1. MADUMETJA MOSELAKGOMO SATC, 11 JULY 2017
The relationship between urban neighbourhood type and commuting distance in Gauteng City Region, South Africa. A preliminary analysis
MADUMETJA MOSELAKGOMO
SATC, 11 JULY 2017

2. contents INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND THE AIM OF THE PAPER
LITERATURE REVIEW
METHODOLOGY
FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS

3. INTRODUCTION
The paper emanates from a research study that is aimed at establishing a framework to empirically measure or evaluate the impact of spatial policies that are meant to effect travel behavior, in Gauteng.
What is policy impact evaluation?
Assessing changes in behavior (outcome) that can be attributed to a certain policy,
Why do we need to measure policy impact?
Improve, inform and guide policy decision making,
Verify and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policies (provides knowledge about what actually works and what doesn’t),
Improve government accountability, and
Allocation of public funds appropriately.
This is not similar to a Traffic Impact assessment, or an environmental impact impact evaluation,

4. Background South Africa’s historic urban spatial planning
Apartheid spatial planning (Group Areas Act (Act No.41 of 1950)
Segregation by race (some communities located far away from economic activities)
Manifested into spatial imbalances:
Long distance commuting
Increased traffic congestion Increased generalised cost of travelling
Increased commuting time
The problem is intensified by
City urban growth
Seemingly widening gap between urban land use policy and transport
system performance.
A problem for many growing cities across the world
It has become common that during the apartheid era spatial planning was based on racial segregation,
Which saw. non-whites communities being placed far away from city centers and away from places of economic activities.
Generalised costs includes mental health.

5. Background Spatial planning in post-apartheid era (post-1994)
The Development Facilitation Act (Act 67 of 1995)
Section 3(1)(c)(iii) of the DFA in particular stated one of the principles for land development as to:
“promote the availability of residential and employment opportunities in close proximity to or integrated with each other”, for all South Africans.
Reducing travel distances between residential and employment areas through the promotion of mixed-use developments
The recently promulgated Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Act 16 of 2013) makes similar pronunciations.
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past. Through the promulgation of the Development facilitation act.

6. Background
Since the promulgation of the DFA, the Gauteng City Region has seen development growth.
Mubiwa & Annegarn (2013) found that between 1991 and 2009
Residential and commercial developments (particularly in the area between Johannesburg and Pretoria)
Low cost housing developing in the periphery
Evidence of urban sprawl
Evidence of corridor development and infill development
Still reflecting apartheid urban spatial structure
In 2013 the commuting distances reflected those of apartheid spatial planning (Culwick et al ,2015)
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past

7. THE AIM OF THE research
The paper seeks to answer the following questions using an empirical approach:
To what extent does urban structure influence commuting distances?
What are the trends in commuting distances for different neighbourhood types in Gauteng since the promulgation of the DFA?
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past

8. Literature review
Relationship between city spatial structure and commuting distance
City urban growth monocentric polycentric form change in travel behavior
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past
(Bertaud, 2001)

9. Literature review
Relationship between city spatial structure and commuting distance
Influence of polycentricity of commuting:
Two conflicting views from empirical studies elsewhere in the world
Average commuting distance in polycentric cities is shorter than in monocentric cities (Gordon et al., 1989; Guth et al., 2009; Veneri, 2010)
Used cross-sectional comparison of citiess
As cities develops from a monocentric to polycentric form the commuting distances increased (Aguilera, 2005; Yang, 2005)
Longitudinal analysis of average commuting distance in the same city
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past

10. Literature review Most common finding:
Relationship between land use and commuting distance
Most common finding:
Higher diversity of land use and job-housing balance are associated with shorter commuting distance (Etminani – Ghasrodashti & Ardeshiri, 2016; Manoj & Verna, 2016; Litman, 1995; Zhou et al., 2011)
Inner city or urban core dwellers in most cities made shorter commuting trips than suburbs and villages/rural dwellers (Nielson, 2004).
non-transferability of findings
Area specific studies are important
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past

11. Methodology
Both Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the average commuting distance of commuters from different urban neighbourhood types in Gauteng City Region, South Africa.
Data
2001 household travel survey
2013 household travel survey
Focused on mandatory home-work trips
Analysis tool
Gauteng Transport Model, (EMME4 model)
SPSS (Statistical analysis tool)
Post apartheid spatial planning concentrated on fixing the mistakes of the past

12. Methodology
The TAZs in the household travel survey were categorized in terms of:
Historical CBD (Urban Core)
Suburban area
Township and/or informal settlement
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

13. findings Commuting distance calculation for a TAZ
Road based is distance (2001 and 2013), using EMME4 model
Most commuting trips are road based
Weighted average distance of all commuting trips made from that TAZ
Measured from centroid of origin TAZ to centroid of destination TAZ
Limitation
Distances are measured at aggregate level
Influence of intra-zonal trips
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

14. findings Average commuting distance for the city region (2001 vs 2013)
Increased marginally by 1.7km
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

15. findings Average commuting distance for the city region (2001 vs 2013)
Proportion of shorter trips was less in 2013
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

16. findings
Average commuting distance by urban neighbourhood type (2001 vs 2013)
%Difference
Urban core (40%)
Suburban (6%)
Township (0%)
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

17. findings
Intra-zonal commuting trips by urban neighbourhood type (2001 vs 2013)
A drop for Urban core
Indicative of longer commuting trips
Employers moving out of the CBDs?
Still high compared to others (land use diversity)
Very low for townships
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

18. findings
Comparison of commuting distance between neighbourhood types (2001 and 2013)
In both 2001 and 2013 township dwellers had the longest commuting time
Reflective of the apartheid spatial structure
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

19. Summary and conclusions
Commuters made relatively longer trips in 2013 than in 2001
is this a concern?
Caused by polycentricity as suggested by literature? And improved transport systems?
Urban core commuting distances seem to be rising (surprisingly)
Employers moving out of the city?
Caused by polycentricity? And improved transport systems?
Township commuting distance remained the same
Intra-zonal commuting trips for township very low compared to others
Perhaps not enough labour absorbing developments with the townships?
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

20. Summary and conclusions
At this stage of the research the differences in commuting distance have not been attributed to policy inputs
This is challenging task
There are many confounders
However,
Commuting distances my continue to reflect apartheid spatial planning
Urban growth
Increased land prices as activities fight for land
Polycentricity (choice)
Improved transport systems (enabler)
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

21. Recommendations Impact of polycentricity could be managed (Yang, 2005)
Urban growth management tools (e.g. Urban Edge Delineation Policy, 2009)
land use policies (implemented for example through town planning schemes)
Promote mixed use infill development at a neighbourhood level (not only at single stand level)
To be closely monitored
New mega-housing projects should be accompanied or supported by labour absorbing land uses.
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

22. Recommendations for further studies
Use aggregated trip analysis approaches
Explore the use of more disaggregate trip analysis tools, especially with regard to overcoming the limitation of intra-zonal trips.
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK

23. Thank You!
SDF = Spatial Development FRAMEWORK