Prioritisation is welcome but requires a mind shift and revisiting of TIA's and road design standards

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. My main comments are as follows:

Giving meaning to the prioritising of pedestrians and cyclists within the Public Right of Ways (PRoW’s)

It is a very commendable that the strategy sets out to clearly prioritise walking and cycling above vehicular traffic. While policy has previously talked broadly to the need to prioritise NMT, it hasn’t translated into a visible difference in the design solutions or the behaviours of motorists using the public right of ways, due to the remaining ambiguity on user prioritisation within our road and street spaces

To ensure this strategy can facilitate the effective prioritising of pedestrians and cyclist on the ground within the public right of ways, there are two key actions that are proposed in the strategy, but which I believe are underplayed. The first is that the road design guidelines and standards be revisited. The basis of the existing road design guidelines and standards is often to ensure frictionless travel for motorised traffic which requires that pedestrians and cyclists are constrained in terms of where they can walk and cycle and how they move across and along the PRoW’s between properties and land uses. Walking and cycling are slower, more responsive and create a denser pattern of multidirectional movement than cars. The finer grained multidirectional movement dynamic is essential to support local economies and build healthy communities, but it is not supported by the generic road design guidelines.

In addition to the potential revisiting of current road design guidelines and standards, is the need to reconsider the mechanisms which allow the perpetuation of the car orientated development patterns. The Traffic Impact Assessments (TIA’s) are powerful mechanisms used by the planning authorities to ensure the needs of vehicle parking and traffic are catered for. While the traffic engineering departments have of late begun to insist that development proposals include investment in the external road environment to cater for pedestrians, there is no proactive calling for the precinct / site layouts to take into account local movement patterns for those reliant on Public Transport and those reliant on access by foot or bicycle. This calls for the TIA requirements and methodologies to be interrogated to be brought in line with principles contained within this strategy. 

Demonstration Projects

The strategy talks to the necessity for demonstration projects that help to share the vision and build support with communities. This is supported. Demonstration projects do not have to be high investment projects. They can utilise surface painting and greening to test how to reprioritise space within the road reserves. Painted road surfaces can be used for example to bring attention to pedestrian convergence zones, especially where it involves more vulnerable users such as young school goers. Schools are a good place to start with simple surface painting which announces high use pedestrian crossing zones.

Community engagement

The Strategy talks frequently to the need for community engagement. This is vitally important to inform planning for walking and cycling infrastructure on the ground in local areas. It is unrealistic to expect the City of Cape Town’s Urban Mobility unit to understand local movement patterns across all neighbourhoods of Cape Town and identify the best solutions for each community. The strategy fails to suggest how the CoCT might “practically” engage communities.

The CoCT does not have the capacity to do the level of local area planning that it used to. It does high level district scale planning which is participated. It will occasionally undertake spatial frameworks for special areas or areas for upgrade. The latter provides some opportunities for identifying locations for investment in NMT infrastructure.

The detailed needs of pedestrians and cyclists within local neighbourhoods or between neighbourhoods is therefore not well understood. If the City could facilitate a process that enables communities to inform the planning for pedestrian and cycling planning, it could respond with contextually appropriately proposals and motivate for budget more legitimately. More importantly, it would allow pedestrian and cycling infrastructure planning to be integrated with broader spatial and land use planning which in turn allows the issue of security and convenience to be addressed.

Acknowledging the importance of walking and cycling as part of the Public Transport service offering

The weakest link in all commuter and school trips is the first and last mile undertaken mostly on foot. These portions of the commuter and school goers’ daily trips are not well understood and there is no clear strategy to address these gaps in the access network. Once again, it points to the need for local scale investigations, mapping and planning. See comment above identifying the need for community involvement.