This research is an economic evaluation that evaluates the viability of the theoretical implementation of a bicycle-sharing scheme for school and university destined commuters in Stellenbosch as a measure of congestion relief. It forms part of a much greater project that aims to use Stellenbosch (and especially its university campus) as the test-bed for smart mobility applications in the South African context. The research comprises mainly a cost-benefit analysis that weighs the costs of the scheme (initial start-up costs and the maintenance or running costs) against the benefits the scheme is able to present in terms of mobility, health, the environment and the economy (e.g. congestion relief, travel- time savings, health improvements, emission reductions, fuel savings, etc.). A cost is any loss of total utility associated with the investment needed to establish the scheme. A benefit is regarded as any
Page | 16 gain in total utility emanating from the bicycle-sharing scheme. The benefits are divided into direct benefits to the user, and indirect benefits to society and the authorities. It must be noted that the objective was not so much to determine absolutely precise benefit / cost ratios, but more to get an understanding of the magnitude of the values and determine whether such a scheme is economically viable or not.
Whilst this research is not the first to propose a bicycle-sharing scheme for South Africa (see Section 2.4.1.3 ), it is the first to propose such a scheme targeted mainly at scholars and university students. A general overview of the schools’ and university’s significant contribution to the overall traffic congestion in Stellenbosch has already been elucidated (see Section 1.1.3). It is believed that the cause of failure of previous attempts at implementing bicycle-sharing schemes in South Africa is that perhaps not the most ideal approach was taken. A scheme open to the general public has the potential for a greater uptake and the capacity to considerably improve the modal share of bicycles, but at the same time, it comes with a much greater risk (e.g. it is extremely difficult to estimate the demand for such rental facilities). South Africa is not a utility cycling nation, and one should not be fooled into believing that it will become one any time soon. Currently, there are simply too many barriers preventing a nationwide uptake of utility cycling. A bicycle-sharing scheme will always battle to be successful when the city / town lacks sufficient cycling infrastructure. Public funds should not be invested in bicycle-sharing schemes at the expense of cycling infrastructure (Kumar et al., 2012). High bicycle modal share can only be accomplished and kept up with safe, extensive and continuously improving cycling infrastructure. It is implausible that bicycle-sharing schemes (on their own) will have a pronounced impact on cycling levels, because the cost of bicycle ownership and maintenance is not typically the key issue inhibiting the choice of cycling in urban peak-hour commute (Kumar et al.). Furthermore, due to the sprawling and low density nature of South African cities, travelling distances are long, and unlike the case in many European cities, cycling cannot be easily combined with public transit. In terms of NMT infrastructure, Stellenbosch is not the average South African town, however; it is making immense progress in providing such facilities all across the town. What also makes this research unlike the others, is that it starts small - small in the sense of addressing a large proportion of a small target group, and not a small proportion of a large target group.
The implementation of the scheme is to be carried out in phases, as the uptake will vary for different target groups and it is believed that success will be achieved best this way. At first, the bicycle-sharing scheme is only to be made available to scholars, after which the scheme will be expanded for use by university students and staff. The economic evaluation of this research project covered these three groups, but bicycle-sharing is eventually to be made available to general commuters too (i.e. the general public) who are given the time to adjust to the idea and get fond of it. The university staff will most probably fall more into the group of general commuters, so provision for this assumption was made in the calculations. Tourists are accommodated from phase 1 (see Section 9.5.1). It was important to target an audience that can be more easily convinced of the cycling benefits, and that is more likely to undertake a modal shift – hence the phased implementation. When new ideas, behaviours or technologies are to be adopted, the Diffusion of Innovation Theory explains how, over time, the innovation gains momentum and diffuses (i.e. spreads) through a specific population or social system. The theory was developed by E.M. Rogers in 1962, and is one of the oldest social science theories (Boston University School of Public Health, 2012). According to Rogers, people have different motivations for adopting a new idea. Figure 1.6 shows the five adopter categories:
1. innovators, 2. early adopters, 3. early majority,
Page | 17 Figure 1.6: The five adopter categories of the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the motivations for adoption. Adapted from D. Pearce (2013)
4. late majority, 5. and laggards
with their motivations for adoption. Whilst the innovators and early adopters only make up 16% of the total population, it is believed that in a closed environment of young individuals and parents, the early adoption numbers will be higher. This is partly because independent mobility is highly sought after by teenagers, and because parents are utterly frustrated with the current morning-congestion conditions. Furthermore, it is not only easier to address the non-anonymous learners and parents of a school environment than it is to address the general public, but the proposed bicycle-sharing scheme also scores high in the five main factors that influence the adoption of an innovation. These are:
1. “relative advantage – the degree to which an innovation is seen as better than the idea, programme or product it replaces;
2. compatibility – how consistent the innovation is with the values, experiences, and needs of the potential adopters;
3. complexity – how difficult the innovation is to understand and / or use;
4. tria[la]bility – the extent to which the innovation can be tested or experimented with before a commitment to adopt is made; and
5. observability – the extent to which the innovation provides tangible results”
(Boston University School of Public Health, 2012).
