition Act (No 22 of 2000)
SA South Africa
SANRAL South African National Roads Agency Limited
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
UCT University of Cape Town
UTRG Urban Transport Research Group

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa iv
ABSTRACT
This report provides documentation of a research study which, at its outset, aimed to:
 Develop a practical framework for the assessment of policies, programmes and projects in the
Southern African transport sector and which would address the environmental and integrated
planning requirements of policy and legislation;
 Work with local and national government role players in the development of such a framework in
order to ensure its ultimate relevance, acceptance and implementation, and;
 Use the findings of the study in the graduate and post-graduate teaching programmes at UCT in
order to inform current and future transportation and environmental planners of the importance of
integrated planning and environmental assessments
The project lasted from the seven months from March to September 2003, and was undertaken by a
collaboration between the Urban Transport Research Group and the Environmental Evaluation Unit at
the University of Cape Town. The project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency of the
US and the project process was directed by a US based consultancy company – ICF Consulting.
The main constraint on the project was time. Originally intended as a twelve month project, the final
time permitted for the contract was seven months. The main change to the proposal was a smaller

than intended assessment of the framework via case study review. Instead of assessing a well-
developed framework, it was only possible to assess the principles behind the intended framework. It

is hoped that future work will include case-study review of the framework.
Literature review work took place throughout the project duration, and interviews took place twice
during the project. In terms of the original proposal submitted by the UTRG to ICF/EPA the approach
to the project was broken down into three phases, discussed below:
Phase 1: ‘Status Quo’ review of local and international transport planning and environmental practice
The aim of the ‘Status Quo’ Review (later called the Current Practice Review) was to test the
knowledge and assumptions within the study team regarding urban transport planning assessment and
decision-making both locally and nationally. This phase comprised literature reviews of local and
international assessment practice and interviews.
A questionnaire was designed, informed by the literature review and was administered by a series of
one-on-one and telephonic interviews. A total of 23 interviews were undertaken in the three largest
metropolitan areas in South Africa. This provided the study with a representative geographical spread
of transport and environmental planners. The findings of the current practice questionnaire review are
summarised in a separate report, State of Current Practice in Transport Planning, Decision Making and
Assessment in South Africa (UTRG, September 2003). This report and the findings of the literature
review provided the study with the necessary baseline information for the development of the Draft
ISTF/ISTC in Phase 2.
The Current Practice Review interviews found that:
 Integrated transport planning is not being undertaken in the manner intended by legislation;
 There exists a lack of communication and integration between the departments of transportation
and environment affairs;
 Strategic assessments for policies, programmes and plans are not required by law, and, as such, are
seldom undertaken.
 Environmental assessment skills are not well developed in SA, particularly within the government
sector; and
 Environmental concerns are frequently seen to add to the cost (time and money) of development
initiatives and, as such, do not receive a high priority in the decision-making process.

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa v
Further more, the interviews highlighted the following:
 An expressed need for guidelines on the part of practitioners;
 A more politicised decision-making framework since 1994, which has changed the role of
officials, and implies the need for a fresh approach to assessment;
 (Where assessment takes place) a shift from the consideration of mainly technical and/or financial
criteria to a broader assessment framework;
 A lack of identification of alternatives, especially an issue at the beginning of the project process;
 The need to promote integrated planning.
One important aim of the interviews was to verify or disprove the assertions made in the proposal at
the outset of the study, and hence to provide a justification (or not) for the development of the
ISTC/ISTF. The only proposal assertion that was not supported through this study was the expectation
that “environmental assessments for transport projects are not always undertaken, even for those
projects with the potential for significant environmental impacts”. This hypothesis was found to be
false, with all respondents indicating that, for “major projects”, environmental assessment was
considered an essential part of the transport planning process. In the main, though, the rationale for
the project was upheld through the Current Practice Review
Phase 2: Development of Draft ‘Integrated Sustainable Transport Framework’ (later renamed the
Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC))
The development of the Draft ISTF/ISTC was informed by the information collected in the Phase 1, a
review of additional literature, specifically literature on transport planning in a developing world
context, and numerous discussions and debates between the members of the UTRG and EEU project
team and ICF. A number of concepts were explored, and these are written up fully in the report, and
briefly here.
From the reviews of existing transport planning, other planning, development and environmental
legislation, several legal principles were derived, and these were used to structure the framework,
together with a review of the ‘sustainable livelihoods framework’, developed by the Department for
International Development in the UK. The sustainable livelihoods framework has been used because
it is purposefully directed towards understanding the resources and livelihood strategies employed by
the poor. While the focus of the sustainable livelihoods framework is on the rural poor, it does
provide the checklist with a set of guiding principles that can inform transport planning. In this regard
the sustainable livelihoods framework can help transport planners to understand how the transport
plans and interventions will impact on the range of resources/assets utilized by the poor, and to what
extent these interventions will enhance or detract/impact on the livelihood strategies pursued by the
poor. The following resources are assessed: natural, social, human, financial, and physical. The
project team have added the time resource to this list.
The literature reviews gave rise to the following principles:
Principles regarding the planning process
 open and transparent decision-making;
 co-operative governance;
 integrated planning;
 public participation; and
Principles regarding the intervention
 sustainable development, considered both generally and in terms of :
 natural resources;
 social resources;
 human resources;
 financial resources;

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa vi
 physical resources; and
 time resources.
These principles subsequently formed the headings of the checklist. In summary the Phase 2 part of
the project concluded that the ISTC will need to:
 recognise a fundamental shift in transport policy and planning
 use legal principles as the starting point for a series of questions related to the sustainability of
the planning process and the intervention.
 reflect the need for transport planning to move into arenas more inclusive of human and social
concerns.
 use some ‘sustainable livelihoods assets’ concepts as a starting point for a consideration of the
sustainability of a transport intervention, with particular reference to the poor and vulnerable.
 bring integration and sustainability concerns to the start of the planning process.
 focus on the notion of accessibility, and of bringing into transport planning those who have
been excluded from mainstream planning efforts.
 attempt to create a new checklist tool for planners, which will check decisions which have
already been taken against legally-binding sustainability criteria.
 use yes/no responses in preference to a fuller answer set.
 be clear, readily understood and efficient in terms of time.
 make best use of limited data available, and use appropriate data to assist as necessary.
Phase 3: Evaluation of case studies and finalisation of Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
After some discussion regarding possible case studies for use in the project, three case studies were
selected, namely:
 Stock Road Railway Terminal Station;
 Klipfontein Road Transportation Corridor Project;
 Penway R 300 Toll Road.
The case studies provided the study with a range of transport projects to review. Due to the reduced
timeframe the case studies were all located in the Cape Town Metropolitan Region. The selection of
case studies was informed by:
 Availability and ease of access to information and key stakeholders;
 Familiarity of the UTRG and EEU project team with the case studies and the key stakeholders
involved; but
 Sufficient distance from the case studies in terms of previous advocacy work to ensure that access
to stakeholders and information was not compromised; and
 The need to select a diverse a range of transport related projects as possible.
In terms of the original proposal the interviews were intended to review a well-developed ISTF/ISTC.
However, due to time constraints only a review of the guiding principles from Phase 2 was possible.
Interviews were held with key stakeholders involved in the case studies were guided by a short
questionnaire developed by the project team. The focus of the questionnaire was informed by the
conceptual principles that underpinned the development of the ISTF.
The development of the final ISTC, was the result of several rounds of discussion and review, and also
other informants, principally:
 experience of the project team in assessment and decision-making in transport planning in
South Africa;
 experience of the project team in social assessment methods for water projects;

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa vii
 work underway by Booz-Allen Hamilton on developing environmental management
guidelines for use in Tshwane and Gauteng municipalities (these particularly assisted in the
development of Part 1);
 the extensive work being done by DfID, UK on the inclusion of social benefits in transport
planning in developing countries.
This knowledge informed the development process, but the final ISTC is a piece of original work
which has not been produced elsewhere.
The objective of the final ‘Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC)’ is to provide a clear and
practical checklist for ensuring that transport plans, programmes and projects adhere to legal and good
practice principles for sustainable development. The intention is that it will be used in the early stage
of the development of a plan, programme or project in order to check that issues relating to sustainable
development have been considered in the planning process. As such the checklist is an awareness
raising tool. It does not replace the need for a decision-making framework, nor does it replace the
need for an Environmental Impact Assessment. It should, however, assist decision-makers in reaching
a decision which is consistent with principles of sustainable development, and may alert transport
planners to social and environmental issues earlier in the decision-making process than would
otherwise be the case.
A set of tables have been developed which ask a series of questions about both the planning process
being undertaken and the intervention being planned. These questions are based on South Africa legal
principles, as extracted from planning-, environment- and development-related law current in
September 2003, and selected concepts from the ‘sustainable livelihoods framework’. The final
Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC) is divided into four components.
 Part 1 provides a checklist of the issues that should be considered when identifying and
defining the needs and applicability of the proposed transport intervention.
 Part 2 provides a legal checklist for the transport planning process. The checklist is divided
into five components, namely the open and transparent decision-making process, co-operative
governance, integrated planning, public participation and a summary of the constitutional
rights relating to sustainable development.
 Part 3 provides a checklist for identifying and assessing the resources which may be impacted
by the intervention, defined using sustainable livelihoods categories of natural, physical,
human, social, financial resources/capital. An additional element, time, has been added.
 Part 4 summarises the whole checklist.
To use the ISTC Checklist, the practitioner can independently use the tables as a check for a plan,
programme or project that is ongoing or proposed; as a tool for the discussion of a project within
professional teams, or as the starting point for a decision-making process. In all cases it is intended to
raise awareness regarding sustainable development.
In conclusion, the work proposed, and the justifications for the work were found to be upheld in the
main during the study. However, the original intention, to develop an assessment framework was not
justified given the apparent change in transport planning practice since 1994 towards a more
politicised decision-making environment which, in reality, often does not consider alternatives.
Instead, a checklist was proposed, which would raise awareness of the existing legal prerogatives and
of sustainable development criteria within that legal framework. In this way the intention was to at
least ensure that decisions made, although not fitting entirely with nest practice, were at least within
the broad intention of the law. The checklist is thus essentially pragmatic, and is aimed towards an
engineering audience who may appreciate the need to change practice but who do not have guidance
on how to change. Its first role is an awareness raising tool, but it also addresses the need for open and
transparent decision-making in its systematic approach to the softer transport issues. With further
development it could form the first stage of a decision-making framework, but this would require more
work.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project constraints 1
1.3 Report overview 1
2. RATIONALE FOR PROJECT 4
2.1 Overview 4
3. PROJECT METHOD 6
3.1 Introduction 6
3.2 Phase 1: “Status Quo” review of local and international transport planning and
environmental practices 6
3.3 Phase 2: Development of principles for the Integrated Sustainable Transport Framework/
Checklist 6
3.4 Phase 3: Evaluation of case studies and finalization of Integrated Sustainable Transport
Checklist 8
4. CURRENT PRACTICE REVIEW 9
4.1 Introduction 9
4.2 International Literature Review 9
4.3 South African Literature Review 10
4.4 The Current Practice Review Fieldwork 10
4.5 Results with respect to proposal, of Current Practice Review Fieldwork 12
4.6 Additional Results of Current Practice Review Fieldwork 13
4.7 Conclusions
5. TOWARDS AN ISTC – THEORETICAL CONCEPTS 18
5.1 The context 18
5.2 The legal component 18
5.3 A review of environment and sustainability concepts 19
5.4 Poverty and sustainable livelihood concepts 20
5.5 Understanding the term ‘integrated’ 21
5.6 A review of transport, mobility and accessibility concepts 22
5.7 A review of checklist and assessment concepts 23
5.8 Issues of capacity 24
5.9 Issues of data availability and structure 24
5.10 Yes/no versus full assessment 25
5.11 Summary of Principles for use in Developing the ISTC 25
6. TESTING OF ISTC PRINCIPLES USING CASE STUDIES 27
6.1 Introduction 27
6.2 Methodology 27
6.3 Assessment of ISTC principles through case studies 28
6.4 Klipfontein Corridor Project 28
6.5 N21 (R300) Cape Town Ring Road Project 29
6.6 Stock Road Station Project 33
6.7 Case study conclusions 34
7. THE FINAL ISTC 36
7.1 The link between ISTC principles and the final ISTC 36
7.2 Guidance notes on the use of the ISTC 36
8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 53
8.1 Discussion 53

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa ix
8.2 Conclusions 53
9. REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES
A. International Review of Assessment Criteria
B. International Review of Indicators
C. Questionnaire for Current Practice Review
TABLES
Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC) Parts 1-4 40
FIGURES
1. Report Structure 1
2. Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist Structure 39

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
“Transport plays a significant role in the social and economic development of any country, and the
Government has recognised transport as one of its five priority areas for socio-economic
development.”

National Department of Transport White Paper on National Transport Policy, 1996
This report provides documentation of a study which was conceptualised during the preparation phase
for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002, and developed into
a project proposal later that year. The study aimed to
 Develop a practical framework for the assessment of policies, programmes and projects in the
transport sector which addresses the environmental and integrated planning requirements of policy
and legislation;
 Work with local and national government role players in the development of such a framework in
order to ensure its ultimate relevance, acceptance and implementation, and;
 Use the findings of the study in the graduate and post-graduate teaching programmes at UCT in
order to inform current and future transportation and environmental planners of the importance of
integrated planning and environmental assessments
The project lasted from the seven months from March to September 2003, and was undertaken by a
collaboration between the Urban Transport Research Group and the Environmental Evaluation Unit at
the University of Cape Town. The project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency of the
US and the project process was directed by a US based consultancy company – ICF Consulting.
1.2 Project constraints
The main constraint on the project was time. Originally intended as a twelve month project, the final
time permitted for the contract was seven months. Although the staffing for the project was increased,
the time reduction did have an impact on the work which was possible. The main change to the
proposal was a smaller than intended assessment of the framework via case study review. Instead of
assessing a well-developed framework, it was only possible to assess the principles behind the
intended framework. It is hoped that future work will include case-study review of the framework1
.

1.3 Report overview
The structure of the report follows the ‘story’ of the project, and reflects that literature review work
took place throughout the project duration, and interviews too place twice during the project. A
diagram illustrating the structure is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Report Structure
Chapter of Report Method used
Literature review Interviews
1. Introduction not applicable not applicable
2. Rationale for Project not applicable not applicable
3. Project Method not applicable not applicable
4. Current Practice Review Yes Yes
5. Towards an ITSC Yes No
6. Testing of ITSC principles No Yes
7. The ITSC not applicable not applicable
1 Although originally described as an assessment framework, the work described in this report illustrates that the project
ultimately developed a ‘checklist’. The reasons behind this shift are explained in Chapter 5.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 2
The rationale for the study is provided in the Chapter 2, while Chapter 3 outlines the project method.
Chapter 4 provides a report on the results found from the first phase of the study: a current practice
review. In Chapter 5 theoretical concepts which are relevant to the development of a transport
checklist are described and conclude with a list of principles to drive the development of the draft
checklist, while in Chapter 6 the ‘testing’ of these principles with three case studies is described.
Guidelines for, and tables containing, the checklist are presented in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 contains
some discussion, conclusions and recommendations for further development of the work.
With the political transition in 1994 there was a fundamental overhaul of policy in South Africa and
the transport sector was no exception. The first post-apartheid white paper for transport was published
in 19962
, followed by the ‘Moving South Africa’ transport strategy3

in 1998/9, and the most
substantial piece of post-1994 transport legislation: the National Land Transport Transition Act of
2000 (NLTTA). All of these were progressive in the sense that they promoted public transport over
private transport, and also emphasized the needs of the poor. The transport planning tools by which
such progressive policy should be implemented were not made explicit.
However, the NLTTA, amongst other things, set in place a planning framework for transport
authorities and complemented other legislation4 which supports integrated planning. Environmental
legislation in South Africa has similarly developed over the last nine years. Although, the
fundamental shift in policy rhetoric is evident, the practices of transport planning have not changed in
line with policy. In particular, the Urban Transport Research Group argued that5
:
 Integrated transport planning is not being undertaken in the manner intended by legislation;
 Environmental assessments for transport projects are not always undertaken, even for those
projects with the potential for significant environmental impacts;
 A lack of communication and integration between the departments of transportation and
environment affairs;
 Strategic assessments for policies, programmes and plans are not required by law, and, as such,
are seldom undertaken.
The UTRG speculated that the reasons for this included:
 Environmental assessment is not regarded as an integral part of transport planning (although the
legislative framework calls for more environmental consideration);
 Environmental assessment skills are not well developed in SA, particularly within the government
sector;
 Environmental concerns are frequently seen to add to the cost (time and money) of development
initiatives and, as such, do not receive a high priority in the decision-making process.
This project proposal was therefore developed in order to:
 Develop a practical tool (checklist) for the assessment of policies, programmes and projects in the
transport sector which addresses the environmental and integrated planning requirements of policy
and legislation;
 Work with local and national government role players in the development of such a checklist in
order to ensure its ultimate relevance, acceptance and implementation, and;
2 National Department of Transport (1996) White Paper on National Transport Policy.
(http://www.transport.gov.za/library/index.html)
3 National Department of Transport (1999) Moving South Africa Action Agenda
(http://www.transport.gov.za/library/index.html)
4 National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (http://www.gov.za/acts/1998/a107-98.pdf ), Development
Facilitation Act no 1526 of 1995 (http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/legislation/1995/act95-067.html?rebookmark=1)
Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000(www.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a32-00.pdf )
5 Kane, L. and Barbour, T. (2002) Integrated Sustainable Transport Assessment Framework for South Africa. Proposal
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. November 2002.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 3
 Use the findings of the study in the graduate and post-graduate teaching programmes at UCT in
order to inform current and future transportation and environmental planners of the importance of
integrated planning and environmental assessments.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 4
2 RATIONALE FOR PROJECT
2.1 Overview
The South African transport sector, in common with the developing world6 has followed the developed
world in its approach to transportation problems. Accordingly, there has been fairly widespread use of
‘rational’ problem-solving techniques, with concurrent use of four-stage models and cost-benefit
analysis7
. Until the 1990s these techniques tended to be used in support of more road infrastructure.
investment. With the political transition in 1994 there was a fundamental overhaul of policy in South
Africa and the transport sector was no exception. The first post-apartheid white paper for transport
was published in 19968

