March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-37

4. Transportation Plan

4.3.4 Assessment of Formalising Linear On-street Fa cilities

Formalising and re-organising the way on-street taxi ranking works operationally, was explored using Bree and Jeppe Streets as a Case Study. The objective of the assessment was to determine whether the formalisation of on-street ranking could be a viable alternative to providing off-street facilities.

The analysis commenced with questioning • whether it is desirable (or necessary) to eliminate all on-street ranking and holding, and • if sufficient off-street capacity is provided, would it in fact eliminate the needfor on-street activities or would some on-street activities continue to persist due to operational considerations

On-street ranking in principle is not necessarily a problem, where dedicated ranking bays are provided (as provided for in the by-laws), kept free of other traffic (illegal parking or loading) and are operated under the provided capacity. Problems occur where more taxis than the supplied capacity at a specific location wish to operate from that location, waiting in the vehicles lanes to load or off-load, thereby impacting on traffic flow.

On-street off-loading in streets near passenger destinations have some advantages over off-loading in ranks: not only is it more commuter friendly (shorter walking distance) but it is also beneficial to the operator, who can turn around quicker for the next trip.

There is also no reason why on-street loading should not be provided, provided that traffic flow is not affected negatively on routes where mobility is important. This requires that the capacity of the designated taxi stops are not exceeded, and to ensure this, the following conditions must be created:• Designated taxi-stops (similar to bus stops) should be provided at regular intervals, adequately signed, and kept free of illegal parking• Stopping in non-designated areas are not tolerated (enforcement required)• Waiting to fill up should not be allowed. The only way to practically achieve this is to allow only the high demand, high frequency routes to pick up at these dedicated stops, implying that services with lower demand and or frequencies should be served in off-street ranks, where the waiting time to fill up a vehicle can be accommodated better.

On-street holding (in essence parking), is also not necessarily a problem where dedicated parking bays are used in areas where parking would otherwise be under-utilised, provided that the by-laws regarding activities happening while parking, is adhered to.

Problems occur when• there is a high demand for on-street short term parking and the available bays are taken up by long term parking (taxis holding), resulting in turn in illegal short term parking in loading bays and or spaces dedicated for taxi ranking (vicious circle)• pedestrian or road space is taken up by taxis parking in non-designated parking areas (on sidewalks or in the road)• significant concentrations of on-street parking result in un-managed conditions where by-laws are not adhered to or enforced, resulting in deterioration of the public environment. However law-enforcement officials cannot be blamed for not enforcing by-laws where no viable alternative is provided by the city. Taxi drivers do require basic amenities such as rest areas, areas to prepare or buy food, ablution facilities and areas to wash their vehicles.

Due to the shortage of parking in the inner city, it can be concluded that on-street holding is generally not desirable, unless it is in spaces that would otherwise be under-utilised, and can be controlled for by-law adherence.

On-street ranking could potentially be provided if it can be better managed. It is likely that some on-street ranking and loading would continue even after sufficient off-street facilities are provided.

The potential to utilise Bree and Jeppe Streets as “linear on-street ranks”have been assessed, with the view to reduce the number of off-street facilities required. This assessment is discussed in the following sub-section.

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-38

4. Transportation Plan

Assessment of Bree and Jeppe Streets as Potential F ormal On-Street Linear Ranks

Bree and Jeppe Streets experience high volumes of pedestrians, intense taxi loading and off-loading activity, as well as informal trade on the sidewalks of most sections of these streets. The combination of these three activities results in an extremely congested environment and high accident rates, as noted in Report 1, Section 6.5.

Typical pedestrian volumes along Bree and Jeppe Streets are 1500pedestrians per hour, which at capacity (Level of Service E) requires a clear width of 4m. The current sidewalks are approximately 3m wide, but the informal trading stalls frequently narrows the space down to as little as 1.2m, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street.

The roadway currently accommodates parking on both sides of the street, and four sub-standards width vehicle lanes. The road reserve of Bree Street is 22m and the existing typical cross section is shown in Figure 4.3.4.1 .

If both of the sidewalks are to be widened to say 7m (4m pedestrian requirement, and 3m trading requirement, only 8m remains for road space, which is only sufficient for one vehicle lane and one parking lane, or alternatively no parking and two vehicles lanes. It is therefore assumed that it is not feasible to widen the sidewalks on both sides of the street as the impact on traffic and parking would be considerable.