The traffic congestion along the R44 arterial from the Somerset West direction was selected as the case study for this research, because (as mentioned above) a bicycle-sharing scheme for scholars is to form phase 1 of the implementation and Krigeville (the suburb in which five schools are found in proximity of each other) is located at the entrance to the CBD from this direction. There were a total of 3,866 learners attending these five schools in 2014. This resulted in a vast number of regular private vehicle trips per day, mainly destined to, but also originating from, the same place at the same time. The school-drop-off trip times coincide with to-work trip times in the morning, which explains the major last-mile traffic congestion issues encountered at this time of day. The poor response rate from Stellenbosch High School has already been mentioned. This poor response rate is not the main motive for excluding Stellenbosch High School from the research, however. The results from Stellenbosch
Innovators 2.5% Early Adopters 13.5% Late Majority 34% Early Majority 34% Laggards 16% Adopt when it is new. Adopt when they perceive a benefit. Adopt when there is a productivity gain.
Adopt when there is plenty of help
and support.
Adopt when they have to.
Page | 18 Primary (sample size of 22.5%) clearly show that the morning traffic congestion is significantly better in Jonkershoek than in Krigeville (rating by parents of 5.7 out of 10).
The study area extends further into town than the defined corridor, because the impacts a decreased traffic flow on the corridor has on the traffic congestion in town is sought after. At the R44 / Van Reede Rd intersection, most of the vehicles either continue straight along the R44 or turn right into Van Reede Rd. The R44 eventually forms an intersection with Dorp St – the most congested street in Stellenbosch in 2014. At a point along its route, Dorp St also meets up with Piet Retief St – the road running parallel to the R44 along the back of Krigeville. As shown in Figure 1.7, these roads shape a polygon around Krigeville, which in due course formed the study area of this research project’s case study. The severity of the congestion in this area was shown in Figure 1.3. Figure A.1 in Appendix A.1 is a map of the town of Stellenbosch on which the location of the more zoomed-in maps presented in the various chapters of this write-up are indicated. The location of Krigeville within Stellenbosch is indicated as Area 1 in Figure A.1.
Figure 1.7: Map of Krigeville – the study area of this research project’s case study.
© 2015 HERE 500 feet 100 m Traffic Rhenish Primary Eikestad Primary Rhenish High Bloemhof High Paul Roos Gymnasium High
Page | 19 In terms of scholars, the focus of this research lies specifically on high school learners, because primary school learners have a higher risk-exposure to accidents, and many learners are not yet competent to ride a bicycle to school by themselves (Kelly & Fu, 2014). This was confirmed by many surveyed primary school parents. With the special consent of their parents, primary school learners may, however, make use of the scheme, but they will be excluded from this initial research. In the case of the Jonkershoek area, a bicycle-sharing scheme thus also does not seem feasible for one school alone. The schools addressed in this research are thus Bloemhof Girls’ High, Paul Roos Gymnasium and Rhenish Girls’ High.
The bicycle-sharing scheme is to operate from Drop-and-Gos for scholars, and Park-and-Rides for university students and staff. These will be located within cycling distances to the schools and the university campus. Scholars are to be transported to these Drop-and-Gos in the mornings (mostly by private motor vehicles driven by their parents) from where their journey will be completed by bicycle. This system will operate in an opposite manner in the afternoon. SU students and staff, as well as general commuters will drive as far as the Park-and-Ride, park their motor vehicles there for the day and then also complete their journey by bicycle. People residing in direct vicinity of the zones may of course arrive at and leave the zone by foot. Docking stations will be positioned at these zones as well as at the schools and on campus. In the company of more NMT users on the commuter routes, Stellenbosch residents with short trips to school, university or work, may be encouraged and persuaded to undertake a mode shift to NMT too, either commuting by foot or by means of a bicycle (private or public).