1 / 26

ACCESS AND MOBILITY IN GAUTENG’S PRIORITY TOWNSHIPS

ACCESS AND MOBILITY IN GAUTENG’S PRIORITY TOWNSHIPS WHAT CAN THE 2011 QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY TELL US? Christo Venter Department of Civil Engineering, UP July 2014. Background. OBJECTIVES. DATA. Gauteng City Region Observatory (GCRO) 2011 QoL Survey (n=16,700) Modes, trip purposes

washi
Download Presentation

ACCESS AND MOBILITY IN GAUTENG’S PRIORITY TOWNSHIPS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ACCESS AND MOBILITY IN GAUTENG’S PRIORITY TOWNSHIPS WHAT CAN THE 2011 QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY TELL US? Christo Venter Department of Civil Engineering, UP July 2014

  2. Background

  3. OBJECTIVES DATA • Gauteng City Region Observatory (GCRO) 2011 QoL Survey (n=16,700) • Modes, trip purposes • Origins, destinations, travel times & costs • School travel • Satisfaction & problems with transport • GIS analysis • Explore patterns of access and mobility • Focus on GPG’s 27 major townships in Gauteng • Implications for transport and spatial planning

  4. 27 PRIORITY TOWNSHIPS

  5. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ACCESSIBILITY • “The ease of reaching opportunities from a particular location, given the available transport system” • Primarily a function of location and transport connectivity • MOBILITY • “The actual amount of travel undertaken, or the costliness of doing so” • Function of accessibility AND personal mobility choices/constraints WhereAIi = Access Index for origin area i tij= Travel time (in minutes) between origin i and destination area j Aj= Number of job opportunities in destination zone j • High expenditure of either money or travel time • Most frequent trip (Work, job-hunting, or non-work) • Measured as % of people exceeding 75th percentile value of travel cost/income value, or one-way travel time for Gauteng

  6. Low access; High expense: Disadvantaged location, users forced to incur high travel cost to interact High access; High expense: Advantaged, use good location to travel more and further - Mobility + - Access + High access; Low expense: Advantaged, good location is used to reduce travel costs Low access; Low expense: Disadvantaged, travel so costly that users suppress travel ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ACCESSIBILITY MOBILITY

  7. ACCESSIBILITY BY RAIL AND TAXI

  8. ACCESSIBILITY BY RAIL AND TAXI Good rail & taxi access

  9. ACCESSIBILITY BY RAIL AND TAXI Good rail & taxi access Rail present but less accessible

  10. ACCESSIBILITY BY RAIL AND TAXI Good rail & taxi access Rail present but less accessible Taxi makes up for poorer rail access

  11. ACCESSIBILITY BY RAIL AND TAXI Good rail & taxi access Rail present but less accessible Taxi makes up for poorer rail access Location & PT disadvantaged

  12. ACCESS VS MOBILITY INNER ACCESSIBLE High access Low expense Short commutes High income

  13. WAGE GRADIENTS

  14. ACCESS VS MOBILITY INNER MOBILE High access High expense Long commutes to large labour pools INNER ACCESSIBLE High access Low expense Short commutes Higher income

  15. WAGE GRADIENTS

  16. ACCESS VS MOBILITY INNER MOBILE High access High expense Long commutes to large labour pools MEDIUM ACCESS (Med access Med expense) INNER ACCESSIBLE High access Low expense Short commutes Higher income

  17. WAGE GRADIENTS

  18. MEDIUM ACCESS TOWNSHIPS • Internal movement • Many destinations, besides CBD • Optimal incomes at around 20-30km from home

  19. ACCESS VS MOBILITY OUTER MOBILE Low access High expense Long commutes competing for few jobs INNER MOBILE High access High expense Long commutes to large labour pools MEDIUM ACCESS (Med access Med expense) OUTER IMMOBILE Low access Excluded, Low earnings INNER ACCESSIBLE High access Low expense Short commutes Higher income

  20. WAGE GRADIENTS

  21. Outer Immobile Mobile by choice Outer mobile

  22. VARIATION WITHIN SETTLEMENTS • Looking at area-wide location can mask differences among households within a settlement ** Households in informal housing are significantly worse off

  23. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS • Mobility and accessibility together presents rich picture • Location along core-periphery gradient remains important • Core of what? City or City-region? • Beneficial: • Opportunities within settlement • Proximity to city-region core & large job pools • Rail • Good taxi connectivity, if no rail • Most townships cluster around average mobility • Signs of immobility and disengagement from urban economy • Need to serve many 20-30km trips along low-density routes – can BRT and rail fulfil this role?

  24. Acknowledgments GCRO (funding & data) Willem Badenhorst (MandalaGIS) - maps

More Related