more on [sustran] South Africa's Transport Policy (or lack thereof)

[Eric Bruun]

I have two additional concerns besides the violence between the
combi-taxi operators, and the anti-planning policies defended
by these operators:

1) Should we automatically conclude that providing no operating 
subsidy is the best choice, presumably because the money is needed
elsewhere?  Isn't mobility of people central to economic development?
What if the fares are too high or service is too poor where people
want to go? If the wealthy (meaning mostly white people) in South
Africa can pollute freely in order to drive where ever they want,
isn't this a valid reason for counter-subsidies to people that
don't?  Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't part of the violence
in Johannesburg rooted in the desperation of owner/operators that
are in financial distress?

2) Can South Africa, with its big and dense cities, really stake its
future on private cars, jitneys, and a few select comfortable bus
services for commuters?  Shouldn't it be investing in busways,
rejuvenating its rail services, etc.?  It sounds to me like the 
present policy is mostly just a continuation of starving the needs
of the majority, just like the apartheid days.

Eric



On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy wrote:

> RE Eric Bruun and WEndell Cox's comments on S.AFrica and the combi-taxis
> 
> 
> While the combi-taxis have done a great job creating jobs among black
> S.Africans even before the fall of aparteid, and provide a reasonably good
> service, with no subsidies (other than they highways they use, of course)
> the lack of route regulation has led to the equivalent of gangland violence
> between taxi companies competing for turf.  
> 
> Furthermore, the political power of the black taxi industry also made it
> virtually impossible for us to put in decent bicycle parking facilities at
> the commuter rail stations in the townships.  We had the agreement of the
> Soweto planning office for a nice bike-and-ride strategy, but we were told
> in confidence that it was vetoed by the combi-taxi industry which saw it,
> correctly, as a threat.  
> 
> Unfortunately, for markets to function properly in the transport sector,
> some regulation appears to be required.  
> 
> There is some discussion at the Group for Environmental Monitoring to take
> up transport this year as a major area of work (after our urging them since
> at least 1995).  
> 
> 
> Rgds, 
> Walter Hook 
> 
> At 01:28 PM 3/2/98 -0600, Wendell Cox wrote:
> >Some comments on The Mail and Guardian editorial....
> >
> >Re: No alternative has been presented to coax motorists, many travelling
> >alone in their
> >                               cars, away from the daily traffic jams. What
> >about the damage to the
> >                               environment? Must our cities be completely
> >choked by pollution like Mexico City
> >                               or Athens before Maharaj takes any action on
> >car emissions? 
> >
> >Where have such alternatives worked?
> >
> >Perhaps SA should ensure that it follows the US lead in auto pollution
> >technology for cars --- this is the only way that the pollution problem
> >related to cars will be solved, and it is being solved.
> >
> >>Since the policy, or lack of policy, has consisted mostly of leaving
> >>things to the market, and with a refusal to subsidize public
> >>transportation, I would like to hear whether readers agree with
> >>the editorial.  Eric Bruun
> >>
> >It's not such a bad thing to leave these things to the market, especially
> >when you consider the robust kombi-taxi industry, both in terms of its
> >potential to move passengers (if permitted) and the entrepreneurial path
> >that it provides to people trying to move up the economic ladder.
> >
> >With all of the social needs in SA --- housing, education, jobs, etc., etc.,
> >it is not surprising, nor is it necessarily inappropriate for subsidies to
> >public transport to take a :"back seat."
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Wendell Cox
> >WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
> >International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
> >The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
> >http://www.publicpurpose.com
> >Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
> >P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
> >
> >"To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
> >identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
> >that is no higher than necessary."
> >
> >
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 	The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)
> 	115 West 30th Street,  Suite 1205
> 	New York, NY 10001
> 	Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033  
> 	mobility at igc.apc.org
> 
> 
>