, followed by the ‘Moving South Africa’ transport strategy9

in 1998/9, and the
most substantial piece of post-1994 transport legislation: the National Land Transport Transition Act
of 2000 (NLTTA). All of these were progressive in the sense that they promoted public transport
over private transport, and also emphasized the needs of the poor. The transport planning tools by
which such progressive policy should be implemented were not made explicit.
However, the NLTTA, amongst other things, set in place a planning framework for transport
authorities and complemented other legislation10 which supports integrated planning. Environmental
legislation in South Africa has similarly developed over the last nine years. Although, the
fundamental shift in policy rhetoric is evident, the practices of transport planning have not changed in
line with policy. In particular, the Urban Transport Research Group argued that11:
 Integrated transport planning is not being undertaken in the manner intended by legislation;
 Environmental assessments for transport projects are not always undertaken, even for those
projects with the potential for significant environmental impacts;
 A lack of communication and integration between the departments of transportation and
environment affairs;
 Strategic assessments for policies, programmes and plans are not required by law, and, as such, are
seldom undertaken.
The UTRG speculated that the reasons for this included:
 Environmental assessment is not regarded as an integral part of transport planning (although the
legislative framework calls for more environmental consideration);
 Environmental assessment skills are not well developed in SA, particularly within the government
sector;
 Environmental concerns are frequently seen to add to the cost (time and money) of development
initiatives and, as such, do not receive a high priority in the decision-making process.
This project proposal was therefore developed in order to:
 Develop a practical tool (checklist) for the assessment of policies, programmes and projects in the
transport sector which addresses the environmental and integrated planning requirements of policy
and legislation;
6 Vasconcellos, E.A. (2001) Urban Transport Environment and Equity: The Case for Developing Countries . Earthscan,
London.
7 Kane, L. and Del Mistro, R. (2003) Changes in transport planning policy: Changes in transport planning methodology?
Transportation 20, pp113-131.
8 National Department of Transport (1996) White Paper on National Transport Policy.
(http://www.transport.gov.za/library/index.html)
9 National Department of Transport (1999) Moving South Africa Action Agenda
(http://www.transport.gov.za/library/index.html)
10 National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (http://www.gov.za/acts/1998/a107-98.pdf ), Development
Facilitation Act no 1526 of 1995 (http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/legislation/1995/act95-067.html?rebookmark=1)
Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000(www.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a32-00.pdf )
11 Kane, L. and Barbour, T. (2002) Integrated Sustainable Transport Assessment Framework for South Africa. Proposal
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. November 2002.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 5
 Work with local and national government role players in the development of such a checklist in
order to ensure its ultimate relevance, acceptance and implementation, and;
 Use the findings of the study in the graduate and post-graduate teaching programmes at UCT in
order to inform current and future transportation and environmental planners of the importance of
integrated planning and environmental assessments.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 6
3 PROJECT METHOD
3.1 Introduction
In terms of the original proposal submitted by the UTRG to ICF/EPA the approach to the project was
broken down into three phases, namely:
 Phase 1: ‘Status Quo’ review of local and international transport planning and environmental
practice;
 Phase 2: Development of Draft ‘Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist’ (later renamed the
Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC);
 Phase 3: Evaluation of Case Studies and Finalization of Integrated Sustainable Transport
Checklist.
Each Phase is described below.
3.2 Phase 1: “Status Quo” review of local and international transport planning and
environmental practices
The aim of Phase 1 was to undertake a status quo review of the current situation with regard to
transportation planning in South Africa and other parts of the world. This involved:
 A review of the South African legislative framework for environmental assessments in transport
planning. The motivation for undertaking the legal review was twofold. Firstly, to identify and
assess the legal context within which transport and environmental planning is practiced in South
Africa. Secondly, to assess if the development of an ISTC could provide transport planners with a
tool that was not only useful in terms its methodological approach, but one that ensured that the
legal requirements associated with transport planning in South Africa were met.
 A review of selected international best practice for environmental assessments in transportation
planning. The aim of this component of the study was not to undertake a detailed comparative
review of best practice environmental assessment in other countries, but rather to summarize the
key lessons from the approaches to environmental assessment in transport planning in these
countries that may be relevant in the (Southern) African context. The findings of the review
indicated that the identification and assessment of social impacts represented a key area of
weakness in transport planning and assessment.
The key findings of the review of local and international transport planning practices were summarised
and presented in the format of an internal “Status Quo” report, presented at a workshop held in Cape
Town on 3 June 2003. The workshop was attended by members of the UTRG and EEU project team
and Jonathon Kass, a representative from ICF Consulting in the United States of America.
3.3 Phase 2: Development of principles for the Integrated Sustainable Transport
Framework/Checklist
In terms of the original proposal, one of the objectives of Phase 2, Development of Draft ‘Integrated
Sustainable Transport Framework’ (later called the Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
(ISTC)), was to identify key practitioners in South Africa involved in transportation planning and
related environmental assessments. Once this group had been identified it was envisaged that a series
of workshops would be held with these practitioners with the aim of:
 Informing the authorities and practitioners at the workshop of the study and its objectives.
 Collecting information from the authorities and practitioners involved in transportation policy and
planning on the current approach towards transportation planning in SA and the extent and role of
environmental assessments and integrated planning;

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 7
 Identifying the needs of the authorities and practitioners in terms of developing a ‘Integrated
Sustainable Transport Assessment Framework (ISTF)’, and
 Identify potential case studies that can be reviewed during Phase 3 of the study.
However, due to time constraints it was not possible to set up series of workshops are originally
envisaged. A decision was therefore undertaken to replace the proposed workshops with a
questionnaire survey. The aim of the questionnaire survey was twofold.
 To collect first hand information on the current approach to transport planning in South Africa;
 Assess the need for an ISTF/ISTC.
The questionnaire survey also provided the study with a vehicle for informing authorities and
practitioners of the study and its objectives and identifying potential case studies.
The design of the questionnaire was informed by the findings of the Phase 1 and was administered by
a series of one-on-one and telephonic interviews. A total of 23 interviews were undertaken in the three
largest metropolitan areas in South Africa, namely Gauteng (9 interviews), Durban (3 interviews) and
Cape Town (11 interviews). This provided the study with a representative geographical spread of
transport and environmental planners. The findings of the current practice questionnaire review are
summarised in a separate report, State of Current Practice in Transport Planning, Decision Making and
Assessment in South Africa (UTRG, September 2003). This report and the findings of the literature
review provided the study with the necessary baseline information for the development of the Draft
ISTF/ISTC.
The development of the Draft ISTF/ISTC was informed by the information collected in the Phase 1,
feedback from the questionnaire survey and a review of additional literature, specifically literature on
transport planning in a developing world context, and numerous discussions and debates between the
members of the UTRG and EEU project team and ICF. A detailed outline of the key elements that
informed the conceptual development of the ISTF/ISTC is outlined in Chapter 5. A summary of the
key points is provided below.
The development of the ISTF/ISTC is informed by:
 A set of legal principles that provide a starting point for a series of questions related to the use of
sustainable development principles in the transport planning process and during interventions.
 The need for transport planning to recognise and include human and social concerns;
 The need to identify and integrate sustainability concerns at the outset of the transport planning
process;
 The use of concepts from the sustainable livelihoods framework, and the associated set of assets,
as a starting point for assessing the sustainability of transport planning and project specific
interventions;
 The need for transport planning to focus on the notion of access and the transport needs of
vulnerable groups. These groups have largely been excluded from mainstream transport planning
in the past;
 The need to create a new checklist tool for transport planners which will enable them to check
planning processes and decisions which have already been taken against a legally-binding set of
transport related sustainability criteria.
In addition, the checklist seeks to:
 Be clear, readily understood and efficient in terms of time.
 Be particularly relevant to urban contexts.
 Make best use of limited data available, and to use professional judgement to answer the questions
posed.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 8
3.4 Phase 3: Evaluation of case studies and finalization of Integrated Sustainable Transport
Checklist
After some discussion regarding possible case studies for use in the project, three case studies were
selected, namely:
 Stock Road Railway Terminal Station;
 Klipfontein Road Transportation Corridor Project;
 Penway R 300 Toll Road.
The case studies provided the study with a range of transport projects to review. Due to the reduced
timeframe the case studies were all located in the Cape Town Metropolitan Region. The selection of
case studies was informed by:
 Availability and ease of access to information and key stakeholders;
 Familiarity of the UTRG and EEU project team with the case studies and the key stakeholders
involved; but
 Sufficient distance from the case studies in terms of previous advocacy work to ensure that access
to stakeholders and information was not compromised; and
 The need to select a diverse a range of transport related projects as possible.
A detailed description of the case studies and how they were identified is provided in Chapter 6. The
review of case studies involved the review of available background information and interviews with
key stakeholders involved in the project. The interviews were guided by a questionnaire developed by
the UTRG and EEU project team. The design of the questionnaire was informed by some of the
conceptual aspects of the Draft ISTC developed in Phase 3.
The aim of the interviews with key stakeholders were to:
 Review the extent to which environmental and integrated planning issues are/have been addressed,
and:
 Review the adequacy and appropriateness of the principles which were in place at the time of the
interview, and which were then intended to inform the Draft Integrated Sustainable Transport
Framework/ Checklist.
In terms of the original proposal the interviews were intended to review a well-developed ISTF/ISTC.
However, due to time constraints only a review of guiding principles was possible. Also, a series of
workshops with key stakeholders and the project team to discuss the findings of the case study review
and the Draft ISTC was proposed. However, due to time constraints the proposed workshops were not
held.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 9
4 CURRENT PRACTICE REVIEW
4.1 Introduction
The aim of the Current Practice Review was to test some of the knowledge and assumptions within the
study team regarding urban transport planning assessment and decision-making both locally and
nationally. In this section of the report the two elements of the current practice review are reported
upon:
 literature review work (both international and local); and
 fieldwork (involving an open-ended questionnaire survey).
4.2 International Literature Review
The aim of the literature review was to provide a summary of current transport project assessment
practices in the developed world and South Africa. The countries selected were the European Union
(EU), Canada and Japan12. Further input was given from ICF Consulting on practice in the US. The
selection of countries was based on readily available literature, and a full set of references is given in
the Reference section of the report. This short section provides an overview of the findings.
For information collection, electronic journals available from the UCT Library and other online
information sources were used. The journals referred to were Transport Reviews, Transport Research
Part D, Transport Policy, and the Journal of Transport Geography. From these journals, information
was obtained on the evaluation procedures implemented in German, Netherlands, UK, France, Canada,
EU and Japan.
All the countries evaluated use Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), although in Netherlands it is included in
Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). The differences are in the discount rates, project life and criteria

indices used in each country. In all countries, the results of CBA are not solely used in decision-
making, other criteria include:

 Budgetary constraints in UK;
 The Benefit Incidence Table (BIT) in Japan, which ensures a thorough consideration of all the
impacts; and
 An assessment of alternative modes in Germany.
The criteria were grouped into three namely economic and developmental, environmental and social,
and technical and financial criteria for comparison purposes (see tables Appendix A). Criteria common
to all countries include time savings, accident reduction and environmental impacts. The main
differences are on the methods used to evaluate the criteria, the assignment of weight and with
environmental impacts, the types of impacts evaluated and the methods of evaluation. Whereas the
UK puts more weight on time savings and accident reduction; France puts more weight on the impact
on local development. Japan includes quantitative and qualitative consideration of local and global
environmental impacts. German evaluates regional political impacts and impact on competitiveness of
alternate systems (Hayashi et al 2000).
The environmental impacts evaluated by all countries are noise, local air quality and global air quality;
although the methods of evaluating these impacts are different for each country. Other environmental
impacts evaluated include landscape, biodiversity, heritage, visual intrusion, ground/water pollution,
vibration, severance, resource consumption and land use (see Table B1 in Appendix B).

12 EU member states referred to are Poland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Greece, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, United
Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, France and Germany.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 10
4.3 South African (SA) Literature Review
The following literature sources were referred to in analysing the SA situation:
 Guidelines and requirements for the preparation of the urban transport plan (Ringwood et al
1992);
 Guidelines for conducting the economic evaluation of urban transport projects (Municipality of
Cape Town, 2003 );
 A procedure for integrating environmental concerns in the evaluation of urban transport projects
(Green et al 1991); and
 Guidelines for the environmental management of transportation projects (Booz-Allen Hamilton,
2003)
Ringwood et al 1992 indicated that CBA must be conducted for planned capital schemes and should
include all the direct impacts. The major environment impacts mentioned are land take, visual
intrusion, the effects on amenity of an area, noise, severance/neighbourhood disruption and pollution.
These are presented as add-ons to the CBA result.
The main focus of the ‘Guidelines for conducting the economic evaluation of urban transport projects’
were on guiding the CBA process. A list of direct costs to be included was provided, and
environmental impacts were listed under ‘other considerations’ and it was recommended that they be
kept separate from the CBA results.
In 1991 Green et al 1991 come up with a procedure for integrating environmental concerns in the
evaluation of transport projects. The criteria identified include noise, urban blight, visual impacts, air
quality, vibration and shock, congestion, community severance and access, heritage and conservation,
ecological factors, safety, disruption due to construction, land take and driver stress. A checklist
approach was suggested for noting the impacts of each impact and mitigation measures were suggested
for each impact.
In South Africa, local governments can pass their own policies and hence develop guidelines and
manuals separately from National documents. During the literature review the most thorough guideline
document obtained was that compiled for Gauteng and Tshwane Province (Booz-Allen Hamilton,
2003), which provides guidelines for the environmental management of transportation projects. The
criteria identified include noise, pollution, visual impacts, severance, ecological impacts, impacts on
landform and water systems and social impacts. A matrix or checklist method was selected for
representing the impacts of the project on the environment.
It seems that more or less the same criteria are evaluated in the reviewed developed countries as in
South Africa. The major differences arise from the values attributed to the values used. One criterion
that is missing in all the developed countries reviewed, excluding Germany (although the evaluation is
not a rigorous exercise), is equity. This is more important in South Africa because of the existence of
previously disadvantaged communities. The results obtained from this literature review was that
although equity/social impacts are assessed in South Africa, this is not done rigorously.
4.4 The Current Practice Review Fieldwork
Introduction
A questionnaire formed the basis for the fieldwork for the current practice review13. The method
followed for the review is given below, followed by the key conclusions. Fuller detail on this part of
the study has been written up as a separate document (Kruger et al, 2003)
13 although an additional small component involved investigation into the formal assessment/ prioritisation methods used by
practitioners, and this involved discussion concerning material extracted directly from Ringwood et al (1992). More details
are given in Kruger et al (2003)

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 11
2.1.Questionnaire design
A questionnaire (see Appendix C), aimed at encouraging practitioners currently involved in transport
planning to share their experiences, was developed. The questionnaire was structured into five main
sections as follows:
 Background and current involvement in transport planning;
 Knowledge of existing transport planning guidelines;
 Elaboration of the transport planning process;
 Identification and assessment of transport projects; and
 The nature of integrated transport planning.
The questions were phrased such that they were open to interpretation, with no “right’ or “wrong”
answers. Such an open-ended structure provided the opportunity for practitioners to interpret the
questionnaire according to their understanding and experiences, as well as provide further insights or
additional information, not envisaged during the development of the questionnaire, wherever relevant.
The overall aim of the questionnaire was to obtain a broad understanding concerning current South
African processes behind urban transport planning decision-making and assessment.
Interview methodology
The interviews were conducted either in person or via the telephone. Interviewees were advised that
the process would maintain confidentiality, and questioned with respect to their acceptance of the
interview being recorded on cassette (for later transcription purposes). Two researchers were present
for the majority of interviews, such that one researcher led the discussion, whilst the other documented
the response thoroughly, and ensured that the interview was being captured on cassette. Both
researchers were, through the use of a speaker phone, also able to engage with the respondent during
telephonic interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.
The study team initially generated a short list of anticipated key players. Additional respondents were
subsequently identified through a closing question inviting respondents to recommend other potential
key players. In this manner a longer list of key persons was rapidly generated, and a total of 23 key
players were interviewed.
Specific reference to the assessment methods (of Ringwood and Mare, 1992)
Ringwood, W.B.A. and Mare, H.A., undertook, in the early 1990’s, an extensive survey entitled
“Prioritisation in the Urban Transport Planning Process” investigating assessment methodologies (this
document produced as a South African Roads Board Project Report PR 91/415 in April 1992).
One senior interviewee from each of the three major provinces (namely the Western Cape, KwaZulu
Natal and Gauteng) was, following their interview, selected (based on their apparent understanding of
transport planning practice), and asked to comment on the relevant extract from Ringwood and Mare.
The extract, which related to assessment practice in the late 1980s was subsequently faxed through to
them, in order to establish specifically what methods for assessment were currently being used, and
whether or how much this had changed.
Data capture and analysis
The interviews were recorded independently by each researcher, as well as transcribed from cassette.
Both researchers also generated a “log book” describing their experiences associated with each
interview. Interviewee response concerning the extracts describing assessment methodologies were
recorded by a researcher during the telephonic conversation and/or in captured in the written format
submitted electronically to the researcher.