If traders are allowed only on one side (the side widened to 7m), and the other sidewalk is retained at 3m (preferably with no trading allowed), then the remaining width can accommodate either• laybyes (or parking) on both sides and 2 vehicle lanes of 3.5m wide or• laybyes (or parking) on one side and 3 narrow vehicle lanes (3.15m)

The latter cross section is shown in Figure 4.3.4.2 . It should be noted that the crown of the road is in many instances as high as the sidewalk level, which would either require reconstruction of the road to achieve adequate drainage, or accommodation of drainage on the widened sidewalk by means of grid inlets on the sidewalk (usually problematic).

Figure 4.3.4.1. Current Typical Bree Street Cross S ection

Figure 4.3.4.2. Potential Bree Street Cross Section

CLEAR WIDTH

FOR TRADING

ACTIVITY

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-39

4. Transportation Plan

The blocks, at approximately 65m, are extremely short. If there are no vehicle accesses, a typical block could accommodate approximately 30m of linear bays, which could hold• 4 x M2 minibus taxis (10 – 16 seats) or• 3 x M2 midibuses (17 – 23 seats) or • 3 x M3 midibuses (24 – 34 seats)

The above provision assumes no parking or loading on that side of the street. If parking and or holding is to be retained, it is likely that there would only be sufficient space for one taxi bay per block.

A typical layout is shown in Figure 4.3.4.3 .

The capacity of a taxi stop depends on how fast a taxi can load or off-load, freeing up the space for the next taxi. Spot surveys in the morning peak at the corner of Bree and Sauer, a busy off-loading spot, revealed that the average dwell time is approximately 20 seconds, with the average number of passengers dropped / picked up per stop being 3.4. A single taxi bay’s capacity, assuming a 20 second dwell time, with G/C (green time over cycle time) of 0.5 and a 25% failure rate, can accommodate 54 stops per hour.

There are 15 blocks on Bree Street, therefore Bree Street can accommodated approximately 810 stops per hour. At 3.4 passengersprocessed per stop, it equates to 2754 passengers per hour. If the same number of stops is located on Jeppe Street, the total number of passengers that could formally be processed on these streets with one formal taxi bay per block is 5508 passengers per hour.

For comparison, passenger departures from 6:00 to 8:00 at Jack Mincer was recorded in 2006 to be 24 750. While it could supplement capacity of the off-street facilities, the benefits of implementing the solution depicted in Figure 4.3.4.3. would not be as substantial as initially thought. The disadvantages of the solution is that substantial re-construction of the street would be required at high cost to solve drainage problems and substantial numbers of parking would be lost.

Figure 4.3.4.3. Typical Potential Bree Street Layou t

CLEAR

BOARDING /

ALIGHTING

AREA

LAY-BYE

The advantages of implementing the solution to pedestrians (improved flow) as a result of the widening would however be substantial. The amount of space available for trading would however reduce at it should not be permitted at the boarding areas.

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-40

4. Transportation Plan

Figure 4.3.4.4. Typical Bus Border Layout (Transport for London)

A lesser cost variation of the above proposal would be to construct bus boarders (a bus boarder of 17 m length could accommodate two taxis). A typical design used in London is shown in Figure 4.3.4.4 and a photo of a boarder constructed in Cape Town is shown in Figure 4.3.4.5 .

The benefits of bus boarders include:• it provides a convenient boarding area for passengers, separate from the adjacent pedestrian flow• it provides additional space on an otherwise cluttered sidewalk to provide passenger amenities such as shelter and information boards• it deters illegal parking that is frequently experienced if lay-byes are provided instead• it maintains the place of the bus in the traffic stream and thereby serves as a form of public transport priority• it allows the vehicle to pull up parallel to the kerb, largely without maneuvers• it reduces overall time spent at the stop and thereby increases capacity of the stop• it requires less space than a lay-bye which requires long taper lengths, thereby resulting in a lesser loss of parking than for lay-byes

Figure 4.3.4.5. Example of Bus Boarder in Cape Town

The construction of bus boarders will reduce pedestrian conflict at stops but will not solve the capacity constraints presented by the presence of street trading competing for the same space.

The city will therefore need to consider how best t o balance the need to provide sufficient pedestrian capacity and the n eed to support the livelihoods of the street traders on busy streets s uch as Bree and Jeppe Streets.

The proposed upgrades that could be considered in Bree Street has been developed further as one of the projects in Section 5.

