NATMAP 2050 Synopsis Update
Colloquium
30 October 2015
Breakaway Session 4:
Enabling Statutory Instruments
ENABLING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS OUTLINE
1. Current Realities
2. Issues and Challenges
3. Priorities
4. Interventions
5. The Proposed Legislation
6. Problem Statement – Root Causes & Symptoms
7. Status of Institutional Transport Planning In RSA
8. Solutions Brought By Proposed Legislation
9. Generic Planning And Implementation Life Cycle
10. Transport Planning, Prioritization and Funding Guide Framework
11. Type Of Plans And Planning Process Flow
12. Possible Legislative Scenarios / Solutions
13. Questions & Discussion
2
CURRENT REALITIES
• By its nature transport consist of various components:
 Infrastructure - ROAD, RAIL, MARITIME, AVIATION (and Pipelines)
 Operations – Public Transport, Private Car Users, Freight, Non-motorized Transport
It is therefore given that transport is therefore complex
But it ought to be seamless
• IDEALLY
Reality is, it is FRAGMENTED
It must perform as an integrated system – an absolute sum of its parts.
• Currently, through constitutional and policy decisions, several facets of transportation are located
in different departments and Government agencies or organisations across the three spheres of
Government
• Most important challenges that relate to the institutional framework of transport is the
fragmentation within the sector, and the consequential general lack of integration and coordination in transport planning and delivery
3
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
•
To eradicate fragmentation; we have to rationalize transportation systems provision through
institutional amendments and/or improvements, thus there is a need for a review of the roles
and responsibilities of the various role-players, and these are the main issues:
–
Clarification and contextualization of the transport roles and responsibilities between the three spheres of
Government, in order to achieve integrated transport management; and
–
•
Comprehensive review of legislation, as well as the undertaking of institutional dispensation.
Ineffectual regulatory enforcement for issues such as overloading, vehicle roadworthiness, and
licensing
•
A sub-optimal observance of sector responsibilities
•
A lack of monitoring and evaluation of performance areas
•
Insufficient norms and standards for integrated land use/transport planning
•
Poor coordination horizontally and vertically across all the government spheres, society and the
private sector
•
Fragmented planning responsibility for planning in national government, as well as inadequately
coordinated intergovernmental planning and disconnects across municipal boundaries
•
No officially recognised systematic transport planning and coordinating processes supported by
regulatory instruments
4
4
PRIORITIES
• Institutionalization of multi-modal integrated transport
methodology, prioritization and decision making processes; and
planning
• Institutional Improvements – to strengthen institutional and organizational
planning structures and processes to give effect to coordination process
improvements by establishing new, reforming and/or giving legal powers to
existing organizations.
• The prioritization will bring about multi-modal integration in the
following areas:
 Legislative and regulatory reform: to facilitate comprehensive
integrated transport planning through a purposefully designed legislation
by which the enabling instruments in the form of supporting institutions
can be founded.
 Prioritization of (Investment) Projects: the support, evaluation, and
prioritization of transport investment projects to facilitate the funding of
transport infrastructure projects in a 'mode-neutral' environment.
 Economic Regulation: the homogenous economic regulation of the
sector and provision for modal divisions that focus on their unique areas
of expertise.
5
INTERVENTIONS
• Implementation of a Multimodal Approach in transport, e.g.
– Proposed Multi-Modal Transport Planning and Co-Ordination Draft Bill
– Road weight distance charging
– Provincial Transport Investment Funds (PTIFs)
– Single Transport Economic Regulator (STER)
– Consolidated Transport Data Bank
– National Transport Forum (NTF)
• The proposed legislation, amongst others will provide legal provisions for:
– Strengthening the role of NTF to consolidate stakeholder and institutional alignment;
– Make provision for legislative proposals and/or amendment to give effect to the
establishment of the Provincial Transport Investment Fund; and
– Establishment of the Consolidated Transport Data Bank.
• While the establishment of the STER is a NATMAP proposal it is a process
that (is still supported) has begun its own ‘stand-alone’ formation process
thus will be developed through its own dedicated legislation.
6
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
Multimodal Transport Planning & Coordination Draft Bill

Current stage of development - DISCUSSION PAPER - is Phase 3 of the project to develop the
“Multimodal Transport Planning & Coordination Draft Bill” as per the outline below:
PHASE 1
INCEPTION
PAPER
PHASE 2
STATUS QUO
EPORT
PHASE 3
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
DISCUSSION
PAPER
DRAFT BILL
BILL
CONTINOUS CONSULTATION PROCESS
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, STEERING COMMITTEE, NTF, NATMAP, OTHER STAKEHOLDERS


Goal of the Discussion Paper
– To achieve consensus on the need to develop the “Multi-modal transport Planning
& Coordination” legislation and what the legislation should provide for.
Objectives of the Discussion Paper are to :
– Articulate the Problem Statement;
– Articulate Strategic Direction for integrated transport planning;
– Articulate the context within which transport planning takes place to highlight current
challenges to integrated transport planning;
– Bring together divergent views on the solutions needed to resolve the challenges;
– Propose solutions, taking into consideration the current transport planning context
and the views from practitioners and key stakeholders.
7
PROBLEM STATEMENT
• Root Causes: Most tend to go beyond transport
–
–
–
–
–
No common understanding of the concept of integrated transport planning;
General lack of appreciation of the role that transport plays;
Inadequacy of Intergovernmental Relations as a primary means for coordination;
Lack of focus on what is best for the country from a planning perspective; and
Constitutionally provided transport functions between spheres of government –
poorly aligned roles and/or cooperation amongst spheres.