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 12
The notes taken during the interview (as written up by the two researchers), as well as the transcribed
material, were summarised into tables, and subsequently discussed. Being predominantly qualitative
information, this discussion relies on the interpretation and understanding of the two researchers. (The
body of the report being written by predominantly one researcher, and then reviewed by the other).
It was initially proposed that each interview would be transcribed, edited with input from each
researcher, and returned to the respondent for review and comment. However, due to time constraints,
this approach was revised. A summary of findings (as extracted from this main findings report) will be
provided to respondents instead. Respondents will, at that time, then be encouraged to provide
additional insights or opinions that they feel have been inadequately expressed in the summary report.
Unfortunately such insights will come too late to form part of this current report.
Constraints relating to transport planning background
Those individuals involved in the upper decision-making level of transport planning have only been
able to arrive in their position as a result of their experience in the field (an average of 12-15 years
experience). These respondents have therefore generally obtained most of their experience within the
road network transportation sector, as transport planning focusing on roads has, for the greater part of
the last 30 years, centered on the planning and construction of road networks. Therefore, one
constraint of the interviewees, which reflects a general constraint in senior ‘transport’ planners is a
lack of capacity in non-road issues.
2.4.2.Constraints relating to geographical spread
A total of 23 interviews were conducted with a geographical spread as indicated in the table below.
(Western Cape:11, Gauteng:9, Natal: 3). In terms of population and economic activity, this is skewed
a little towards the Western Cape.
4.5 Results, with respect to proposal, of Current Practice Review Fieldwork
The following sections outline the main results from the Current Practice Review interviews, which
are relevant to this study. Full details are given in Kruger et al (2003).
The main purpose of the interviews were to verify or disprove the assertions made in the proposal at
the outset of the study, and hence to provide a justification (or not) for the development of the
ISTC/ISTF. In respect of this three of the findings from this study support three of the four expected
findings that were anticipated by the Research Group (documented in the proposal, November 2002).
These three supported findings are as follows:
 Integrated transport planning is not being undertaken in the manner intended by legislation;
 There exists a lack of communication and integration between the departments of transportation
and environment affairs;
 Strategic assessments for policies, programmes and plans are not required by law, and, as such, are
seldom undertaken.
The rationale for the above findings, as speculated by the Research Group, were directly supported by
this study, namely that:
 Environmental assessment skills are not well developed in SA, particularly within the government
sector; and
 Environmental concerns are frequently seen to add to the cost (time and money) of development
initiatives and, as such, do not receive a high priority in the decision-making process.
The only anticipated finding that was not supported through this study was the expectation that
“environmental assessments for transport projects are not always undertaken, even for those projects
with the potential for significant environmental impacts”. This hypothesis was found to be false, with

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 13
all respondents indicating that, for “major projects” (which were understood to be those projects with
potentially significant environmental impacts), environmental assessment was considered an essential
part of the transport planning process.
Regarding the speculation that “environmental assessment is not regarded as an integral part of the
transport planning (although the legislative framework calls for more environmental consideration)”,
the current practice review found that environmental assessment is considered by all respondents to
have an important role in transport planning, but is not always considered by (especially more junior)
transport planners to be their ‘job’. Rather environmental assessment is seen as part of the
Environmental Impact Assessment process which comes at the later end of the planning process. As a
counter to this, more senior planners were well aware of the need for integrated planning, with the
environment as part of that. (For full supporting arguments regarding these conclusions see Kruger et
al, 2003). Additional findings are discussed below.
4.6 Additional Results of Current Practice Review Fieldwork
The need for guideline development
“…people are not sure what to do at that broad level…” (regarding environmental issues at the early
project stage)
“…transportation planning is taking place on an ad hoc basis, with no clear guideline or guidance
coming from neither national nor provincial government”.
No respondents interviewed were aware of any guideline dedicated towards integrated transport
planning, although there was an appreciation of other guidance, usually fell into either into an
“environmental” category (such as the DEAT Guidelines for strategic environment assessment (SEA)
in South Africa), or a “transport” category (such as the TPR/TPG Series).
The politicised nature of decision-making
“…it is difficult to establish when the final assessment is taken, as the “decision making” stage as
often unclear, since many decisions are taken over a long period of time. This lag time between project
plan and project implementation often results in any formal type of assessment only occurring late in
the transport planning process”.
“…very often the process is not ‘assessed’, as the proposal to go ahead is taken at a political level,
with primarily economic and political reasons driving the assessment process”.
Several respondents indicated that regular exceptions to the generic planning cycle do, for a variety of
reasons, however occur. For example one respondent stated that projects:
“…generally do follow the typical stages of the generic project cycle, however there has recently been
a large amount of ‘fast tracking’, which has resulted in projects being implemented overnight. …In the
past, project funding was dictated by officials in each sector, however it has become a politically

driven process”.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 14
Box 1: Political pressure (responding to historical injustices) driving project identification: (a)
the Gautrain Project and (b) the Klipfontein Corridor

Box 2: Political pressure (responding to (a) regional, (b) national or (c) multinational planning
processes) driving project identification.

The move from economic and financial based assessment criteria to more broader assessment
Some respondents did indicate that the financial implications associated with alternatives, (typically
calculated in the form of a cost-benefit analysis or economic evaluation), remain the most heavily
weighted criteria. One respondent stated that:
”… the only criteria being used for assessment are financial criteria, since, at the moment the ‘people
with the purse strings’ make the decisions, and there exists no capacity in order to do proper
modelling so that other factors may be used to convince the authorities that they need to consider not

only the financial factors”.

(a) For the Gautrain project, the “need to reverse existing apartheid transport structures” was cited
as being the underlying factor associated with the identification and implementation of the
transport project.
(b) The Klipfontein Corridor was explained as being the vision of the Minister of the Executive
Council (MEC) for transport in the Western Cape and was born through a visit by the MEC to
Bogotá, Columbia. (The Bogotá system characterised by dedicated bus lanes (bus rapid
transit) pedestrian and cycle pathways). One respondent indicated that the power of political
pressure in terms of dictating transport planning has, in the Klipfontein Corridor example,
resulted in “incorrect project identification, since the Wetton-Lansdowne corridor should
have, based on technical criteria, received funding for an improved transport system”.
(A few respondents also note however, that both of these projects were also identified as requiring
a transport project intervention due to public demand and the technical need for an improved
transport system in the area).

(a) Political identification of transport needs was mentioned by a few respondents to drive the
regional planning process, for example, the re-connecting of the Northern Province with
Namibia, Botswana and Maputo, through the Trans Garie Garie Project, is justified as
catalysing the peace process, meeting economic demand, and providing a symbolic link
between the countries.
(b) Transportation needs may, on occasion, be a product of an “anchor project”, which takes the
form of a nationally funded new beneficiation project that brings large-scale development into
an area. This “anchor project” has usually been identified as a “need” on a political level,
through, for example, the national Poverty Reduction Plan, which, in turn, resulted in the
development of the Pondoland Corridor in Natal.
(c) Transport projects may also be a product arising from “anchor projects” identified by outside
agencies (such as the World Bank, or multinational companies such as Billiton investing in a
smelter requiring road, rail and port transportation networks). In this case, the multinational
company may drive the project, in terms of needs of identification and project proposal, and
then put pressure on the authorities such that their development proposal for transport
infrastructure is implemented.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 15
A few respondents stated that, whilst other criteria are weighted, this weighting is within the financial
constraints, that is:
”…technical, then environmental criteria received a large weighting, although the financial criteria

were considered throughout the process”

and that:
”… road construction is always responding to a social need, and then within the financial constraints,

and then within the environmental constraints”.
A few respondents also indicated that there exists the perception that:
“environmental considerations cost more in terms of both time and money, and cannot, therefore, be

afforded too heavy a weighting within a developing country context”.

Several respondents suggested however, (in contrast to the sentiments expressed above), that there has
been progress with respect to considering social and environmental criteria when comparing
alternatives, stating for example that:
”…at least the environmental and social criteria are now included as criteria remain (since they did
not feature amongst the criteria 20 years ago”.
And that:
”…in the past, the financial criteria were usually considered the most important. Nowadays however,
social criteria are considered to have a heavier weighting, such that projects lacking clear social
benefits may not be considered. Social factors, particularly equity, is playing a much greater role. The
technical criteria associated with a project is also no longer such a significant factor”.
Most of the respondents indicated that awareness regarding the need to apply non-monetary and other
criteria into the assessment procedure is being raised. The majority of respondents therefore echo
statements such as:
“…their branch is trying to move away from the predominantly economic assessment
approach, in order to assess projects in terms of unlocking their future potential, whilst

providing a heavier weighting for social criteria”.

The identification of alternatives
“…it is extremely difficult to assess whether or not alternatives are considered in the pre-feasibility
stage, because it is often unclear as to who has taken which decisions, and what these decisions were
based on”.
Many respondents indicated that alternatives were specifically considered when projects involved the
development of “greenfields” which passed through sensitive areas, however a single respondent noted
that, given the typically overdeveloped nature of land use in urban areas, the identification of genuine
alternatives is rarely possible.
The most frequently cited examples of alternatives, were with respect to the consideration of
alternative route alignments for roads, and consideration of alternatives at the ‘project level’, typically
within the context of an EIA process. One respondent did however indicate that, due to the “fast
tracking” of the planning process (as mentioned in section 2 above), the time necessary for the genuine
consideration of alternatives was not necessarily available, that is:

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 16
“…alternative routes were ideally considered during the preliminary phase, but these were considered

only when there was sufficient time available in order to do so”.

Another respondent indicated that the extent of consideration of alternatives was “dependant on the
capacity of the individuals implementing the project”.

No respondents referred to the consideration of alternative modes of transport at either the pre-
feasibility or project planning levels. Two respondents with an environmental background did however

indicate concern regarding the lack of consideration of modal or other alternatives at the pre-feasibility
stage. One respondent indicated however, that public transport options, (such as the taxi industry, as
well as bus and train transport services), were not yet developed to the extent whereby alternatives
provided by public transport options could adequately be considered suitable alternatives to road
infrastructure.
Integrated planning
Integrated transport planning requires co-operation and co-ordination amongst all three levels of
government, such that all programmes are co-ordinated with each other. However two respondents
indicated that they did not feel co-operative governance was occurring. One respondent stated that:
…”the type of planning called for by law requires co-operation and co-ordination amongst all three
levels of government…presently a lack of co-operative governance is undermining this process”…
and another respondent indicating that:
…”part of the problem is the lack of co-operative governance, which is presently not happening”.
A few respondents indicated that whilst transport planning was moving in the direction of integrated
planning, they felt that there “remains insufficient understanding on the subject”, and that “capacity
needs to be built in order to support the development of ITPs”. Furthermore, respondents indicated that
the level of integration is heavily dependant on the nature of the individual project co-ordinator, with a
project leader who has an understanding of the nature of integrated planning, likely to develop a more
integrated plan.
One respondent indicated that they believed South Africa to be moving towards “comprising a
transport planning management level workforce who have sufficient capacity for implementing
integrated planning projects”, however another respondent indicated that there exists a “need for
further research, discussion, and greater efforts to support and guide South Africa towards integrated
planning”.
Three respondents indicated that, due to the historical context of transport planning in South Africa,
and the lack of interdisciplinary integration at all levels,
…”there exists a large body of transportation planners who will argue that their core business does
not include environmental issues such as climate change and social quality of life issues”…”they will
therefore not participate in programmes that could raise awareness and extend their thinking to a
more integrated approach”.
4.7 Conclusions
The Current Practice Review interviews found that:
 Integrated transport planning is not being undertaken in the manner intended by legislation;
 There exists a lack of communication and integration between the departments of transportation
and environment affairs;
 Strategic assessments for policies, programmes and plans are not required by law, and, as such, are
seldom undertaken.

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 17
 Environmental assessment skills are not well developed in SA, particularly within the government
sector; and
 Environmental concerns are frequently seen to add to the cost (time and money) of development
initiatives and, as such, do not receive a high priority in the decision-making process.
Further more, the interviews highlighted the following:
 An expressed need for guidelines on the part of practitioners;
 A more politicised decision-making framework since 1994, which has changed the role of
officials, and implies the need for a fresh approach to assessment;
 (Where assessment takes place) a shift from the consideration of mainly technical and/or
financial criteria to a broader assessment framework;
 A lack of identification of alternatives, especially an issue at the beginning of the project
process;
 The need to promote integrated planning.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 18
5 TOWARDS AN ISTC – THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
5.1 The context
Internationally transport planning during the 1990s has undergone a significant paradigm shift, from a
process which has been dominated by technically expert rational decision-makers, to a process which
is much more participative; from a decision-framework which has been traditionally dominated by
efficiency driven criteria such as Cost Benefit Analysis, to a tendency to use Multi-Criteria Analysis,
within which issues of sustainable development have an important role. Within South Africa’s
emergent democracy there has also been a move towards more participative, open and transparent
decision-making. In common with other countries there are calls for more ‘integrated’ planning. All
of these shifts, each of which is significant in its own terms, call into question traditional practice
methods and tools. It is timeous, therefore, in light of these shifts, to question the tools in use in
transport planning, and to ask whether new paradigms call also for new approaches to planning. The
rationale for a new approach has been outlined already in Section 2 of this report, and some indications
of what such a new approach may need to look like emerged during the Current Practice Review
interviews and literature review work. In terms of the project process, there was then a period of
reflection, and some conceptual development work. During this period, literature was reviewed as
required. This section outlines the various concepts which then contributed to the development of the
Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist. Each element of debate is taken in turn and the issues
discussed, before a summary is reached on how the concepts were integrated into the development of
the final ISTC.
5.2 The legal component
In South Africa in the early 1990s the CSIR (on behalf of the National Department of Transport)
provided guidance for transport planners on project prioritisation and the inclusion of environmental
criteria in decision-making14 . Interviews held with one of the researchers who contributed to the CSIR
study indicated a general disillusionment, and a belief that the work, although useful, had not been
adopted in practice. This poor uptake of guidance, even when it is provided, led to a series of debates
within the study team regarding the nature and value of this framework/checklist. How could it be
assured that the checklist would be relevant to practice? How could it be assured that the checklist
would be adopted?
The project team were of the opinion that in order for the framework to be adopted by the South
African planning fraternity, it would need to be required by, or at the very least informed by, a set of
legal requirements. This view was reinforced by comments from the Current Practice Review which
indicated a general unwillingness, or inability, on the part of transport planners to incorporate
considerations that were not absolutely necessary for the development of the project, or which were
not a legal requirement. However, in terms of the client brief, the client required a framework of
general applicability and not one which was relevant only to the South African context. The
compromise was an interrogation of the relevant South African legal instruments, but with a focus on
issues of principle which were derived from the Constitutional rights, and subsequently adopted in the
Acts of parliament. From the reviews of existing transport planning, other planning, development and
environmental legislation, several legal principles were derived, and these have been used to structure
the framework15. The principles are listed below:
14 Green, C.A. and D.E. Faure (1991) A procedure for integrating environmental concerns into the planning and
implementation of urban road projects. Research Report RR90/138. Department of Transport and Ringwood, W.B.A and
H.A. Mare (1992) Prioritisation in the Urban Transport Planning Process. Project Report RR91/415. South African Roads
Board.
15 The legal instruments used in deriving the principles were:
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act (no 200 of 1993)
Development Facilitation Act (no 67 of 1995)
National Environment Management Act (no 107 of 1998)
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (no 3 of 2000)
Promotion of Access to Information Act (no 2 of 2000)