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-41

4. Transportation Plan

4.3.5 Assessment of Previous Work

a) Park Station Urban Design Framework (Ikemeleng A rchitects)

In the Johannesburg context, a single large centrally located facility such as the New York City Bus Terminal was proposed in previous studies. The Park Station Urban Design Framework (Ikemeleng), indicated in Figure 4.3.5.1 , proposed that: • the area between Rissik and Harrison Streets east of Park Station be decked• a long distance bus and taxi facility developed on the site of the current Kaserne holding area (multi-level parking structure) and the area immediately to the north of it (Post Office owned),• supplemented by additional commuter facilities on the triangular land parcel between Sauer and Simmonds• Park City and Jack Mincer Taxi ranks be relocated westwards to the new facilities, to reinstate Joubert Park as a viable inner city residential district and• inclusionary housing be developed on the upper levels above the transport interchange.

Figure 4.3.5.1. Park Station Urban Design Framework : Intermodal Interchange (Ikemeleng)

Long Distance Taxis

Local Taxis

Long Distance Rail

Local Rail

Long Distance Buses

Alexandra – EmdeniRandburg – CBDBaragwanath to Ellis Park via NasrecNorth South CBD LoopEast West CBD LoopDobsonville – Eastgate

Intermodal Interchange

BRT Routes

Long Distance Taxis

Local Taxis

Long Distance Rail

Local Rail

Long Distance Buses

Alexandra – EmdeniRandburg – CBDBaragwanath to Ellis Park via NasrecNorth South CBD LoopEast West CBD LoopDobsonville – Eastgate

Intermodal Interchange

BRT Routes

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-42

4. Transportation Plan

b) Kazerne Integrated Long Distance Transport Facil ity (Arup)

Arup was appointed in May 2009 by the JDA to assess whether a facility, designed to house taxis and buses (holding and ranking) could be built adjacent to Park Station, on land owned by the Post Office and the existing Kazerne site (assuming the existing Kazerne parking garage is demolished).

The study used existing information as a basis for the demand (sourced from the previous surveys and analysis done by Aganang in 2005). According to this information, provision needs to be made for 50 long distance buses, and 495 long-distance recapitalised (35 seater) taxis.

It should be noted that the assumption of 495 taxis to be designed for is based on the assumption that the maximum accumulated (surveyed) demand of 765 smaller (16 seater) taxis using long distance facilities in 2005 would reduce proportionately to 330 vehicles, as operators switch to using larger vehicles. A growth factor of 1.5 was then applied for future growth to arrive at the figure of 495.

Observations indicate that the majority of long distance operators have in fact switched to 35 seater vehicles 6 years down the line, but it is recommended that the number of vehicles should be confirmed through detailed surveys, as it is thought that the number of vehicles used m ay not necessarily have reduced proportionately with the increase vehi cle size, as assumed .

The facility footprint considered in the Arup study is shown in Figure 4.3.5.2.

The facility would have four flours dedicated to transport with some retail incorporated on some floors, with two mixed used towers above, including a 250 room hotel, conference and meeting facilities, retail and commercial space.

Figure 4.3.5.2. Proposed footprint of Kazerne Long Distance Facility (Arup, September 2009)

The design layouts proposed noted the following capacities (transport facilities):• 153 long distance bus holding bays• 54 long distance bus ranking berths• 67 long distance taxi ranking berths (35 seater)• 354 long distance taxi holding bays• 100 metered taxi bays

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-43

4. Transportation Plan

c) International Cross Border Bus Study (Klugg)

The JDA appointed a service provider to determine the needs of the existing international bus sector, estimate future needs, provide a framework for best practise in terms of bus ranking and holding facilities in terms of space and design requirements, and to identify and analyse the various sites and options for ranking and holding, in order to arrive at a series of concise and implementable recommendations. A major consideration in the study was short term implementability, as urgent intervention is required in time for the 2010 World Cup.

The study, completed in March 2009, concluded that provision needs to be made for 200 buses daily, translating to 20 bus berths for loading, and 65 holding bays.

It was recommended, that for 2010, the current Metrobus rank at Westgate be re-developed to accommodate 20 loading berths (indicated in Figure 4.3.5.3 ). Holding (100 bays) would be accommodated at a site off Trump Street, approximately 1km away. In the long term (phase 2), it was recommended that part of the Pikitup site could be re-developed to supplement capacity in the longer term.

The study further proposed that the vacant Transnet land at Carr Street could serve as overflow ranking and holding and could accommodate an additional 20 ranking bays and 100 holding bays, should the number of buses arriving for 2010 World Cup exceed current estimations.

It was noted in the final presentation that the fin al recommendations disregard the ITC (International Transit Centre) st udy at this stage.

Figure 4.3.5.3. Proposed footprint of Westgate Long Distance Bus Rank (Klugg, March 2009)

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-44

4. Transportation Plan

d) Comparison of Long Distance Bus Taxi Requirement s/Supply in the Cross Border and Kazerne Studies

The location of the proposed Cross Border facility at Westgate is deemed to be driven largely by the need to find a short term solution in time for the 2010 World Cup, and appears to be contrary to the city’s policy to accommodate all long distance operations in a central location.

