TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSED NLTA AMENDMENTS PRESENTATION TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSED NLTA AMENDMENTS THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN Melissa Whitehead Commissioner Transport and Urban Development Authority 28th November 2017

OVERVIEW The City of Cape Town’s comments are made taking into account the need for Local Government, and especially major metropolitan cities, to deliver sustainable , integrated, efficient, safe and affordable public transport for the citizens that they serve. This task of local government has been conferred on it by a number of legislative and policy directives coming from national government, namely: The Constitution of South Africa The National Development Plan The Integrated Urban Development Framework The National Land Transport Act, 2009 itself The National Transport Masterplan (NATMAP) 2050

SPECIFIC COMMENTS NLTA Amendment Bill Reference is made to the IPTN definition amendment. It is agreed to, except for the words, [if road based] when referring to dedicated rights of way. It should not just be road based but also rail. The definition should be amended to make it clear that the IPTN includes road and rail. There is full agreement with the insertion of the definition of Municipal Regulatory Entity. The definition of ‘non-motorised transport’ should state …… and both non-motorised and motorised wheelchairs and/or other similar modes. Section 8(1)(h) amendment: The Act should also make it clear that Municipalities can also have their own branding as it relates to their public transport system, as is the case at the moment.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS NLTA Amendment Bill Section 11(1)(a)xi) – reference is made to Section 41A but there is no Section 41A in the principal Act – it needs to say [the new Section 41A]. Section 11(6) – This proposed amendment is NOT agreed to – the statement (unless that function is assigned to a Municipality by the Minister) cannot be deleted but rather after Minister the words [and/or] can be added. This deletion contradicts Section 11(4) as well as the new 11(8) et al. It should be noted that this also contradicts the Constitution, NDP, IUDF, the NATMAP and most recently the draft Rail White Paper. It also goes against best practice that confirms that public transport should be manages by one sphere of local government, for the benefit of the commuter and to enable land use integration.  

SPECIFIC COMMENTS Constitution of South Africa Section 156(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: The national and provincial governments must assign to a municipality, by agreement and subject to any conditions, the administration of a matter listed in Part A of Schedule 4 or Part A of Schedule 5 which necessarily relates to local government, if – (a)  That matter would be most effectively be administered locally; and (b)  The municipality has the capacity to administer it.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS Background INTEGRATED HUMAN SETTLEMENTS FRAMEWORK: 2016-2019 (Approved by Cabinet) highlights problems relating to a fragmented public transport system: (p. 54) and requires that Local Government be assigned the public transport functions and that they deliver integrated transport along with integrated development NATMAP 2050: Draft Final Report, 17 June 2016  In terms of the Minister of Transport Outcomes  (Outcome 6) agreement with the President in terms of the Medium Term Strategic Framework. Chapter 8: Passenger Transport: Proposed Interventions for Passenger Transport (p.8-19): “In dealing with the issue of the role of the different spheres of government in passenger transport and the fragmented and uncoordinated delivery of passenger transport, it is proposed that devolution responsibilities be assigned to authorities as foreseen in the Constitution and prescribed by the NLTA”.

ONE integrated, multimodal network This approach forms basis of Cape Town’s approved IPTN ONE integrated, multimodal network 9. Revenue optimization 10. Regulation, Enforcement, Network Management 8. Physical priority for public transport 1. Enhancing demand patterns (TOD* and TDM) 7. IT/tech strategies/ AFC 2. Rail 6. NMT 3. BRT along key corridors 5. ‘Hybrid’ minibus taxi solutions TOD, TDM: Improved reverse flow, seat renewal, reduction in travel distance and demand, peak spreading Rail: High volume, peak, long distances – capacity and operational efficiency, north south links, PRASA responsibility BRT: High volume movers, create precincts and corridors for TOD Quality Bus: Core feeders and direct services, peak only depending on design, integrated ticketing and services MBT: Part of IPTN, demand responsive and flexible, e-hailing technology, infrastructure support to increase mobility NMT: walking and cycling Technology: Integrated ticketing, route planning, match supply and demand, collectivized services Physical priority for all public transport, BMT lanes – mixed 11% capacity of BMT lanes Revenue optimization Regulation, enforcement and network management – local government functional alignment 4. Quality Bus

INTEGRATED TRANSPORT The Need for Integration Fare integration: cash/clipcard to AFC system Route and timetable integration: routes and schedules of provincially subsidised services cannot be optimally aligned with MyCiTi routes Service quality standards: appropriate contractual mechanisms not in place to ensure high quality of service, and real time information and monitoring between modes not possible Vehicle re-capitalisation: ensuring appropriate bus types are purchased to enable s(46) contracted service to use MyCiTi infrastructure, to dock at stations; and provide universal access Branding integration This will enable the reduction in the public transport user costs, which have been determined in Cape Town. Low income household spend on average 43% of their household income on access

REASONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENTS The proposed assignments are based on the challenges (p. 8-18): A lack of integration between passenger transport modes Infrastructure and rolling stock reliability issues Inappropriate modal choices and negative, costly competition between  modes  and on-corridor competition Inefficient management and division of government subsidies for passenger transport and no operational subsidy policy to guide services which are currently inequitable, inefficient and uneconomical Lack of land use and transport integration to address access needs resulting in increased costs for citizens and urban sprawl due Disjoined and inadequate provision of learner transport Quality, safety and convenience not provided across all services Lack of maintenance of public transport facilities Lack of integrated ticketing, which is not possible when there is more than one contracting authority Lack of universally accessible passenger transport Lack of reliable public transport data to inform planning that is integrated for the commuters

SPECIFIC COMMENTS Continued… 7. Section 11 (10) (d) (ii): It would be useful if more clarity as to what is expected by Municipalities in relation to “necessary capacity”. It is recommended that Chapter 6 of the CITP’s of each Municipality should elaborate on their capacity. 8 & 9. There is agreement to the proposed amendments to Section 15 and 17 of the principal Act. 10. Section 18(1) – The amendments proposed are NOT agreed to. The amendment should rather state: “A Municipal Regulatory Entity must receive and decide on applications relating to operating licences for services wholly within or emanating from the area of jurisdiction of the Municipality concerned so long as it does not go outside the boundaries of the Province. Further the word intraprovincial should be changed to interprovincial services where the services cross the boundaries of the Province. This also relates to Section 24(1)(b). It is also recommended that this also relates to Charter Services (Section 67).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS NLTA Amendment Bill Section 20 prescribes the National Public Transport Regulator function and Sections 23 & 24 prescribe the Provincial Regulatory Entity BUT there are no clauses that prescribe the Municipal Regulatory Entity. There is agreement to the proposed amendment to Section 27 of the principal Act. There is agreement to the proposed amendments to Section 36 of the principal Act. Section 39(3): the planning authority cannot take steps to cancel operating licences and permits – it should rather state that, upon recommendation/request of the planning authority, the regulatory entity shall take steps/measures to cancel …. There is agreement with the proposed new Section 41A – stopgap Contracts.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS NLTA Amendment Bill 16. The proposed amendments to Section 46 are agreed to. 17. Section 41(6): While there is scope for the provision of guidelines, this will undermine a contracting authority’s ability to negotiate the most appropriate contract for its situation. It is proposed that the wording is amended to refer to the power to issue guidelines, without a requirement that the contract may not deviate. 18. The amendments proposed in Section 47 have the following implications: The principal Act said 7 (seven) years from the commencement of that Act which is 2016 – the current year. If this amendment goes through it will mean that this time period if moved from 2016 – 5 (five) years on to 2020. This will have serious financial and operating consequences. It is rather recommended to change it to 2 (two) years, unless already concluded.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS NLTA Amendment Bill There is agreement with the proposed amendments of Section 51 and 53 of the principal Act. Section 54(2): after the word “wholly within the area of jurisdiction” add the words or emanating from the area but within the boundaries of the Province in which the Municipality is situated. Section 62: The deletion of paragraph (f) of Section 62(1) is questioned – if there is no proof of insurance cover there will be a potential increase in liabilities and safety risks. This deletion is not agreed to. Section 66 proposed amendments and additions are agreed to. There is agreement to the proposed amendments to Section 86 of the principal Act.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS NLTA Amendment Bill 24. Section 8(1)(y): Unreasonable for the Minister to impose timeframes for vehicles and facilities to accommodate the needs of targeted categories of passengers. The ability to implement changes will be largely determined by funding availability. The Minister’s power should be limited to issuing guidelines that can be implemented subject to available funds. 25. Section 11(1)(c)(5) and section (11)(1)(c)(xix): Seem to be contrary to the Draft White Paper on Rail. Agree with the consultation until such time as devolution is effected. Due consideration needs to be given to this potential long term conflict.

Contradicts national policy … Arguably unconstitutional s156. Powers and functions of municipalities.- 1) A municipality has executive authority in respect of, and has the right to administer (a) the local government matters listed in Part B of Schedule 4 and Part B of Schedule 5 ‘Municipal Public Transport’ is Schedule 4 Part B function Legislation cannot give power to the national Minister to decide whether to assign such an authority Further, while the NLTA cannot provide for revenue sources since it is not that type of legislation, it is requested that the NLTA Amendment Bill recognize that the devolution of funding sources be directly aligned to the devolution of responsibilities

PROPOSED CHANGES REQUIRED To the NLTA Amendment Bill The legislation should be revised to make (at least) metropolitan governments the default locus of power – unless: a) they request provinces to exercise a power on their behalf b) they are shown not to have the capacity to exercise the power c) they have created a joint arrangement, such as a Transport Authority, in which case this authority exercises the power The following sections of the Bill should be reviewed in light of the above: 1, 11(1)(a)(xi), 11(1)(b)(viiA), 11(1)(c)(xxvi), 11(2), deletion of 11(3), 11(4), deletion of 11(5), 11(6), 11(8), 11(10)

THANK YOU