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 19
Principles regarding the planning process
 open and transparent decision-making;
 co-operative governance;
 integrated planning;
 public participation; and
Principles regarding the intervention
 sustainable development, considered both generally and in terms of :
o natural resources;
o social resources;
o human resources;
o financial resources;
o physical resources; and
o time resources.
These principles subsequently formed the headings of the checklist.
In summary,
The framework uses each of legal principles as the starting point for a series of questions related to the
sustainability of the planning process and the intervention. Although derived from South African law,
the principles are considered to have general developing world applicability.
5.3 A review of environment and sustainability concepts
Given the centrality of the notions of environment and sustainability in the framework – and the view
by some transport planners interviewed in the current practice of EIAs as a hindrance to the planning
process -a review was undertaken of environmental and sustainability concepts at the earliest stages of
the project, and an internal document was produced which was discussed at an internal workshop. The
legal definitions for environment given in legislation from 1989 and 1998 neatly summarised the shift
in South Africa from a definition of environment which mainly focused on bio-physical aspects to one
which was more all-encompassing.
From:
Environment “means the aggregate of surrounding objects, conditions and influences that influence the
life and habits of man or any other organism or collection of organisms” (South African Environment
Conservation Act, 1989 )
To:
Environment “means the surroundings within which humans exists and that are made up of:
i. the land, water and atmosphere of the earth;
ii. micro-organisms, plant and animal life;
iii. any part or combination of i and ii and the interrelationships among or between them; and
the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence
human health and well-being” (National Environmental Management Act, 1998).
The contemporary definition of ‘sustainable development’ for South Africa is defined in NEMA as
“the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and
decision-making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations”, which
confirms the progress from a purely bio-physical consideration of environment in planning towards
something more all-encompassing.

National Land Transport Transition Act (no 22 of 2000)
Local Government Municipal Systems Act (no 32 of 2000)

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 20
The interviews undertaken for the project indicated that most transport planners are familiar with
Environmental Impact Assessments, and joint work on these are frequently the means of interaction
between transport planners and the environmentalists. However, traditionally EIAs have concerned
themselves more with the bio-physical than the human and social aspects of interventions.
In summary,
The legal definition of sustainable development, and the Constitution (which calls for improving the
quality of life of all citizens) requires both transport planners and environmentalists to embrace a more
holistic view of the environment and to move into arenas more inclusive of human and social
concerns. The checklist should reflect that need.
5.4 Poverty and sustainable livelihood concepts
“Sustainable development in developing countries cannot be achieved until poverty and inequality are
addressed. To the aforementioned question [about what is to be sustained], one should add the vital
question for developing countries: we should provide sustainability for whom? If this question is not
asked, we will behave as if everybody affected by environmental questions were equal and as if
general sustainability targets such as ‘economic sustainability’ would be equally beneficial or relevant
to all people. Therefore one has to ask whose sustainability has to be pursued, which implies
analysing the relative transport conditions faced by different social groups and classes16”.
For Africa sustainable development is as much about redressing inequity as it is about development; as
much about poverty as it is about environment. Without redress there will be no environmental
improvement since the biophysical environment is considered an irrelevance by many of the poor with
many pressing immediate needs. The cities of the developing world face unique challenges. These
cities are characterised by dual economies: one serves the needs of the formal and affluent, while the
other serves the needs of the informal and disadvantaged. Urban poverty, characterised by
unemployment or insecure employment, lack of essential services, dependence on the informal sector
and low wages has a direct bearing on how the poor use transport. Access to transport is a ‘strategy’
required for sustained survival.
Although the South African government has made several policy statements in support of sustainable
development and Agenda 21, there is little tangible evidence of sustainable development in the urban
transport sector.17

A central challenge for a framework/checklist, then, was to develop a tool that
would be relevant to both the sustainable development, transport planning and poverty lobby groups.
The framework/checklist therefore needed to encompass sustainable development principles, but be
people-centred and relevant to the transport sector. Ideas and concepts relating to sustainable
development and transport in developing world contexts were found through a literature review of
work on the ‘sustainable livelihoods’ framework, developed by the Department for International
Development (DfID in the UK) 18, but used more recently at the World Bank19
.
The ‘sustainable livelihoods approaches’ differ from other approaches to development in20:
 putting people (rather than the resources they use, or governments) at the centre of development;
 building on peoples strengths rather than needs;
 incorporating all relevant aspects of people’s lives; and
 emphasising links between policy and household decisions.
16 Vasconcellos, E.A. (2003) Inclusion of social benefits in road transport planning. Accessed 25 September at
www.transport-links.org/transport_links/projects/ projects_document_page.asp?projectid=322
17 Kane, L. (2001) A Review of Progress towards Agenda 21 principles in the South African Urban Transport Sector.
Background Paper, Urban Transport Research Group, University of cape Town. Online at
http://www.utrg.uct.ac.za/workingpapers.htm
18 See more at http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf
19 See details of the World Bank’s use of the sustainable livelihoods approach, in the transport sector at
http://www.poverty.worldbank.org/library/view/4615
20 See online commentary at http://www.livelihoods.org/Sldefn.html

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 21
It proposes a dual focus on sustainability and vulnerability, and an examination of the ‘assets’ or
‘capital’ that poor people have to overcome vulnerability. In the classic sustainable livelihoods
approach there are five types of capitals21:
 natural capital is the term used to describe “the natural resource stocks from which resource flows
and services useful for livelihoods are derived. There is a wide variation in the resources that make
up natural capital, from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere and biodiversity to
divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.)” Examples of natural capital and
services deriving from it are: land, forests, marine/wild resources, water, air quality, erosion
protection.
 human capital “represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together
enable people to achieve their livelihood objectives. At a household level human capital is a factor
of the amount and quality of labour available and this varies according to household size, skill
levels, leadership potential, health status, etc.”
 social capital. In the context of the sustainable livelihoods framework “is taken to mean the social
resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood objectives. These are developed
through: networks and connectedness; membership of more formalised groups and relationships of
trust, reciprocity and exchanges that facilitate co-operation, reduce transaction costs and may
provide the basis for informal safety nets amongst the poor.
 physical capital “comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support
livelihoods. Infrastructure consists of changes to the physical environment that help people to meet
their basic needs and to be more productive. Producer goods are the tools and equipment that
people use to function more productively. The following components of infrastructure are usually
essential for sustainable livelihoods: affordable transport; secure shelter and buildings; adequate
water supply and sanitation; clean, affordable energy; and access to information
(communications).”
 financial capital “denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood
objectives. The definition used captures the availability of cash or equivalent, that enables people
to adopt different livelihood strategies. There are two main sources of financial capital. Available
stocks, which can be held in several forms: cash, bank deposits or liquid assets such as livestock
and jewelery. The second main form of financial capital is regular inflows of money.
The sustainable livelihoods framework was originally developed for use in rural contexts, and not
specifically for transport interventions, but some of the concepts were considered in developing this
checklist.
In summary,
For this checklist, five elements of ‘sustainable livelihood’ assets were used as a starting point for a
consideration of the sustainability of a transport intervention.
In using these, and developing a set of transport related criteria for probing sustainable development, it
became clear that one key asset was missing, namely, time. It is the ability of transport interventions
to deliver time savings to the poor which distinguishes transport from other infrastructural
improvement, and so for completeness, this factor was considered for inclusion in the checklist also.
5.5 Understanding the term ‘integrated’
Integrated transport planning is a common contemporary notion in planning practice. The integration
refers to integration of modes of transport; integration between spheres of government; and integration
of transport planning and land development planning. Integration between spheres of government has
been problematic, although there were indications from the Current Practice Review interviews that
transport departments are working more closely now than previously at a Provincial and City level.
However, the integration of transport and land development planning sectors is perhaps more
21 Ibid

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 22
problematic, requiring the meshing together of two previously divergent professions, with sometimes
conflicting goals. South African moves towards integrated transport planning are encapsulated in the
Development Facilitation Act (No 67 of 1995) and the National Land Transport Transition Act (No 22
of 2000). These instruments specifically states that the integration of the social, economic,
institutional and physical aspects of land development must be promoted (DFA s 3(c)), and that there
should be integration within land transport planning (NLTTA s 4(1) and s 21(3)).
Beyond the commonly understood divisions between land development planners and transport
planners, it became evident through the current practice review of a further division, that is, between
the transport planners and environmentalists. Transport planners do not consider environmental issues
to be integral to the planning process, except where the process requires an EIA by law. However, to
the frustration of the environmentalists, a consideration of environmental issues at such a late stage in
the planning process represents many missed opportunities to enhance the sustainability of transport
interventions, and means that the EIA is merely concerned with mitigating social and environmental
impacts. Incorporating environmental criteria, mainly at a project level, means that the meta-debates
around, for example transport emissions are simply not taking place.
In summary,
In terms of the checklist development, integration and sustainable development concepts are brought
in at the start of the planning process, leading to a more meaningful consideration of them.
5.6 A review of transport, mobility and accessibility concepts
The issue of mobility versus accessibility is a well-debated one in South African planning circles
(Cape Metropolitan Council , 2001) with land development planners having accused transport planners
of having too high a concern for mobility, over the more holistic accessibility. The debate touches on
the issues of integration with land-use planning also discussed above, for if the aim is mobility, then
the outcome will be more, and faster means of transport. Ultimately such a mobility policy is
polluting, does not favour non-motorised movement, and is thus considered inequitable, as it excludes
those with the least ability to travel22. An aim of improving accessibility implies that either mobility
can improve, or the ability to achieve a certain goal can improve in other ways (for example through
more localised service provision, such as local area clinics). The ultimate conclusion of this debate is
a form of ‘accessibility planning’, as advocated by the UK Social Exclusion Unit23. The aims of this
approach are to ensure:
 a clear process and responsibility for identifying groups or areas with accessibility problems;
 information on barriers to accessibility, and areas where accessibility is poorest;
 the bringing together of agencies to consider a wide range of solutions to accessibility problems,
including the location and delivery of services (and measures against crime).
Such an approach implies a completely fresh paradigm for planning, and in turn new data collection
and analysis tools. A focus on accessibility requires analysis of the originators of travel needs, and
how those needs are fulfilled, more than the flows and speed of links. As such it is more suited to
considerations of activities in space than transport network analysis, and to a partnership with land
development planners, rather than single profession working. Although this checklist has not
progressed to the stage of considering data collection or analysis, current practice would clearly need
to change if there is to be a meaningful shift from considerations of mobility to considerations of
access.
In summary,
22 Vasconcellos, E.A. (2001) Urban Transport, Environment and Equity: The case of Developing Countries. Earthscan,
London.
23 Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Social Exclusion. Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, UK, pp61-62.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 23
The focus in the development of this checklist is on the notion of access, and of bringing into transport
planning those who have been excluded from mainstream planning efforts.
It is also intended to encourage cross-sectoral thinking between land-use planners, environmentalists
and transport planners.
5.7 A review of checklist and assessment concepts
Assessment in transport planning terms has traditionally been an exercise in ranking alternative
schemes. The earliest transport planning assessment methods of the 1950s and 1960s focused on
means of optimizing the returns from highways schemes. Central to this assessment process was the
notion that economic returns should be optimized and so it was obvious that highway schemes should
be evaluated in the same way as many other public sector priority projects, using cost-benefit analysis
(CBA). Later the assessment process was expanded to include other non-economic criteria, and
versions of multi-criteria analyses were used. Many different means of weighting and ranking
schemes have been developed over time in South Africa. (See Section 4.2).
Despite the apparent widespread use of prioritisation assessment procedures in the early 1990s in
South Africa, the Current Practice Report (Kruger et al, 2003) identifies that they are used less
frequently today. There are a number of reasons for this:
 the relative lack of money for any new transport schemes;
 the relative lack of expertise to undertake the analysis due to widespread retrenchments and
reorganisation of the public service;
 where schemes are proposed, the lack of alternatives to evaluate. (This may be due to either
historical bias towards a particular scheme, or an existing plan to support a scheme, or political
pressure for a particular scheme);
 a tendency to use the knowledge of experts to do an informal ranking process.
This lack of widespread assessment in practice lead to a dilemma on this project. How can sustainable
development be assured in the absence of rigorous assessment procedures and criteria? It was decided
that what is needed, in the absence of assessment procedures, is a means of checking plans,
programmes or projects against sustainability criteria – a checklist. This move from assessment to
checklist is a fundamental shift in the direction of the project, and reflects a decision to be more
persuaded by the reality of transport planning in South Africa, as evident from the Current Practice
Review interviews, rather than what we would, as transport academics, ideally wish transport planning
to represent. (Which would be a rigorous assessment of real alternatives, supported by an adequate
data set). The move to checklist represents the shift from the development of an assessment tool for
decision-making to the development of an awareness raising tool for promoting the consideration of
sustainable development during the whole planning process.
Checklists are familiar to traffic engineers as the safety audit procedure, through which existing,
accident-prone stretches of infrastructure (or designs) are checked against a list of safety issues. These
are now a commonplace feature of international practice. Sustainable development checklists, to our
knowledge, have not been developed or used in transport planning practice.
In summary,
It was decided that the checklist should attempt to create a new tool for planners, which could be used
to:
– check decisions which have already been taken against legally-binding sustainable development
criteria; or

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 24
– be used to ensure a planned intervention is meeting sustainable development principles 24
It should be, in essence, a tool for raising awareness with respect to sustainable development principles
applicable to transport planning.
5.8 Issues of capacity
Although not a theoretical debate, the issue of professional capacity also informed the structure of the
final ISTC. It was noted in the Current Practice Review that many experienced staff left the public
sector especially due to retrenchments and early retirements in the early- to mid-1990s, which left a
paucity of technical capacity for assessment, and planning more generally. In addition the tertiary
sector has traditionally focused on traditional transport engineering, and related CBA or conventional
multi-criteria approaches (although this appears to be changing). These factors have contributed to a
lack of innovation in the assessment field, despite the new policy environment.
In summary,
In terms of the checklist, then, low capacity means that the checklist needs to be clear, readily
understood, easily applied and not onerous in terms of time if it is to be adopted by the planning
fraternity.
5.9 Issues of data availability and structure
A combination of apartheid policies, and a focus on the problem of traffic congestion and highway
construction led to a particular analytical scope on the surveys and four-step traffic forecasting models
that dominated past South African practices. In many, if not most, instances the travel demand models
developed were calibrated for the weekday morning peak period when congestion is generally worst,
and consequently travel data were collected on trips occurring within this period. The implicit
underlying assumption was that a transport system which satisfies the need for (mainly long-distance,
motorised) travel during the commuter peak, will be able to satisfy other travel needs as well.
To address the question of why the focus of travel analysis in South Africa has been restricted to
commutes and peaks it is necessary to determine how, by whom and in whose interests, and why, a
particular ‘truth’ – in this instance about what constitutes significant travel need and behaviour – has
been constructed and represented. Despite contributions by geographers, town planners and
sociologists, and despite studies undertaken by academic and research institutions, the field of travel
analysis in South Africa has been dominated by engineers and economists acting as officials of, or
consultants to, public sector transport authorities. The core responsibilities of these authorities have in

the past been to produce and implement urban transport plans within an essentially ‘predict-and-
provide’ policy environment, serving an Apartheid government, and as a consequence, travel analysis

has focused on gathering the data necessary to calibrate aggregate or disaggregate four-stage models
and on running these models to forecast future patterns of traffic. The four-stage model was developed

in a North American policy of accommodating rapidly increasing private motor car use through long-
term and capital-intensive highway construction. It was a analytical tool essentially constructed and

used to demonstrate a rational economic case for road building. The urban transport problem has
therefore been defined as one of avoiding forecast traffic congestion through increasing road capacity
supply.
The available data in Cape Town, for example, covers the influence of race, income, vehicle access
and location on travel patterns, and some data are available on mobility disadvantaged
passengers and scholars in particular. Most studies however have tended to analyse trips, rather than
the people and activities which generate them. National studies provide some insights into the
influence of affordability, mobility and age on travel patterns. But in general it could be argued that
24 There is no reason why the audit procedure cannot also be used as the starting point for an assessment process which starts
with criteria and then compares the impacts of alternatives.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 25
there is little knowledge of the needs and behaviour of different kinds of individuals categorised on the
basis of variables like age, gender and poverty, particularly of those individuals referred to in the
international literature as the ‘disadvantaged’ whom this checklist wishes to bring into mainstream
planning25
.
In summary
There is a paucity of data available to answer the questions posed in any assessment framework, as
very little data is systematically collected and there are few resources to collect more. Data collection
is important, but any checklist will need to make best use of limited data available, and to often use
professional judgement to answer some of the questions posed. (Although, more targeted data
collection will often become necessary at the EIA stage of the planning process.)
Also, in order to adequately understand poverty-related and access issues, the data which is collected
needs to be based more on activities than trips; it needs to be more sociological, than technical. 26
5.10 Yes/no versus full assessment
Another area of debate concerning the checklist related to the depth of assessment which was relevant.
For much of the project the intention was to include in the checklist questions relating to the spatial
extent, duration, severity, probability and mitigation potential of the checklist criteria. In this way a

full understanding of the criteria would have developed during the use of the checklist, and a well-
informed decision should then have been possible. However, during interviews it had been clear that

the need was for a strategic tool, which could be used to help at the beginning of an (often flawed)
planning process. Also, given the lack of good data and capacity, the need was for a tool which could
(perhaps quickly) make best use of available knowledge and not replicate parts of a much fuller EIA
process which could come later.
In summary,
The yes/no approach to questions was therefore chosen over a fuller response set, given the need for a
tool which could be used without much existing data, making best use of existing knowledge, and
principally as an awareness raising tool
5.11 Summary of Principles for use in Developing the ISTC
In summary it was found that the ISTC will need to:
 recognise a fundamental shift in transport policy and planning
 use legal principles as the starting point for a series of questions related to the sustainability of
the planning process and the intervention.
 reflect the need for transport planning to move into arenas more inclusive of human and social
concerns.
 use some ‘sustainable livelihoods assets’ concepts (that is, natural, social, human, physical,
financial and time resources) as a starting point for a consideration of the sustainability of a
transport intervention, with particular reference to the poor and vulnerable.