A high level assessment was therefore done to establish whether the design parameters established in the Klug study (20 loading berths and 65 holding berths) can be rather be accommodated in the Kazerne facility, once this facility is constructed.

The Department of Transport Document “Bus Terminals and Bus Stations Planning and Design Guidelines” was used to determine typical size required.

According to this Guideline:• Gross area per loading bay (including roads to isles and passenger islands) for parallel island berths are in the order of 350 – 370 m2 per berth. For 20 loading berths, at 370 m2 per berth, the area required would be 7400 m2.• Area per holding berth for planning purposes are given as 250 m2. For 65 holding berths, the area required is thus 16 250 m2.• The total of the loading and holding areas required is 23 650 m2.• It is assumed that no provision for additional off-loading areas are required as off-loading will also take place in the loading bays.

The floor area provided in the Kazerne layouts, is approximately 24 000 m2

per floor. The two floors dedicated to buses should therefore be adequate to accommodate the bus requirements.

It is however noted that the bus holding layout ind icated in the Kazerne report is unlikely to be practical as almost all lo ng distance buses would require independent entry and exit, unlike typical commuter bus holding areas where buses can be stored to exit on a first in, first out (last in, last out) basis.

e) Assessment of Space Available in Kazerne Facilit y to Accommodate 495 Long Distance Taxis

The layouts in the Kazerne report dedicate one floor (approximately 24000m2) to taxi holding (354 bays), and a portion of a floor (approximately 13000 m2) to taxi ranking (67 bays) – total 37 000 m2.

The Department of Transport Document “Guidelines for the design of Combi Taxi Facilities” do not provide typical sizes for planning purposes, and a typical size per 35 seater recap taxi was therefore estimated, based on an assumption that the total number of taxis (495) to be accommodated will operate as follows:• one loading lane module per 8 taxis accumulating at the rank• each loading lane can accommodate 1 taxi loading, and four taxis holding behind it (short term), the remaining three taxis per module are held separately

The space needed for each module of 8 taxis, including a 40% addition for circulation and isles, is then approximately 630 m2, or around 80 m2 per taxi.

If this area is applied to the 495 taxis, 39 600 m2 is required, which can be accommodated in the area provided.

March 2010 JICTTS Report 2 - Final 4-45

4. Transportation Plan

4.3.6 Assessment of Potential Sites for Additional Bus and Taxi Facilities

As indicated in Section 4.2.8 , assuming the “Moderate” Scenario is the most likely scenario to materialise, two new Jack Mincer sized taxi facilities will be required in the short term if the intention is to eradicate the total estimated current shortfall (after implementation of the Soweto to CBD BRT). These two facilities would be adequate up to year 15 but a third facility would be required by year 20.

The following criteria was used to select the sites that was considered in the development of the Transport Plan:

Capacity – can the site accommodate the required area?

Accessibility – is the site well-located relative to likely traveller destinations in the city centre? There is little point in building a transport hub in an inactive part of the city because the resulting lack of activity will have a negative effect on perceptions of personal safety and may reduce the attractiveness of the facility.

Cost implications – is the option likely to be affordable, or would it involve high construction or operating costs?

Other factors which are usually assessed but was not considered at this level of analysis include

Security – is the option located in an area with beneficial activity and would the site have good casual surveillance by passers-by? Would the site require active management of security to ensure it is perceived as safe and secure by users?

Safety – does the option have potential pedestrian safety issues?

The required site sizes for both development concepts are indicated in Table 4.3.6.1, for a facility with either 3 floors, or more compact 4 floors.

Table 4.3.6.1: Size Requirements for Future Transpo rt Facilities

A number of potential sites, some of which are owned by the City, were looked at in some detail as part of the assessment of the proposed temporary re-location of operations at Kaserne (refer to Annexure 3 in Report 1 ).

If a strategy of providing smaller facilities distributed around the study area is adopted by the city, three sites need to be selected. Although known city owned land was considered, the location of most of these sites are not optimal. The sites most suitable in terms of its location and size, are indicated in Figure 4.3.6.1.

Development ConceptIntegrated Mega-Hub

Network Approach

Size of Each Facility (Floor Area) 75,000 25,000No. of facilities required 1 3Minimum Site Size (m2) with 3 floors 25,000 8,333Indicative Block Size with 3 floors 160m X 160m 90m X 90mMinimum Site Size (m2) with 4 floors 18,750 6,250Indicative Block Size with 4 floors 140m X 140m 80m X 80m