• Symptomatic Challenges
– Emphasis on consultation instead of participative and iterative planning;
• Transport and land use initiatives / investment projects as an example;
– Lack of appropriate transport planning processes to respond to changing
governmental priorities;
• Generic management styles applied to what is in fact a specialized field.
– Compliance approach to planning instead of developing plans for implementation
purposes;
– Lack of reliable transport data;
• RESULTS IN POOR - planning, investment and regulatory decisions.
8
STATUS OF
INSTITUTIONAL TRANSPORT PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA
• Silo Planning;
– Each mode plans on its own;
– No integration of transport and related sectors such as human settlement,
economic development, environment and information & communication
technologies sectors;
– Transport planning is done separately across all three spheres of government;
– Currently integrated transport plans are developed by municipalities only;
– No integration of major transport investments;
• Varying budget cycles affecting review and update of plans;
• Some plans not merit based or informed by demand drivers like population,
economic development, quality of life etc.
• Cannot plan beyond five-year horizon – yet NDP is long term – how do we
align?
• Lack of regularised / systematic coordination processes resulting in poor
integration;
• Prevailing consultation undertakings – more an exercise of people selling
their ideas;
•
Programmes between different spheres of government not aligned.
9
SOLUTIONS BROUGHT BY PROPOSED LEGISLATION
•
The changes must make it difficult not to integrate;
•
IGR tends to be generic and might be amended by COGTA as part of IDP review process;
•
Can explore proposals to make amendments to SPLUMA about the development of SDFs to be
done concurrently with ITPs if we are to integrate fully;
•
While not interfering with the legislative powers - the planning and prioritization functions of
agencies can be compelled to be subjected to collective decision-making;
•
Provisions can be made for legislative status of the NTF and the role it plays;
•
Provisions can be made for collection, storage, sharing and updating of transport data into a
single repository of transport information;
•
Institutionalize dedicated (grant) funding for planning;
•
Institutionalize Transport Planning, Prioritization and Funding Guide Framework;
•
Constitutional Matters – work within the current provisions.
•
Non-legislative changes will be necessary especially regarding capacity;
– Some change management is necessary.
10
GENERIC PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION LIFE CYCLE
FRAMEWORK FOR USING NATMAP 2050
11
TRANSPORT PLANNING, PRIORITIZATION
AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK
12
TYPE OF PLANS AND PLANNING PROCESS FLOW
•
•
A hybrid approach to planning is
necessary at national and provincial
sphere of government - Both
strategic and detailed planning for
implementation;
Adopt both a bottom-up and topbottom approach to planning;
Each sphere of government,
therefore must have one type of
integrated transport plan.
–
–
–
–
–
–
ITPs must be retained
Where there is no capacity - local,
transport plans replaced with District
Plans;
To be planned for longer than 5 years,
i.e. 10 yrs and updated annually;
Provincial Transport Master Plan up to
10 yrs for detailed planning and 10 to
30yrs for strategic planning;
National Transport Master Plan up to 10
yrs for detailed planning, 10 to 50yrs for
strategic planning;
Agency plans/corporate plans must be
reflected on the plan of the sphere of
government that agencies reports to.
Types of Plans
1a) National Integrated Transport Strategic Framework
1b) NATMAP
2a) Provincial Integrated Transport Framework
2b) PTMAP
3) Integrated Transport Plan
NITSF
STRATEGIC DIRECTION
•
NATMAP
PITF
PTMP
ITP
13
POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE SCENARIOS / SOLUTIONS
1. Do nothing: leave things as they are to rely on NLTA and IDA
–
–
–
NLTA excludes other modes & Primarily a pseudo ‘Public Transport Act’;
IDA is not a transport planning legislation; and
IDA does not focus on transport per se but simply coordinates all macro infrastructure initiatives that have been
planned by sectors in the first place – SIPs do not replace sector plans - will not address the current challenges
2. Amend the NLTA to address the identified gaps and challenges
–
–
–
It will amount to an overhaul of the legislation – undesirable;
It will reduce the importance of the public transport regulatory aspect of NLTA; and
It will be difficult to make public transport regulation subservient to integrated transport planning.
3. Leave public transport planning within the NLTA, and develop new transport planning
legislation to be integrated with the public transport planning process
–
–
Creates two pieces of legislation and two planning regimes – undesirable
Practical challenges of consulting two pieces of legislation for implementation purposes;
4. New Integrated Planning Legislation – Dealing with all integrated transport planning
matters
–
Ch. 4 of NLTA and planning regulations transferred into the new legislation;
–
Provides for one piece of legislation to deal with integrated transport planning matters;
–
Allows for integrated transport planning to be apex or guide of transport;
–
Allows for new approach and innovation without inhibition of current planning regime;
–
To built on current planning regime especially at local government, no additional plans;
–
Allows for adoption of new planning approach similar to Gauteng ITMP-25 and NATMAP 2050;
–
Allows for alignment with other changes in development planning – amendments on IDP approach by COGTA;
–
Allows for emphasis on triple bottom line emphasis inline with country goals of economic development.
14
Thank You
QUESTIONS / DISCUSSIONS
• Question 1: What do you consider the main issues to be that NATMAP 2050
should aim to address?
• Question 2: do you broadly agree with the priorities identified?
• Question 3: Are the interventions proposed relevant and what else should be
considered going forward?
• Question 4: Of the proposed interventions, which do you consider a priority
in the short to medium term?
• Question 5: Does the proposed Implementation Framework provide a
workable logical methodology to implementing interventions?
16