25 For more on these arguments see Behrens, R. (2002).
26 See Vasconcellos, E.A. (2001)

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 26

 bring integration and sustainability concerns to the start of the planning process.
 focus on the notion of accessibility, and of bringing into transport planning those who have
been excluded from mainstream planning efforts.
 attempt to create a new checklist tool for planners, which will check decisions which have
already been taken against legally-binding sustainability criteria.
 use yes/no responses in preference to a fuller answer set.
 be clear, readily understood and efficient in terms of time.
 make best use of limited data available, and use appropriate data to assist as necessary.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 27
6 TESTING OF ISTC PRINCIPLES USING CASE STUDIES
6.1 Introduction
In terms of the original proposal it was envisaged that a Draft Integrated Sustainable Transport
Framework, developed in Phase 2, would inform a Phase 3 case study review. The intention of the
case study review was two-fold:
 To review the extent to which environmental and integrated planning issues are/have been
addressed in practice, and:
 To review the adequacy and appropriateness of the Draft ISTF.
The reduced timeframe for the project impacted on the development of the Draft ISTF in Phase 2.
Due to the reduced timeframe the checklists that make up the Draft ISTF were not completed by the
time case study reviews were undertaken. The review of the case studies was, however, informed and
guided by the conceptual principles underpinning the ISTF (See Chapter 5). The findings of the case
study review were, therefore, used to inform the final design and development of the ISTF, as opposed
to modifying a Draft ISTF developed in Phase 2 as originally proposed.
The reduced timeframe also ensured that the project team were not in a position to workshop the
findings of the review with the key stakeholders involved in the case studies. The Final Draft ISTF
has, therefore, not been discussed and or workshopped with the potential users.
6.2 Methodology
Due to the reduced timeframe of the project the case studies selected were all located in the Cape
Town Metropolitan Region as opposed to in the three major metropolitan centres of South Africa as
originally envisaged. The case studies selected for review were:
 Stock Road Railway Terminal Station;
 Klipfontein Road Transportation Corridor Project;
 Penway R 300 Toll Road.
The criteria used to select the case studies were:
 Availability and ease of access to information on the case studies;
 Availability and ease of access to the key stakeholders involved in the case studies;
 Familiarity of the UTRG and EEU project team with the case studies and the key stakeholders
involved;
 Willingness of the officials involved in the project to be interviewed and participate in the review
process;
 Sufficient distance from the case studies in terms of previous advocacy work to ensure that access
to stakeholders and information was not compromised; and
 The need to select a diverse a range of transport related projects as possible.
The case study review process involved firstly a desk-top study of the available background
information. This process was informed by an information prompt list developed by the project team.
The findings of the background information reviews were summarised in the format of short project
summary documents that provided a range of project specific information including, type, location,
scale, history and planning process. The information contained in the project summaries provided the
project team with the relevant background information required to conduct the interviews with the key
stakeholders involved in each of the case studies. The interviews held with key stakeholders involved
in the case studies were guided by a short, two-page questionnaire developed by the project team. The
focus of the questionnaire was informed by the project summaries and the conceptual principles that
underpinned the development pf the ISTF (Chapter 5).

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 28
6.3 Assessment of ISTC principles through case studies
As indicated above the interviews with key stakeholders involved in each of the case studies were
informed by a questionnaire based on the conceptual principles underpinning the development of the
ISTF. The assessment is therefore divided into three sections, namely:
 Project identification;
 Planning, and;
 Specialist studies.
These headings are used to discuss the case study findings below.
6.4 Klipfontein Corridor Project
Project identification
The Klipfontein Corridor Project is located along the proposed Klipfontein Corridor (formally called
Cape Town CBD-Klipfontein Road-Khayelitsha Corridor) within the Cape Town Metropolitan Area.
The overall length of the corridor is approximately 20km and it is one of the Cape Town’s busiest
routes, connecting the middle to low-income townships of Athlone, Gatesville, Gugulethu,
Khayelitsha and Nyanga to popular retail destinations in Cape Town’s southern suburbs and CBD.
The proponents of the project are the Western Cape Provincial Government and the City of Cape
Town. The project is currently in the planning stage and the estimated cost is in the region of R 300
million.
The project has been promoted as a developmental project in the form of a ‘mobility strategy’ with a
focus on public transport. The aim of the project is therefore to provide cheap, accessible, safe and
efficient public transport service to the communities and commuters living along and in the vicinity of
the corridor. The intended beneficiaries are the captive users of public transport, namely the urban
poor, women, the disabled, the young and the elderly. The project also seeks to address the existing
congestion problems along the corridor by providing an affordable, accessible, safe and efficient
public transport service to the communities and commuters in the area, and, in so doing, improve the
quality of life of low to middle-income people living along and in the vicinity the corridor. It is also
envisaged that the project will establish the Klipfontein Corridor as a destination, which, in turn will
result in the establishment of shops, supermarkets, cafés and businesses. The modes of transport
envisaged by the project are:
 Public transport, in the from of busses and minibus taxis
 Non-motorised transport (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians), which, to date, has been largely excluded
from the corridor.
The findings of the review indicate that the origins of the project can be traced to a trip to Bogata,
Columbia, in November 2002 by the Provincial MEC27 for Transport in the Western Cape, Ms
Tasneem Essop, and City of Cape Town Councillor, Councillor Danile Landingwe. This trip was
followed by a visit to Cape Town by Mr Enrique Penelosa of Bogota in January 2003. The conceptual
rationale behind the Klipfontein Road Corridor project is largely based on Bogota’s current approach
to public transport planning. The origins and motivation for the project appear to be largely political
in nature. In this regard the findings of the review indicate that the involvement of transport officials,
both at a Provincial and City level, during the early project identification process was limited. This
lack of involvement created initial tensions between officials and politicians during the subsequent
planning stages of the project.
The key stakeholders interviewed also indicated that the project differed from other similar transport
projects in that it started as an idea, which was then developed into a mobility strategy. In this regard
27 Member of Executive Council.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 29
the identification of Klipfontein Corridor as the most appropriate corridor only occurred at a later date.

The selection of the Klipfontein Corridor was based on a number of factors, including the socio-
economic needs of the communities living along and in the vicinity of the corridor. At this stage in the

process the actual “transport projects” within the corridor have not been identified. Based on this one
could argue that alternatives have been considered. These take the form of alternative corridors, with
Klipfontein being identified as the most suitable, and transport modes, in the form of bus, minibus and
other non-motorised transport options.
In terms of open and transparent decision-making, the findings of the review indicate that the manner
in which the project was identified raises or potential issues and concerns. In this regard, it could be
argued that by the time the officials and later the public were informed the decision to proceed with the
project had already been taken. This implies that the aim of the planning and assessment process that
followed was to justify the decision as opposed to assessing the merits and suitability.
Planning
Following the decision by the MEC of Transport for the Western Cape to pursue the Klipfontein
Corridor project an agreement was signed on 11 April 2003 between the Western Cape Province
Department of Public Works and Property Management and the City of Cape Town. The aim of the
agreement was to establish a partnership for the development of pubic transport related projects in the
city of Cape Town, with Klipfontein Road Corridor being the first such project. The agreement also
resulted in the formation of a number of joint task teams to work on the Klipfontein Road project. The
task teams are managed by joint project managers, one from the City of Cape Town and one from the
Province.
While the current project management structure illustrates a commitment to co-operative governance,
the early stages of the planning process were characterised by a number of problems. From the
interviews it would appear that these problems stemmed from the political origin of the initial decision
and the lack of involvement of and consultation with the respective transport officials from both
Province and the City during the initial conceptual planning stages of the project. In addition, it would
appear that the Provincial transport planners were informed of the project before those of the City, and
the project was, in a sense, “forced” upon the City officials. This, it would appear, created a number
of problems and tensions during the early planning stages of the project. In addition, co-operative
governance appears to be largely confined to interaction between City and Provincial transport
planners. The co-operative governance between different departments and line functions appears, to
date, to have been less effective.
The initial public announcement of the project was also criticized by a number of organisations and
individuals, specifically the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and certain planning
professionals. The basis of the criticism was essentially twofold. Firstly the lack of public
involvement and consultation in the conceptual development of the project and identification of
Klipfontein Road as the appropriate corridor, and secondly the lack of integration with the existing rail
network. The initial criticism of the project appears to have surprised the authorities. In this regard the
lack of a formal public consultation strategy to inform the public of the project and its objectives at the
outset appears to have been an oversight.
The issue of integrated planning has been addressed by the project. In this regard the project involves
the integration of various modes of public and non-motorised transport along the corridor. The stated
objective of establishing the corridor as a destination also reflects a commitment to integrate transport
and land-use planning.
The key legal requirements associated with the project are linked to the need to undertake EIA’s in
terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the associated to the consultation
with the public. Both the City and the Province have recognise the importance of ensuring that all
legal requirements have been met.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 30
At National level, the project is informed by:
 The NLTTA28;
 Provincial Government Vision/Strategies (22 Delivery plans containing a 5-year strategy);
 The Municipal Systems Act;
 The White Paper on National Transport Policy;
 Moving South Africa 1999;
 National Road Traffic Act No 93 of 1996; and
 National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)
 EIA Regulations in terms of the Environment Conservation (No 73 of 1989).
At local government level;
 In terms of the NLTTA, the City must develop a public transport plan (PTP) which informs the
Integrated Public Transport Plan (ITP) and the Integrated Development Plan (IDP). The
Klipfontein Corridor is seen as component of the PTP.
Specialist studies
To date no specific environmental or social assessment studies have been undertaken. It could
therefore be argued that the planning stage of the project is not informed by the relevant transport
needs of the affected interest groups located along and in the vicinity of the project. However, as
indicated above, the actual “transport projects” within the corridor have not been identified at this
stage in the planning process.
In terms of the SA legislation, the need for EIA’s will depend on the type of transport projects
envisaged. However, from this it is clear that the EIA’s, if undertaken, will not inform decisions
relating to the type of transport project, but rather assess the public’s reaction to them and make
recommendations as to how potential negative impacts can be mitigated and positive impacts
enhanced.
6.5 N21 (R300) Cape Town Ring Road Project
Project Identification
The N21 (R 300) Cape Town Ring Road Project involves the establishment of a 68,4 km tolled ring
road around the Cape Town Metropolitan Area. The ring road originates near the suburb of
Melkbosstrand, in the north and runs in an easterly direction, before swinging south towards False Bay
and the suburb of Muizenberg, in the south. The estimated cost of the project is in the region of R 1.2
billion. The motivation for the project is based on the traffic current congestion problems experienced
along the major routes within a 10-15km radius of the Cape Town CBD and the lack of a free flowing
route that links the northern and southern parts of the metropole. Due to the shortage of funds for
major infrastructure projects at local, provincial and national level the only option for such a road is a
private toll road.
The origins of the project date back to a study undertaken in 1985 to investigate the development of
the R300 as a tolled ring road around Cape Town. The initial investigations undertaken by a private
engineering firm also involved discussions with the transport planners and road engineers from the
City of Cape Town and the Western Cape Provincial Government. However, at the time there was no
legislation in place in South Africa for the development and proclamation of toll roads. In 1996 the
South African Department of Transport (DOT) passed legislation that enabled the construction and
tolling of national roads. This was followed by the release in 1997 of a set of guidelines for the
submission of Unsolicited Proposals for Road Transport Infrastructure Development. These guidelines
were amended in May 1999.

