City of JohannesburgDepartment of Development Planning, Transportation and EnvironmentTransportation Planning and Management08 September 2004

Presented by: Mathetha MokonyamaVenue: South African Emme/2 Users Conference, Pretoria

OVERVIEW OF THE CITY OFJOHANNESBURG STRATEGICTRANSPORTATION MODELLINGFRAMEWORK

1. INTRODUCTION

2. OVERVIEW OF THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG

3. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG

4. STRUCTURE OF THE CITY’S STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND SOME OUTPUTS

5. ADDITIONAL FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION MODELLING

6. SOME TRANSPORTATION MODELLING CHALLENGES

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

8. CONCLUSIONS

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

• Provide and overview of the City of JohannesburgTransportation Modelling Framework

• Present Current and Future Applications of Emme/2 in theCity of Johannesburg

• Share some of the Transportation Modelling challengesfaced

• Illustrate the role that could be played by INRO in growingthe profession in Southern Africa

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENTATION

2. OVERVIEW OF THE CITYOF JOHANNESBURG

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

CITY OFJOHANNESBURG

GAUTENG PROVINCESOUTH AFRICA

• Voted the most popular City in South Africa in 2003 by South Africans

• Population of 3 225 815 in 2001, growing annually at at average of 4.1%

• Total of 1 006 744 households in 2001, growing annually at an averageof 6.5%

• Average Population density of 19.6 persons/ha and Average householddensity of 6.1 hh/ha, both in 2001

• Car ownership at an average 170cars/1000 population in 2003 (allregistered light passenger cars)

2.2 SOCIO–ECONOMIC PROFILE

• Economy is increasingly becoming Services Industry led,and to be strengthened in that direction

• Contributes about 16% to South Africa’s GDP

• Has only about 7% of South Africa’s population

• In 2001 48% of economically active persons formallyemployed, 14% informally employed and 38% unemployed

• The City historically an Apartheid City, still reflected in thedistinct spatial distribution of class and race

2.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE CONTINUED

3. TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGIN THE

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG

• Transportation Planning part of a bigger department:Development Planning, Transportation and Environment

• Mandate – To Deliver:

“A safe and efficient transportation system, with a publictransport focus, that will support a world class City;

connecting businesses, people and places in asustainable and cost effective manner and through this,

improve the standard of living and quality of life of allthe City’s inhabitants and the overall competitiveness

and growth of the City’s economy”

3.1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

MANDATE

• Only recently that Transportation Modelling is beingprioritised, since early 1990’s

• The role of Transportation Modelling within TransportationPlanning in the City:

“ to provide analytical assessment of development planninginterventions and their associated financial implications, as

far as they relate to travel demand management”

• Communication with relevant stakeholders, in respect ofmodelling, identified as of paramount importance

3.2 THE ROLE OF TRANSPORTATION

MODELLING IN THE CITY

4. STRUCTURE OF THE CITY’SSTRATEGIC TRANSPORTATIONMODEL AND SOME OUTPUTS

4.1 THE CITY’S TRAVEL DEMANDMANAGEMENT MODEL

Sub-Area Models(Extensive period, access,

relationship with the City, etc)

Land Use Model(Linkage with SDF&RSDF)

Strategic Transportation Model**

Key PerformanceIndicators

Specialised Surveys

Interventions and Cost Estimates

• Software combination: Emme/2, Arcview, Microsoft Access,Microsoft Excel, StatGraphics

• Built with very limited budget

• Emme/2 coded with Private routes (car) and PublicTransport routes( taxi, bus, rail)

• A total of 667 traffic zones (Including 37 external zones)

4.2 STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION MODEL

• Sub-Models– Trip Generation: Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel– Car Ownership: Spatially Based, Microsoft Excel, Arcview– Modal Split: Simplified Logit (Public transport mode sensitive)– Trip Distribution: Emme/2 matrix balancing (Gravity)– Land Use: Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel, Arcview

• Emme/2– Matrix manipulations– Assignment model (private and public)– Simple macros

