skip to Main Content




This note has been written by Lisa Kane in her personal capacity. Lisa is an Honorary Research
Associate at the University of Cape Town; a member of the World Wildlife Fund Reference Group for
Low Carbon Transport and a consultant to Sustainable Energy Africa on sustainable transport
matters. In this capacity she has been involved with reviewing the two previous ITPs for Cape Town.
She is currently part of a group including Sustainable Energy Africa and The Cape Town Partnership
looking at a Low Carbon Strategy for Inner Cape Town.
Lisa was invited as an educational stakeholder to a workshop on the ITP on Thursday 3 October. This
was a small workshop and so she was able to give extensive comment on the ITP to the Transport
Planning team. This document summarises the key points of that discussion, which were captured by
others present.
The key matters discussed at the meeting were:
The format of the document
The document as it stands is not well suited to public engagement. It is book-length, with a difficult to
follow structure, very detailed, and so difficult for the lay person to engage with. As it stands it does
not meet the City of Cape Town’s own Guidelines for Policy Writing (August 2012), that is, policy
should “ensure usability and legibility”. Nevertheless, as a resource document for officials and
professionals, it is an improvement on previous ITPs, including a more extensive register of transport
information. The risk is that the ITP document as it stands does not encourage public involvement in
the ITP process.
The logic of the document
As it stands, the document does not follow the City policy guidance for a hierarchy of policy –>
objectives – >actions. It does not provide a “highly structured set of desired outcomes that are
directly linked to a course or courses of action.” Nor does it follow a “cumulative pattern whereby
individual directives complement each other to achieve larger goals.”
As a result, budget allocations are not readily traceable back to transport objectives, or IDP goals, and
so the accountability of operating functions and budgets to planning mandates is unclear. For
example, Table 5-1 give Transport Needs in the Framework of the Five Pillars of the IDP, and under
the “Well-run City” pillar there are various transport needs identified including monitoring of car
ownership and usage; monitoring of noise and vehicle emissions; land consumption; and increased

+27 (0)21 671 5404
+27 (0)72 704 6605

18 Budock Street
Claremont 7708

service levels for public transport. These are not referred to directly in the budget line items, and so
there is no direct policy-action-budget link.
Sustainability Frameworks
Although Sustainable Transport is a key element of the City’s 2011 Energy and Climate Change Policy,
the social sustainability, or sustainable transport strategies are not well integrated into the policy
hierarchy. Principles and Guidelines for Social Sustainability are given in section on page 13; a
Sustainable Framework is given in Section 5.5; a sustainable transport strategy given in section 10.2,
but their links to each other, to the ECAP; or to monitoring frameworks, are not clear.
Links to earlier ITPs
The successes and failures of earlier ITP projects are mentioned very summarily (page 6-7), and there
is no reference to the evidence base. There is no summary of monitoring against previous Key
Performance Indicators. Such reflection is a key part of systemic learning.
Low profile of “accidents” and safety
Despite the call for a UN Decade of Action on road safety, this issue receives relatively little attention
in the document, and its budget allocation is very modest. The data suggests an almost doubling of
deaths and total “accidents” in the 2000-2010 period (although the data as it stands is unclear). One
of the five pillars of the IDP is for a Safe City, and so this matter is of key strategic importance, but
this importance is generally not reflected in the document. The analysis of the IDP on page 88, for
example, section 4.2, does not refer to safety. Table 5-1 does refer to road safety, but links to action
plans from there are not clear.
Prioritisation, monitoring
The links between existing and planned project prioritisation, monitoring and policy objectives is
unclear. The evidence base necessary for this seems to have improved, but is still not sufficient. The
ability for the reader to draw conclusions from the data that does exist is not always helped by the
analysis in the ITP. Table 3-50, for example, shows subsidies paid per public transport operator, but
does not show subsidies per passenger, or per kilometer operated. Understanding “efficiencies” is
thus very difficult.
Concluding Remarks
On a more positive note, there is a clear overall intention in the ITP to improve public transport in the
City, and to do this in a way which is well managed. The achievements in this area should be
applauded, as should the development in Cape Town of a Transport Authority, and the obvious
deepening in understanding and knowledge of the Cape Town transport system.

+27 (0)21 671 5404
+27 (0)72 704 6605

18 Budock Street
Claremont 7708

I trust these general headings are a useful summary of areas for further improvement, and I look
forward to further robust engagement on these matters.

Yours sincerely

Lisa Kane

Back To Top