28 National Land Transport Transition Act 2000

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 31
In October 1998, the Peninsula Expressway Consortium (Penway), a registered private company,
submitted an unsolicited proposal to the South African Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) for the
design, construction, finance, operation and maintenance of part of the R300 road near Cape Town as
a toll road. The reason why the project requires the road to be declared a National Road, the N21, is
linked to the role of SANRAL as the funding agent. As a national agency, SANRAL has one of the
best international credit ratings in South Africa.
In terms of an agreement between Penway and SANRAL, Penway were awarded Scheme Developer
Status in January 2000 to develop a detailed unsolicited bid for the project. This agreement requires
Penway to undertake all the initial feasibility studies for the project, including the EIA. The costs of
the studies are shared on a 50% basis between Penway and SANRAL. On completion of the studies
the proposal to develop the R300 as a toll road will be put out to open tender. All information and
studies undertaken by Penway, including the EIA, will be made available to the bidders. The
advantage that Penway would have in the bidding process is their insight into the issues and challenges
facing the development and operation of a toll road based on their involvement in developing the
detailed unsolicited bid document. In the event of Penway not being awarded the contract, SANRAL
are obliged to reimburse them all cost associated with the unsolicited bid process.
From the review it is apparent that the concept of a ring road around Cape Town has been mooted
amongst transport planners for a number of years and predates the involvement of the Penway
Consortium. The motivation for the developed of the project as toll road stems from the current lack of
public funding for large transport infrastructure projects and the position of SANRAL that promotes
the submission of unsolicited bids for the development of road transport infrastructure. In terms of
alternatives, these have been limited to corridor alignments for the proposed toll road
The findings of the review also indicate that the manner in which the project was identified raises
issues pertaining to open and transparent decision-making. In this regard, it could be argued that by the
time the public was informed about the proposed project the decision re its development as a toll road
had already been taken. This implies that the aim of the planning and assessment process that followed
was to justify the decision as opposed to assessing the merits and suitability of a toll road. The
unsolicited bid process also does not require the authorities, in the case SANRAL, to inform the public
that an unsolicited bid has been submitted.
The decision making process in the case of toll roads is further complicated by the separation of EIA
and declaration of toll road process. In term of the current legislation the toll road cannot be
developed with out approval from the environmental authorities. However, the declaration and
promulgation of a road as a toll road is covered by the National Toll Road Act. This is a separate
process and is not addressed as part of the EIA.
Planning
The initial planning associated with the proposed toll road dates back to the mid 1990’s. From the
review it would also appear that the concept of a ring road around Cape Town predates the 1990’s and
was considered by the City planning authorities on a number of occasions. This is consistent with the
view at the time on the role of ring roads in large urban centers. However, the major constraint
preventing the authorities themselves from implementing the project was the lack of funding.
The findings of the review indicate that the co-operative governance requirements and aspects of the
project appear to have been recognised. In this regard the project has involved extensive interaction
between National, Provincial and Local transport and road authorities. This interaction was initiated at
the outset of the project and has been maintained throughout the development of the unsolicited bid.
However, due to time constraints the study was not in a position to assess the effectiveness of the
cooperative governance and the position of the local and provincial transport officials to the proposed
project. The co-operative governance also appears to be largely confined to interaction between
transport planners at a Local, Provincial and National level. The co-operative governance between
different departments and line functions appears to be less effective.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 32
Due to its status as a National Road the project has also required interaction with the National
Department of Environmental Affairs. The majority of this interaction has centered around the EIA
process. The public participation process has also formed a central component of the EIA process.
A number of concerns and objections were raised during the public participation process. These
included impacts on sensitive environments, specifically natural vegetation and wetland areas along
the southern section of the proposed route, lack of integration with other transport modes and the
socio-economic impacts on middle and low-income groups along the route.
In terms of integrated planning the EIA does consider the proposed toll road within the context of
existing land-use and transport planning schemes for the Cape Town Metropolitan Area. The study has
not, however, reviewed or critically assessed the findings of this assessment. However, the proposed
toll road caters mainly for private vehicle owners and there appears to have been limited effort to
incorporate public transport and other transportation modes in to the proposal. The key stakeholders
interviewed confirmed that this would compromise the operation of the road as toll road.
The EIA for the project was initiated in 1999 and the public participation component was undertaken
in accordance with EIA regulations. As required in terms of the EIA regulations, the first stage of the
EIA process was the Scoping Phase, this was followed by the actual assessment or EIA phase. In terms
of legal input an environmental lawyer was involved in both the Scoping and EIA phase of the
process. For the Scoping Phase a local lawyer was used. However, for the EIA phase, SANRAL
appointed their own Pretoria-based lawyer, who is used on all SANRAL toll road projects.
While an EIA was undertaken for the project, as required in terms of SA legislation, the findings of the
review clearly indicate that the focus of the EIA, in terms of the decision making process, was on the
alignment of the toll road. In this regard the decision regarding the development of the road as a toll
road had essentially been pre-empted by the submission of an unsolicited bid by the Penway
Consortium. This in turn was informed by SANRAL’s support for unsolicited bids as set in the
guidelines for the submission of Unsolicited Proposals for Road Transport Infrastructure
Development.
In term of the contribution of the EIA to the development of the unsolicited bid, the comments from
the proponents of the project reflected a sense of frustration and concern with regard to the length and
costs associated with the EIA process. Many felt that these delays detracted from the value of the EIA
process to the project.
The legislation affecting the project include:
 The Policy of the South African National Roads Agency in respect of unsolicited proposals;
 Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989; and
 National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998).
Specialist studies
A number of specialist studies were undertaken as part of the EIA study. These included: fauna and
flora studies, economic and social assessments, land use planning, visual and noise studies,
archaeology and heritage assessments, pedestrian desire lines and tourism. As indicated above the
review of the case studies did not include a detailed assessment of the adequacy or accuracy of these
studies. However, it would appear that the implications of the proposed toll road in terms of future
public transport planning for the metropole and the accessibility of people who do not have access to
private motor vehicles has not been fully assessed.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 33
6.6 Stock Road Station Project
Project identification
Stock Road Station Project involves the establishment of a new railway station facility in Phillipi, on
the Cape Flats, the construction of new platforms and the realignment of the railway line. The station
serves mainly low-income populations. The motivation for the project was based the need to provide
transport for low income passengers in the Phillipi area and the South African Rail Commuter
Corporation (SARCC) policy to minimise the distance people have to travel to rail way stations. In
addition, the City of Cape Town had identified the need for a new bus facility in the area and the
opportunity therefore existed to combine the infrastructure required for the two transport modes. The
project represents a joint project between the City of Cape Town and the SARCC, with the SARCC
provided funding for the railway station and the City funding the bus terminus. The modes of transport
involved in the project are rail, buses, and minibus taxis. The project was completed in 2003 at a cost
of approximately R28 million.
The location of the rail way station complex on the existing Khayelitsha line was based on in house
studies undertaken by the SARCC. These studies are informed by the location of the existing rail
stations along the line and population distribution in the area. The location was also informed by the
location of the City of Cape Town’s bus facility.
Planning
The responsibility for rail transport in South Africa rests at a national level. The identification of rail
projects is undertaken by a project coordinating committee based in Johannesburg. From the review of
case studies is would appear that identification and selection of rail projects is largely influenced by
which projects have reached a more advanced stage in terms of planning, as opposed to which projects
are more important in terms of meeting needs.
In the case of the Stock Road Station project it appears that the selection and planning processes were
closely linked to the City of Cape Town’s bus facility. The project was therefore characterised by
effective co-operative governance between the City of Cape Town at a local level and SANRCC at a
national level. The project also demonstrated an effective commitment to integrated planning by
combining a rail with bus and mini bus transport modes. The provision of spaces for informal traders
and other activities indicates a commitment to integrated land-use planning.
However, as in the case of the above two case studies, co-operative governance appears to be largely
confined to interaction between transport planners at a City and National level. The co-operative
governance between different departments and line functions appears to be less effective.
In terms of the legislation no EIA was required for the project, including the bus terminal.
As such no formal assessment of the social issues was carried out. However, in terms of the SARCC’s
procurement policy local labour was employed during the construction phase and areas for informal
sector hawkers to operate were established in the vicinity of the station.
In terms of the legislation the SARCC, as the project developers, are governed by:
 Chapter 5 of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act No 9 of 1989;
 The National Rail Safety Regulator Act, which deals with safety aspects of rail;
Although the NLTTA and the Municipal Systems Act (which call for Integrated Transport Plans
(ITPs)) do not specifically deal with rail transport, SARCC projects’ fall within the City’s ITP.
Specialist studies
No EIA or social specialist studies were undertaken.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 34
6.7 Case study conclusions
The main findings of the case study reviews are summarized below.
Project identification
In the case of the Klipfontein Road Corridor Project and the Stock Road Station, the motivation is
linked to improving access for middle and low-income sector of the community by providing and
improving public transportation. In the case of the N21 Toll Road it is to improve access and mobility
with the Cape Town Metropolitan area, specifically the northern and southern parts of the metropole.
However, in the case of the toll road the emphasis is on meeting the needs of private motor vehicles
and not public transport.
The Klipfontein Corridor project appears to be linked to a decision taken at a political level by the
Provincial MEC of Transport, supporting earlier findings regarding the often political nature of
decision-making in South Africa. In the case of Stock Road Station the decision is linked to SARCC’s
policy of minimizing the distance to stations for commuters and the City of Cape Town’s plans for the
development of a bus and taxi rank in the area The N21 Toll Road project dates back to proposals for
a ring road developed in 1985 and SANRAL’s support for unsolicited bids. It can be argued that the
existence of these guidelines effectively precludes a critical assessment of the need for or suitability of
a tolled ring road around Cape Town.
In each case there was little evidence of how the needs of the affected public were identified and
assessed when the projects were identified. The principle of checking the planning process would
address this concern.
Identification of alternatives
Two of the case studies, namely the Klipfontein Corridor and Stock Road Station, included modal
transport alternatives. In the case of Klipfontein Corridor, alternatives are also likely to be assessed
when the various transport projects are identified. In the case of N21 Ring Toll Road, the
consideration of alternatives was largely confined to the alignment of the proposed toll road.
In each case of the Klipfontein Corridor and Stock Road Station projects there was little evidence of as
to how the needs of the affected public were identified and assessed when the alternatives were
identified. In the case of the N21 Toll Road Project, the alternatives were limited to modification of
the original route alignment. Public comment on route alignment alternatives took place during the
EIA process.
Again, a process for checking the planning process would largely address these concerns.
Open and transparent decision-making and public participation
While the principles of open and transparent decision making and public participation are required and
strongly promoted in terms of the legislation in South Africa, in practice the promotion and
implementation of these principles appears to more difficult. In this regard, it can be argued that the
early decision stages in all three projects were characterized by a lack of openness, transparency and
public participation. The findings of the review indicate that the manner in which each of the projects
was identified raises issues pertaining to open and transparent decision-making. In this regard, it could
be argued that by the time the public were informed about the proposed project the decision regarding
its development had already been taken.
The checklist raises questions regarding the form and timing of public participation, and the nature of
open and transparent decision-making.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 35
Co-operative governance
Each of the three projects demonstrated some co-operative governance between the transport officials
at the various levels (Local, Provincial and National). However, it would appear that the commitment
to co-operative governance between different departments and line functions was less effective.
Integrated planning
The Klipfontein Corridor and Stock Road Station projects displayed a commitment to integrated
planning that applies to both transport (modes) and land-use planning. The level of integration
(transport modes and land-use planning) associated with the N21 Toll Road is less obvious and does
not appear to have been a stated objective.
Sustainable Development
No-where in the case studies was a systematic analysis of sustainable development principles evident.
This is clearly a problematic concept for transport planners, which is not fully understood. The
Current Practice Review indicates that sustainable development is seen as peripheral to the aim of
addressing basic needs (and yet a contemporary notion of sustainable development would include
this). Clearly the Checklist could help in raising awareness regarding sustainable development issues.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 36
7 THE FINAL ISTC
7.1 The Link between ISTC Principles and the Final ISTC
The ISTC principles outlined in Chapter 5 helped to inform the discussions related to development of
the ISTC. However, the development of the final ISTC, as described below, was the result of several
rounds of discussion and review, and also other informants, principally:
 experience of the project team in assessment and decision-making in transport planning in
South Africa;
 experience of the project team in social assessment methods for water projects;
 work underway by Booz-Allen Hamilton on developing environmental management
guidelines for use in Tshwane and Gauteng municipalities (these particularly assisted in the
development of Part 1);
 the extensive work being done by DfID, UK on the inclusion of social benefits in transport
planning in developing countries.
This knowledge informed the development process, but the final ISTC is a piece of original work
which has not been produced elsewhere.
7.2 Guidance notes on the use of the ISTC
The next section presents the Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist, with guidelines for its use. It
is anticipated that, once some consultation with practitioners has taken place, this chapter could be
published as a stand alone checklist document.
The objective of the ‘Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC)’ is to provide a clear and
practical checklist for ensuring that transport plans, programmes and projects adhere to legal and good
practice principles for sustainable development. The intention is that it will be used in the early stage
of the development of a plan, programme or project in order to check that issues relating to sustainable
development have been considered in the planning process. As such the checklist is an awareness
raising tool. It does not replace the need for a decision-making framework, nor does it replace the
need for an Environmental Impact Assessment. It should, however, assist decision-makers in reaching
a decision which is consistent with principles of sustainable development, and may alert transport
planners to social and environmental issues earlier in the decision-making process than would
otherwise be the case.
The framework is intended for use in South Africa, in urban contexts. However, the basis of the
framework (concepts of sustainable development) may be applicable in other developing urban or rural
contexts.
A set of tables have been developed which ask a series of questions about both the planning process
being undertaken and the intervention being planned. These questions are based on South Africa legal
principles, as extracted from planning-, environment- and development-related law current in
September 2003, and selected concepts from the ‘sustainable livelihoods framework’.29
The
sustainable livelihoods framework has been used because it is purposefully directed towards
understanding the resources and livelihood strategies employed by the poor. While the focus of the
sustainable livelihoods framework is on the rural poor, it does provide the checklist with a set of
guiding principles that can inform transport planning. In this regard the sustainable livelihoods
framework can help transport planners to understand how the transport plans and interventions will
impact on the range of resources/assets utilized by the poor, and to what extent these interventions will
enhance or detract/impact on the livelihood strategies pursued by the poor. In so doing the following
resources are assessed: natural, social, human, financial, and physical:
29 See more at http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 37
 natural capital is the term used to describe “the natural resource stocks from which resource flows
and services useful for livelihoods are derived. There is a wide variation in the resources that make
up natural capital, from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere and biodiversity to
divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.)” Examples of natural capital and
services deriving from it are: land, forests, marine/wild resources, water, air quality, erosion
protection.
 human capital “represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together
enable people to achieve their livelihood objectives. At a household level human capital is a factor
of the amount and quality of labour available and this varies according to household size, skill
levels, leadership potential, health status, etc.”
 social capital. In the context of the sustainable livelihoods framework “is taken to mean the social
resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood objectives. These are developed
through: networks and connectedness; membership of more formalised groups and relationships of
trust, reciprocity and exchanges that facilitate co-operation, reduce transaction costs and may
provide the basis for informal safety nets amongst the poor.
 physical capital “comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support
livelihoods. Infrastructure consists of changes to the physical environment that help people to meet
their basic needs and to be more productive. Producer goods are the tools and equipment that
people use to function more productively. The following components of infrastructure are usually
essential for sustainable livelihoods: affordable transport; secure shelter and buildings; adequate
water supply and sanitation; clean, affordable energy; and access to information
(communications).”
 financial capital “denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood
objectives. The definition used captures the availability of cash or equivalent, that enables people
to adopt different livelihood strategies. There are two main sources of financial capital. Available
stocks, which can be held in several forms: cash, bank deposits or liquid assets such as livestock
and jewelry. The second main form of financial capital is regular inflows of money.
In this project time capital/resources has also been added.
While the application of the concept of sustainable livelihoods has largely been confined to rural
settings, this study recognizes that poverty is a key challenge facing cities in the developing world, and
that ideas of sustainable livelihoods can also be valuable in the urban context.
The checklist is intended to guide the checking process and whilst all effort has been made to be
comprehensive, circumstances between projects will inevitably alter, and so the list may change with
the circumstances of the intervention.
This Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist (ISTC) is divided into four components.
 Part 1 provides a checklist of the issues that should be considered when identifying and
defining the needs and applicability of the proposed transport intervention.
 Part 2 provides a legal checklist for the transport planning process. The checklist is divided
into five components, namely the open and transparent decision-making process, co-operative
governance, integrated planning, public participation and a summary of the constitutional
rights relating to sustainable development.
 Part 3 provides a checklist for identifying and assessing the resources which may be impacted
by the intervention, defined using sustainable livelihoods categories of natural, physical,
human, social, financial resources/capital. An additional element, time, has been added.
 Part 4 provides a summary table.
A ‘roadmap’ of the checklist structure is provided in Figure 2 below.
To use the ISTC Checklist, the practitioner can independently use the tables as a check for a plan,
programme or project that is ongoing or proposed; as a tool for the discussion of a project within
professional teams, or as the starting point for a decision-making process. In all cases it is intended to
raise awareness regarding sustainable development.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 38
It is unlikely that an intervention will have the same impact across its whole geographical scope. It is
also unlikely that the intervention will have the same impact on differing groups of society. There
may be differences between male and female, and between differing income and cultural groups,
differing ages, differing abilities. It is therefore necessary for the person who is using the ISTC to
identify significant differences between groups ofwithin society, or any particular focus of the
intervention and then uses as many checks as are necessary to expose the differences in impacts.

Formatted

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa 39
FIGURE 2: INTEGRATED SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT CHECKLIST STRUCTURE
1
Identification of
needs and
applicability of
intervention

2
Check on legal
requirements to
address
sustainable
development

3
Check on
detailed
sustainable
development
criteria

4
Summary

Does this planning process provide for…

Open and transparent decision-
making

Co-operative governance
Integrated planning
Public participation
Does this intervention uphold
Constitutional rights to sustainable
development?

Natural processes and resources
Social processes and resources
Human resources

Physical resources
Financial resources
Does this intervention impact…
upon…..

Time resources

Guidance notes

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist

Part 1: IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS AND APPLICABILITY OF INTERVENTION

Page 40

Has the policy/plan/project identification and planning process taken into account: (This section of the framework should be read in conjunction
with the Part 3 which outlines the relevant legal requirements that need to be met) 30

Response
Yes / No

 The level of intervention of the proposed policy/plan/project and size of the affected area/s.
 Social and economic characteristics of the affected area/s, including political, institutional, religious and cultural characteristics.
 Current land-uses (formal and informal) and economic (formal and informal) activities in the affected area/s.
 Current location of community facilities, such as schools, hospitals, police stations, clinics, libraries, community halls, churches and crèches in
the affected area/s.
 Current type and location of transport infrastructure and modes, including non-motorized transport modes such as pedestrians, bicycles, horse
drawn carts etc in the affected area/s.
 Current operating hours and costs associated with public transport modes.
 Current transport user groups and their needs, with specific reference to vulnerable groups such as women, children, elderly and the disabled
in the affected area/s.
 Current economic development needs in the affected area/s.
 Vulnerable social and economic groups in the affected area/s and their economic development and transport needs?
 Existing/proposed transport, land-use planning and economic development policies, plans and initiatives for the affected area/s?
 Predicted future transport and economic development needs in the affected area/s.
 Transport alternatives, including infrastructure, location and modal alternatives in the affected area/s.
Overall Assessment: Has the policy/plan/project identification and planning process taken into account the needs and applicability of the
intervention?