• Model validation using link counts revealed goodcorrelation

• No matrix adjusting using counts

4.3 INTERACTION BETWEEN SUBMODELS

AND SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS

4.4 TRAVEL DEMAND STRUCTURE

Public Transport

Mode Sensitive(Rail, Bus, Taxi)

Mode Captive(Rail, Bus, Taxi)

Trip Generation with Primary Modal Splitby trip purpose

HH Income, HH Learners, HHCar Ownership, HH EmployedPersons, Job Opportunities,Zonal Income Category

Private Transport

MotorisedNon-Motorised

4.5 TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY

STRUCTURE

Modelled Network

Public Transport Functions(Operator specific, Value of time, Fare levels, timau)e.g. ft1 = timau + length*0.2008

Private: Vol-Delay FunctionsTypical BPR functions

e.g. fd11= (length*60/120*(1+0.15*((volau+volad)/(lanes*1820*0.75))^6))

Modes (Car, Bus, Taxi, Rail, Walk)

Public Transport Routes (dwt, ttfl, mod, operator, layover)

Underreview

4.6 MARKETS ESTIMATION AND INHERENT

COMPLEXITIES

Public Transport Market759 733

Mode Sensitive13%

Mode Captive87%

Operator Captive

Rel. Low Value of Time

Operator Sensitive

Rel. High Value of time

Operator Captive

Operator Sensitive

Private = 870 450 (53%)Public = 759 733 (47%)

Taxi: 79%Bus: 8%Rail: 13%

4.7 ENVISAGED ULTIMATE TRAVEL DEMANDMANAGEMENT MODEL OF THE CITY

Potential Public Transport Travel Demand

Mode SensitiveMode Captive- Objective: Service Capacity- ft = fn(length)

From Existing Private Demand

From existing Mode sensitive

ft = fn(value of time, fare, length)Modal Split Targets e.g. 100:0,

80:20, 50:50, 30:70ft = fn (value of time, fare, length, quality)

Estimate service costs

4.8 CoJ MODELLED NETWORK

4.9 CoJ PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK

4.10 CoJ TRAFFIC ZONES

• Total of 667 zones

• 567 Joburg zones

• Used Regional Indices

N

4.11 MORNING PEAK HOUR V/C RATIOS

>1.5 >1.0

>0.4>0.8

5. ADDITIONAL FUTUREAPPLICATIONS OF

TRANSPORTATION MODELLING

5.1 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CROSS-CUTTING INITIATIVES

• Some input into Environmental Management (Air QualityLegislation)

• Municipal Capital Investment Framework

• Linkage with statutory Spatial Development Framework

• Preparation of subarea models (accessibility, extensiveperiod, relationship with the whole City)

6. SOME TRANSPORTATIONMODELLING CHALLENGES

• Very Limited Allocated Budget– Non-validated volume-delay functions– Non validated public transport functions

• Information Flow breakdown, from discipline to discipline

• Illegal taxi operators – route coding

• Very Large Household Income gaps

• Racially and Class based transport system

6.1 CHALLENGES FACING

TRANSPORTATION MODELLING IN THE CITY

• Entry very expensive

• Handful of Transportation Engineers

• Very limited dedicated transportation research

• Linkage with academia very poor

• Virtually no new entrants in to the discipline

• Very few firms with know-how and facilities

6.2 BARRIERS FACING THE GROWTH OFTHE PROFFESSION

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

• INRO to be commended for reliable support

• Areas of improvement for INROü Academic Support/Academic licenses.

ü Assist in research into various transport operatingconditions.

ü Pricing structure to be sensitive to the developmentalneeds.

ü Participation in South African conferences e.g. SATC.

ü Ownership of software license needs to be guaranteedover a given period, to allow more licenses to be bought.

7.1 THE RECOMMNDED ROLE OF SOFTWAREDEVELOPERS AND AGENTS IN GROWING THEPROFESSION

8. CONCLUSIONS

• The City of Johannesburg has made a choice to continueusing Emme/2 for Strategic Transportation Modellingpurposes

• The City is increasingly embracing input from transportationmodelling

• The City will welcome any ideas to strengthen thetransportation modelling discipline, in line with itstransportation planning mandate

8.1 CONCLUSION

END – THANK YOU