30 Based partly on Booz-Allen and Hamilton (South Africa) Ltd (2003) Guidelines for the Environmental management of Transportation Projects for Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. Section F –
Guidelines for Review Procedure. Table F1.

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist

Part 2: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA

Open and transparent decision-making

Does the project identification and planning process take into account the following legal
requirements:

Response
Yes / No
Reference

 The need to uphold the constitutional right of individuals and the public to administrative action
that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

Constitution s 33 & the PAJA s 3 and s 6(2)

 The need to foster transparency in public administration by providing the public with timely,
accessible and accurate information.

Constitution s 195(1)(g)
 The need to promote accountable public administration. Constitution s 195(1)(f)
 The need to ensure the provision of information to those affected by the laws, procedures &
administrative practice relating to land development.

DFA s 3(1)(g)

 The need to enable public access to information and ‘records’. Constitution s 32, NEMA s 31
[‘environmental’ information] and s 2(4)(k);
PAIA preamble and ss 11 & 50 ;); LGMSA s
5(1)(b) – (e) & DFA s 3(1)(f)(ii)

 The need to promote open and transparent decision making r. NEMA s 2(4)(k)
 The need to provide adequate written reasons for decisions taken. Constitution s 33(2) & PAJA s 5
 The need to promote procedural fairness in administrative decision-making that affects
individuals as well as the public.

Constitution s 33 & PAJA s 3 and 4
 The need to ensure that administrative action is based on ‘adequate’ reasons. Constitution s 33(2) & PAJA s 5
 The need to ensure that issues considered in the decision-making process and the manner in
which they are considered can be explained and justified.

Constitution s 33 & PAJA s 6

Overall Assessment: Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process take
into account legal requirements for open and transparent decision-making?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist

Part 2: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA

Co-operative governance

Does the project identification and planning process take into account the following legal
requirements:

Response
Yes / No

Reference

 The need to give effect to the principle of co-operative governance. Constitution Chapter 3, specifically s 41(1)(h);
NEMA s 2(4)(l) and (m) and ch 3; &
[re local government] Constitution s 154 and
LGMSA s 24

Overall Assessment: Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning
process take into account legal requirements for cooperative governance?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist

Part 2: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA

Integrated Planning

Page 43

Does the project identification and planning process take into account: Response
Yes / No
Reference

 The need to undertake ‘development-orientated’ planning. Constitution s 195(1)(c) & sections 24,25,26,27, and
29 & [re local authorities specifically] also
Constitution s 152(1)(c) and (2) & s 153; as well as
LGMSA s 23

 The need to promote ‘efficient and integrated land-use planning and development’ by –
 Promoting the integration of the social, economic, institutional and physical components
of land use planning and development, and:
 Promoting integrated land use planning and development in rural and urban areas in
support of one another.

DFA s 3(c) –
DFA s 3(c)(i) &
DFA s 3(c)(ii)

 The need to integrate land use planning and development with land transport planning.
(where the relevant planning authority is a municipality, the transport plan must form
the transport component of the municipality’s integrated development plan (IDP))

NLTTA s 4(1)(b), (j), (m)
IDPs: NLTTA s 18(1); & LGMSA chapter 5
specifically ss 23, 25

 The need to ensure integration within land transport planning, including the integration
of the transport related plans required in terms of the NLTTA, namely the: National
Land Transport Strategic Framework; Provincial Land Transport Framework; Current
public transport records; Public Transport Plans and Integrated Transport Plans.

NLTTA s 4(1)(b), (c) & s 21(3)(b) [re integration
generally] &
NLTTA s 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27 [re the respective
plans & the relationships between them]

 The need to ensure the integration of the different modes of land transport. NLTTA s 4(1)(c)
Overall Assessment: Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process
take into account legal requirements for integrated planning?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist

Part 2: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA

Public Participation

Page 44
Does the project identification and planning process take into account: Response
Yes / No

Reference

 The need to encourage and promote public participation (including
participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons, including
women and youth) in policy-making, land use planning, transport
planning and environmental governance.

Constitution s 195(1)(e); NEMA s 2(4)(f) and (q); DFA s 3(1)(d)
& NLTTA s 4(1)(l)

 The need to take into account the interests, needs and values of all
interested and affected parties (this includes recognizing all forms of
knowledge, including traditional & ordinary knowledge).

NEMA s 2(4)(g)

 The need to inform the public and respond to (basic) public needs. Constitution s 195(1)(e); DFA s 3(1)(h)(iv) &

[local government level]: Constitution s 153(a) & LGMSA s
73(1)(a)

 The need to encourage, and create conditions for, the involvement of
the local community in local governance matters.

LGMSA ss 4(2)(c) and 16(1)(a)

 The need to ensure that local authorities have consulted with the local
community regarding municipal services to be provided.

LGMSA s 4(2)(e)

Overall Assessment: Does the project/programme/plan identification and
planning process take into account legal requirements for public
participation?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist

Part 2: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA

Sustainable Development

Page 45

Does the project identification and planning process take into account: Response
Yes / No
Reference
 The need to “…heal the divisions of the past…“ and “… improve the quality of life of all citizens”. Constitution preamble
 The need to uphold the right to an environment that is not harmful to health and well-being. Constitutions 24(a)
 The need to promote justifiable economic and social development while securing ecologically
sustainable development and use of natural resources.

Constitution s 24(b)(iii)
 The need to ensure socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development NEMA s 2(3)
 The need, at local government level, to promote a safe and healthy environment. Constitution s 152(1)(d) & LGMSA s

4(2)(i)

 The need, at local government level, to promote social and economic development. Constitution s 152(1)(c) & s 153(a)
Overall Assessment: Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process take
into account legal requirements for sustainable development?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 3: CHECKLIST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Geographical area of check:
Impact Group to be checked: Gender:(Male/ female) Income: (High/middle/low) Age: (Child/adult/elderly) Other: (Eg able/ disabled)

Natural Resources/Capital

(In the context of transport planning , the checklist of natural resources refers to the natural stocks (soil, water and air etc) and the environmental services (hydrological, nutrient cycle) from which

resources useful for ‘livelihoods’ are derived)

Page 46

Checklist criteria
Does the proposed
intervention have the
potential to:

For example, through. Response
Yes / No

Promote or impact on the
biophysical quality and
natural resources of the area?

 Reduction/improvement in local air quality eg through changes in CO, NOx, particulates, smog, odours,
HC/VOC, lead and particulates
 Reduction/improvement in regional and global air quality eg through changes in CO2, SO2 and ozone
 Induced traffic, which in turn could overall increase levels of air pollutants?
 Mode shift to public transport or non-motorised modes, which could lead to overall reductions in pollutants?
 Reduction/improvement in noise levels
 Reduction/improvement of aesthetic and landscape values eg where a transport route passes through an area
of natural beauty
 Reduction/increase in the consumption of fossil fuels
 Impact on flora and fauna
 Impact on water quality and supply (surface and groundwater)
 Impact on high potential agricultural land

Promote or impact other
natural resources?
Overall Assessment: Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the natural resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 3: CHECKLIST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Social Resources/Capital

(In the context of transport planning , the checklist of social resources refers to the social resources on which people draw in their lives: for example relationships and membership of social

networks)

Page 47

Checklist criteria
Does the proposed intervention have the
potential to:

For example by: Response
Yes / No

Promote or weaken community
structures?

 Promoting access or increasing severance between community members, groups and facilities

Promote or reduce interaction between
social groups?

 Promoting or reducing access for local political gatherings, support groups, religious activity etc

Reduce or promote the vulnerability of
vulnerable groups?

 Reducing or promoting access and safety for women, children, elderly and the disabled

Promote or reduce knowledge in the
community?

 Promoting or reducing access to libraries, schools and other educational facilities

Promote or reduce kinship and cultural
ties?

 Promoting or reducing access to family and friends

Reduce or create social problems?  Promoting or reducing access and exposure to alcohol, drugs, crime and disease
Promote or reduce the power of
individuals or groups?

 Promoting or reducing access to physical, financial and human resources
Increase or reduce personal fear?  Promoting or reducing access and safety and opportunities for crime related activities
Promote or impact other social
resources?
Overall Assessment: Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the social resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 3: CHECKLIST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Geographical area of check:
Impact Group to be checked: Gender:(Male/ female) Income: (High/middle/low) Age: (Child/adult/elderly) Other: (Eg able/ disabled)

Human Resources/Capital

(In the context of transport planning , the checklist of human resources refers to the skills, knowledge, ability to work, and good health, which enable people to pursue life differently)

Page 48

Checklist criteria
Does the proposed intervention have
the potential to:

For example by: Response
Yes / No

Reduce or increase the loss of life?  Reducing or increasing the potential for fatal accidents
Reduce or increase disabilities?  Reducing or increasing the potential for serious accidents
Reduce or improve health levels?  Reducing or increasing access to health facilities such as parks, sports fields, public open spaces,

gyms and cycling paths etc,
 Improving or reducing air quality in the area

Promote or reduce the level and
standard of education?

 Promote or reduce access to education opportunities such as schools, colleges, universities,
crèches and libraries

Promote or reduce food security?  Promote or reduce access to markets, finance and land
Promote or impact on other human
resources?
Overall Assessment: Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the human resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 3: CHECKLIST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Financial Resources/Capital

(In the context of transport planning , the checklist of financial resources refers to, for example, savings, credit, remittances, and pensions)

Page 49

Checklist criteria
Does the proposed intervention have
the potential to:

For example by: Response
Yes / No

Promote or reduce economic
development and diversification?

 Promoting or reducing access to existing markets and opportunities for investment and the
establishment of new markets etc

Promote or reduce productivity?  Reducing or increasing transport costs, travel times, vehicle maintenance and operating costs
Promote or reduce financial
independence?

 Promoting or reducing transportation costs and access to and the provision of markets and credit
and savings facilities

Promote or reduce employment
opportunities?

 Promoting or reducing access to the job market, education and training

Promote or reduce job creation?  Promoting or reducing opportunities for labour-based construction and other project related jobs

during the construction and operation phase

Promote or reduce the ability to trade
informally?

 Promoting or reducing availability and access to land for informal traders and access to informal
markets by consumers

Promote or impact on other financial
resources?
Overall Assessment: Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the financial resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 3: CHECKLIST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Physical Resources/Capital

(In the context of transport planning , the checklist of physical resources refers to basic infrastructure: transport, shelter, energy, communications and production resources)

Page 50

Checklist criteria
Does the proposed intervention have
the potential to:

For example by: Response
Yes / No

Promote or reduce access to schools,
hospitals etc?

Promoting or reducing access to schools, hospitals etc

Promote or reduce access to water
supplies?

Improving or reducing access to or the provision of water supplies

Promote or reduce access to energy? Improving or reducing access to or the provision of energy sources, such as electricity, firewood, paraffin,

gas and batteries etc

Promote or reduce access to waste
collection services?

Improving or reducing access to or the provision of waste collection services

Promote or reduce access to sanitary
services?

Improve or reduce access to or the provision of sanitary service

Promote or reduce communications? Improving or reducing access to public telephones, post offices, radio, television and news papers
Impact on land ownership and tenure? Changing landownership and tenure rights by expropriating land
Impact on rights-of-way? Cutting or disrupting existing access routes and rights of way
Promote or impact on other physical
resources?
Overall Assessment: Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the physical resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 3: CHECKLIST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Time Resources/Capital

(In the context of transport planning , the checklist time resources refers to the that is, the time available for discretionary activity)

Page 51

Checklist criteria
Does the proposed intervention have the
potential to:

For example by: Response
Yes / No

 Increase or reduce the free, non-
work time available for

individuals?

 Reducing or increasing the travel time to work

 Increase or reduce the free, non-
work time available for families?

 Reducing or increasing the travel time to work for parents and education facilities for children

 Increase or reduce the free, non-
work time available for

communities?

 Reducing or increasing the travel time to community facilities, shops, and other basic physical
needs such as energy, food and water

Promote or reduce child independence on
parents and elders. (This, in turn,
contributes to changes in time resources
available to parents and other care-givers)?

 Promoting or reducing access to public transport and walking/ cycle routes to school etc.

Promote or impact on other time resources?
Overall Assessment: Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the time resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated Sustainable Transport Checklist
Part 4: CHECKLIST SUMMARY

Page 52

Checklist
Part
Overall Assessment Question Response
1
Has the policy/plan/project identification and planning process taken into account the needs and applicability of the intervention?
2
Does the project identification and planning process take into account legal requirements for open and transparent decision-making?
Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process take into account legal requirements for co-operative governance?
Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process take into account legal requirements for integrated planning?
Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process take into account legal requirements for public participation?
Does the project/programme/plan identification and planning process take into account legal requirements for sustainable development?
3
Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the natural resources/ capital in the affected area?
Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the social resources/ capital in the affected area?
Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the human resources/ capital in the affected area?
Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the financial resources/ capital in the affected area?
Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the physical resources/ capital in the affected area?
Does the proposed intervention promote or harm the time resources/ capital in the affected area?

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa

Page 53

53

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Discussion
This report and the accompanying report by Kruger et al has summarised the work undertaken on a
project which developed, as a principle output, a checklist for use in South African urban transport
planning situations. This section discusses the shortcomings of the project process and makes
recommendations for work to come.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the major constraint on the project was a reduced timeframe which,
despite additional resources employed, impacted on the work which was possible. In particular, it was
found difficult to condense the time needed to develop concepts (which required inputs from senior
staff), and this had implications for downstream work. In practice the development of the draft ISTC
took longer than planned, and left insufficient time for a full assessment of the ISTC using case
studies, and only an assessment of ISTC principles was possible. Although useful, this means that the
ISTC has not been tested fully in the field. To complete the ISTC assessment work and ensure rigour
a series of workshops and/or practitioner involvement would be necessary.
Of course, without a final ISTC, then the work of dissemination becomes partly redundant for now.
However, there are useful findings in the existing report, and the intention is to develop this into at
least one paper for publication, and to use the material on upcoming UCT postgraduate courses.
8.2 Conclusions
The work proposed, and the justifications for the work were found to be justified in the main during
the study. However, the original intention, to develop an assessment framework was not justified
given the apparent change in transport planning practice since 1994 towards a more politicised
decision-making environment which, in reality, often does not consider alternatives. Instead, a
checklist was proposed, which would raise awareness of the existing legal prerogatives and of
sustainable development criteria within that legal framework. In this way the intention was to at least
ensure that decisions made, although not fitting entirely with nest practice, were at least within the
broad intention of the law. The checklist is thus essentially pragmatic, and is aimed towards an
engineering audience who may appreciate the need to change practice but who do not have guidance
on how to change. Its first role is an awareness raising tool, but it also addresses the need for open and
transparent decision-making in its systematic approach to the softer transport issues. With further
development it could form the first stage of a decision-making framework, but this would require more
work.

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa

Page 54

54

9 REFERENCES
Annema, J.A., van Wee, B., van Hoek, T., van der Waard, J. 1999. Evaluation of Dutch Public
Investments Plans. Elsevier Science Inc. [Online]. Accessed 25 April 2003. Website<
http://147.46.94.112/journal/sej/j_e/data/eiar9905v19i307.pdf >.
Arnott, R. 1997. Transport project appraisal/cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Transport Geography
Vol. 5. 1(1997) pp45.
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act 45 of 1965 [Online]. Accessed 16 April 2003. Website
<http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/pbl/imel/atmosp.doc>.
Booz-Allen and Hamilton (South Africa) Ltd (2003) Guidelines for the Environmental management of
Transportation Projects for Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. Section F – Guidelines for
Review Procedure. Table F1.
Bouwman, M.E., Moll, H. C. 2002. Environmental analyses of land transportation systems in The
Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D 7(2002) pp331-345.
Bristow, A.L., Nellthorp, J. 2000 Transport Project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy
7(2000) pp 51-60.
Cape Metropolitan Council. (2001) Moving Ahead: Cape Metropolitan Transport Plan, Part 1:
Contextual Framework. City of Cape Town: Creative Services
City Council of Pretoria. (2000). Environmental Management Guidelines For Transportation Projects.
City Council of Pretoria, Department of Transportation Engineering and Roads. Preliminary Draft,
Booz Allen and Hamilton (SA) Ltd.
Claase, L. 26.03.2002. “Toll Road plan was foistered on Cape Town.” Cape Times. 26.03.2002.
Accessed 10 August 2003. Online. Website < http://www.sarf.co.za/tollroadltr.php >
Committee of Urban Transport Authorities. Guidelines for the preparation of the Urban Transport
Plan: First Amendment 1989.
Department of Transport. (1998) Moving South Africa. [Online]. Accessed 17 April 2003. Website
<http://www.transport.gov.za/projects/msa/msa.html>.
Dimitriou, H.T. 1990. Transport Planning for Third World Cities. London: Routledge
Dimitriou, H.T. 1992. Urban Transport Planning: A developmental approach. London: Routledge.
Environmental Conservation Act 1990. [Online]. Accessed 20 April 2003. Website
<http://www.acts.co.za/enviro/>.
Faiz, A. 2000. Sustainable Transport for the Developing World: The Social and Environment Nexus.
Journal of Transportation Engineering. Vol. 126. 6(2000) pp451-454.
Fuggle, R.F. Rabie, M.A. 1998. Environmental Management in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta and
Co.Ltd.
Grant-Muller, S.M., MacKie, P., Nellthorp, J., Pearman, A. 2001. Economic appraisal of European
transport projects: The state of the art revisited. Transport Reviews 2 (2001) pp237-261.
Green, C.A., Faure, D.E. (1991). A procedure for integrating environmental concerns into the
planning and implementation of urban road projects. Department of Transport. (1991). Research
Report RR90/138
Green, D.L., Wegener, M. 1997. Sustainable Transport. Journal of Transport Geography Vol. 5,
3(1997) pp177-190.
Hayashi, Y. Morisugi, H. 2000. International comparison of background concept and methodology of
transport methodology appraisal. Transport Policy 7 (2000) pp73-88.
Kruger, L., Dondo, C., Kane, L. and Barbour, T. (2003) State of current practice in transport planning
decision-making and assessment in South Africa. Urban Transport Research Group Background
Paper.
Mackie, P., Preston, J. 1998. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal.
Transport Policy 5 (1998) pp 1-7.
Nakamura, H. 2000. The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international
comparisons. Transport Policy 7 (2000) pp3-6.
National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 [Online]. Accessed 20 April 2003. Website
< http://www.gov.za/acts/1998/a107-98.pdf >
National Heritage Resources Act 1999 [Online]. Accessed 20 April 2003. Website
<http://www.gov.za/acts/1999/a25-99.pdf>

Integrated and Sustainable Development? A Checklist for Urban Transport Planning in South Africa

Page 55

55
National Land Transport Transition Act 2000 [Online]. Accessed 20 April 2003. Website <
http://www.transport.gov.za/library/legislation/2000/nlrtta-authorities/nltta_authorities.pdf >
Noland, R. B., Lem, L.L. 2002. A review of the evidence of induced travel and changes in
transportation and environmental policy in the US and the UK. Transportation Research Part D
7(2002) pp1-26.
Physical Planning Act 125 of 1991 [Online]. Accessed 25 April 2003. Website
<http://land.pwv.gov.za/legislation_policies/acts/_docs/PHYSICAL%20PLANNING%20ACT%2
0125%20OF%201991.doc>
Quinet, E. 2000 Evaluation methodologies of transport projects in France. Transport Policy 7(2000)
pp27-34.
Ringwood, W.B.A. and Mare, H.A 1992 Prioritisation in the Urban Transport Planning Process.
South African Roads Board Project Report PR 91/415.
Rothengatter, W 2000. Evaluation of infrastructure investments in Germany. Transport Policy 7
(2000) pp17-25
South African Environment Conservation Act 1989: http://www.acts.co.za/enviro/
Talvitie, A. 2000 Evaluation of road projects and programs in developing countries. Transport Policy
7(2000) pp61-72.
UK Department of Transport 2000. Guidance to the methodology for Multi-Modal Studies. [Online].
Accessed 17 April 2003.<http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/mms/vol2/index.htm>
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/appraisal/understanding/4.htm>
UK Department of Transport. 1998. Understanding the new approach to appraisal. [Online]. Accessed
17 April 2003. Website <http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/appraisal/understanding/4.htm>
UK Department of Transport. COBA Manual.
Vasconcellos, E.A. 2001. Urban Transport, Environment and Equity: The Case of Developing
Countries. UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Viekerman, R. 2000 Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in United Kingdom. Transport
Policy 7(2000) pp7-16.
Walton W., Shaw J. 2003. Applying the new appraisal approach to transport policy at the local level in
UK. Journal of Transport Geography 11(2003) pp1-12.
Williams, M. 11.04.2003. “City is on the move.” Cape Argus
<http://capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=49&fArticleId=131241>
Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., Harvey, D.R. 1998. A review of cost-benefit analysis as applied to the
evaluation of new road proposals in the U.K. Transportation Research Part D Vol.3. 3(1998)
pp141-156.

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page I

I

Table A1: Review of Internationally Used Economic and Developmental Criteria
Criteria Definition Method Country
Employment The effects on the proposed project on
employment, e.g. how many new jobs are
created.

 Evaluated under ‘regeneration
criteria.’
 Excluded in CBA. Qualitative
assessment done of the direct effects
on employment: how many person
years for building and operating the
new infrastructure.
 Uses input-output tables. A value
per job created based on the on the
alternative cost to the taxpayer of
creating one job by other means.
Included in CBA.
 Qualitative.

 United Kingdom
 France

 Germany

 Japan

International traffic Refers to the effect the proposed
development has on international
traffic in that route

 Qualitative assessment.
 Included in CBA.

 France
 Germany

Regional economic impacts The effects of the proposed project on
economic development in the region.

 Qualitative assessment. If jobs
are directly due to the project, it
receives a positive score
 Effects on employment in
construction and operation phases and
effects on international trade
 Qualitative assessment. Included
in MCA.
 Qualitative. Increases in asset
value, changes in commodity and
service prices.

 United Kingdom
 Germany
 Netherlands
 Japan

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page II

II

Peripherality/distribution  Qualitative assessment.  France
Economic development Refers to the progress toward a
community’s economic goals,
including increases in economic
productivity, employment, business
activity and investment.

 Monetised in CBA.
 Qualitative.
 Qualitative. Included in MCA.

 Germany
 France
 Netherlands

Induced traffic This determines new traffic due to the
construction of a transport system.

 Determination of impacts based
on the concept of consumer surplus.
There is a linear connection between
changes in mileage and induced
traffic.

 Germany

Quality of service This determines the increase in the
quality, comfort or reliability of travel
due to the proposed development.

 Number of vehicles per hour, or
qualitative on increase in comfort or
reliability of travel kilometres.

 France

Integration The score determines how well the
proposal integrates with existing
proposals and policies.

 Qualitative assessment based on
a scale

 United Kingdom

Equity Promotes increased transport options
for disadvantaged people (from low
developed regions.

 Qualitative assessment. Scaling
of regional welfare indicators ensures
low-developed regions get
preferential treatment.

 Germany

Accessibility Concerned with the ease of reaching
opportunities e.g. jobs, shops and
leisure or the ease of being reached by
contacts, for example clients and
workers.

 Qualitative assessment on a 7-
point scale showing if the proposal
will make it easier/difficult for people
to use public transport, cycle or walk.

 United Kingdom

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page III

III

Table A2 Review of Internationally used Social and Environmental Criteria
Criteria Definition Method Country
Noise Noise refers to unwanted sounds and
vibrations. Motor vehicles cause
various types of noise, e.g. engine
acceleration, tyre and road contact,
braking, horns and vehicle theft
alarms.

 Value based on the number of
houses experiencing a change in noise
levels in excess of 3dB(A).
 Abatement costs can be used e.g.
cost of providing noise insulation or
change in values of properties close to
the development.
 Hedonic values based on housing
market.
 Based on cost of equipping house
with noise-proof glazing.
 Hedonic values based on housing
market
 The number of people affected by
the noise and by what change in
decibel level, are measured.

 United Kingdom
 Canada

 France
 Germany
 Japan
 Netherlands

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page IV

IV

Local air quality Vehicle emissions contribute to air

quality and air pollution has short-
term and long-term negative effects

on humans, buildings and the
environment. Local air pollution
refers to CO, NOX, HC/VOC,
particulates, smog, lead and odours.

 Number of residential properties
experiencing a change in exposure to
NO2 and PM10 multiplied by the
change in exposure.
 Cost based on current values of
air pollution damages.
 Comparison between forecast and
threshold levels weighted by the
number of people affected.
 Defined by the change in total
environmental damage (emission
volume* unit damage cost of
emission).
 Value based on the cost of
bringing emissions to the year 2010
target levels.
 The number and severity of
people affected by the change in noise
levels.

 United Kingdom

 France
 Germany
 Japan

 Netherlands
 Canada

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page V

V

Global air quality Refers to greenhouse gases, which
have a global effect, e.g. CO2, SO2,
ozone, acid rain and acid depositions
and CFC’S.

 Net change in CO2. It is estimated
by calculating total forecast emissions
after the proposal is implemented,
then deducting estimated emissions
from the existing network.
 Calculated from CO2 taxes
supported by EU.
 Avoidance cost approach (cost to
achieve a set CO2 reduction target).
 Defined by the change in total
environmental damage (emission
volume* unit damage cost of
emission)
 Value based on cost of bringing
CO2 emissions to target levels in
2010.
 The number of people affected by
the noise and by what change in
decibel level, are measured.

 United Kingdom

 France
 Germany
 Japan

 Netherlands
 Canada

Landscape Describes the effect of the transport
on the landscape of an area. The
road must not overtake the
landscape and should be in
harmony with it.

 Qualitative 5-point scale.
 Qualitative assessment.
 Qualitative assessment.

 United Kingdom
 Germany
 Netherlands

Biodiversity This refers to the effect transport has
on wildlife and vegetation, e.g. the
deaths of animals, altering the interact
of wildlife species and dispersal of
weeds.

 Qualitative 5-point scale.
 Value based on the cost of
moving affected wildlife to a new
habitat.

 United Kingdom
 Canada

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page VI

VI

Heritage This includes the effects of the road
project on heritage sites within the
vicinity of the development.

 Qualitative 5-point scale.
 Qualitative assessment.
 Qualitative assessment

 United Kingdom
 France
 Netherlands

Visual intrusion Roads cause environment obstruction.
Some of the impacts include the
impact of the road on its surroundings
and the driver’s view of the
surroundings from the road.

 Qualitative assessment.  United Kingdom

Ground/water pollution Water pollution refers to harmful
liquids released into the environment
e.g. oil spills and road deicing (salt
damage).

 Qualitative 5-point scale.
 Costs of disposal of waste
material.
 Qualitative assessment.

 United Kingdom
 Canada
 Netherlands

Vibration Heavy vehicles can cause vibration to
buildings in the vicinity of the
transport network.

 Measured impact  United Kingdom

Severance This refers to delays and discomfort

that vehicle traffic imposes on non-
motorized modes e.g. pedestrians and

cyclists. It also leads to shifts from
non-motorized to motorized travel.

 Estimation of the numbers of
pedestrians experiencing new
severance or relief from existing
severance and assigning a score.
 Valued on the time lost be
pedestrians crossing carriageways.
 Qualitative assessment.
 Qualitative assessment

 United Kingdom

 Germany
 Netherlands
 Japan

Appendix A: International Review of Assessment Criteria

Page VII

VII

Resource consumption Refers to the consumption of natural
resources, e.g. petroleum, and other
resources like metal, for the
production and operation of motor
vehicles.

 Qualitative assessment.  Netherlands

Land use This includes negative economic,
environmental and social impacts
resulting when land is paved for

transport facilities, and from lower-
density urban expansion (sprawl).

Sprawl can increase the costs of
providing services, and increase
stormwater costs.

 Qualitative assessment.
 Qualitative. Included in MCA

 United Kingdom
 Netherlands

Environmental damage to health
and buildings

 Comprises respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases and damage to
residential buildings. Damage costs
related arithmetically to the number of
residents affected, weighted by the
emission concentration of NOx.
 The impact on the property values
in the vicinity of the development.

 Germany

 Canada

Environmental damage to
vegetation

 Germany

Appendix B: International Review of Indicators

Page I

I

Table B1: Review of International Indicators for Efficiency

United
Kingdom

France Germany Japan Canada Proposed
(guidelines)
Cape Town

Project life 30 years 30 years 40 years on
average

40 years 30 years 20 years
Discount rate 8% 8% 3% 4% 10%
Criteria
indices

 Net present
value
 Cost-benefit
ratio

 Net Present
Value
 Internal
Rate of Return
 First Year
Rate of Return

 Cost-benefit
ratio

 Cost benefit
ratio

 Net Present
Value
 Benefit cost
ratio
 Internal
Rate of Return

 Net Present
Value
 Internal
Rate of Return
 First Year
Rate of Return
 ·
Benefit-Cost
Ratio Comments  Cost benefit

ratio used to rank
projects but not a
decision criterion.

 Cost benefit
ratio used for
efficiency
 Other items
like equity
considered
informally.

 Cost –
benefit ratio used
to prioritise
projects
 C/B >3, high
priority
 1<C/B <3,
low priority
· C/B<1,
eliminated.

 Cost benefit
ratio used for
efficiency
 Other items
e.g equity
considered
informally.

 Net Present
Value used to
evaluate projects
but not as a
decision criterion

Appendix B: International Review of Indicators

Page II

II

Table B2: Review of International Indicators for the Environment31

31 Other criteria evaluated include:
 Biodiversity, qualitatively assessed in UK; heritage, qualitatively assessed in UK and Netherlands, water/ground pollution, qualitatively assessed in UK and severance, assessed in Germany b
considering the time lost by pedestrians in crossing carriageways.

United
Kingdom

France Germany Japan Netherlands

Noise  Quantified
(monetary, based
on properties with
decreases/increa
ses in noise.

 Quantified
(monetary), hedonic
values based on
housing market give
a decibel value.

 Quantified
(monetary), based on
cost for equipping

houses with noise-
proof glazing.

 Quantified (monetary),
defined by the change in total
environmental damage cost
(emission volume* unit damage
cost of emission)

Quantified based on
the expected emission
factors in 2010

Local air pollution Relative to the
number of
properties
experiencing
better or worse
air quality

Quantified using
current values of air
pollution damages.

Comparison between
forecast levels and a
predefined threshold
weighted by no of
people affected.

Global air
pollution

Carbon emissions
quantified as tonnes
of CO2.

Calculated from
carbon dioxide taxes
supported by the EU
Commission.

Avoidance cost
approach used,
estimates the cost to
achieve a CO2
reduction target.

Quantified based on
cost of bringing CO2
emissions to target
levels in 2010

Landscape Qualitative on a 5-
point scale

Qualitative and
subjective
assessment

Appendix C: Questionnaire used in Current Practice Review

Page I

I

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment

Urban Transport Research Group
Snape Building
Upper Campus
Private Bag
Rondebosch, 7701
Telephone: (021) 650 4756
Facsimile: (021) 689 7471
E-mail: utrg@ebe.uct.ac.za
Website: http://www.utrg.uct.ac.za

June 2003
To whom it may concern
State of current practice in transport planning decision-making and assessment: a
questionnaire for practitioners
The Urban Transport Research Group, and members of the Environmental Evaluation Unit at UCT are
presently working with the Environmental Protection Agency in the US on a research project that aims
to understand transport planning decision-making and assessment in South Africa. The findings of the
project may lead to proposals for the development of new assessment processes. The first stage of the
study is a survey of current transport planning decision-making and assessment practice in South
Africa. As part of this stage we are undertaking a number of interviews with practitioners who have
been involved in transport planning.
The attached questionnaire lists the issues that we would like to address. However, if there are any
additional issues that you feel need to be raised please feel free to do so. In terms of the questionnaire,
please note that there are no right or wrong answers. The aim of the study is simply trying to get an
understanding as to how transport planning decision-making and assessment processes in South Africa
currently operate. The interviews are confidential, and in later analysis, the interviewee will only be
identified by their current employment (eg government, private sector).
To ensure correct understanding, we would like to return the transcribed interview to you, for your
review and further comment. In this way we hope to ensure as complete an understanding as possible.
We also hope that you will be able to assist us with contacts any who would feel may also be able to
provide a perspective on this topic. Thank-you in anticipation of your help.
Yours faithfully,

Tony Barbour
Project Manager

Appendix C: Questionnaire used in Current Practice Review

Page II

II

QUESTIONNAIRE
CURRENT APPROACH TO TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA
Please note this interview is confidential in that the name of the organization and person involved will not be mentioned.
However, for the purposes of the research it will be necessary to indicate if the interview was with a representative from the
private or public sector. In terms of the public sector we will also need to identify the level of government namely, national,
provincial and local. We trust that this is acceptable.

9.1.1.1 Questionnaire Information

Date:
Time:
Interview Number:
Private Sector:
Public Sector:
 National:
 Provincial:
 Local:
(i) BACKGROUND

Back To Top