THE SOCIAL PERCEPTION AND HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT

OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN SOWETO

L MOLEFE1* and MJWA VANDERSCHUREN1**
1
Centre for Transport Studies, University of Cape Town Private Bag X3, Rondebosch
7700; Email: *mlfler004@myuct.ac.za; **marianne.vanderschuren@uct.ac.za

ABSTRACT

In 2009 the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) highlighted the importance of
government investment in energy efficient, pollution reducing transport modes and
infrastructure. This policy specifically recommended the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system
as a transport mode to help achieve the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). BRT is an innovative, bus-based system that integrates the high efficiency of a
rail system and the low cost of a bus network. BRT was first developed and implemented
in Curitiba, Brazil, in 1974. After the successful adaptation and implementation of the BRT
system in Latin America, South Africa saw the planning and implementation of the first
BRT systems during the early 2000s, in preparation for the Soccer World Cup in 2010. The
first BRT system, named Rea Vaya, meaning “we are going”, commenced in 2009,
connecting the South Western Township (Soweto) to Johannesburg. A decade after the
services started, this paper takes stock of the impacts that the implementation of the Rea
Vaya BRT system has had on Soweto residents. A combination of the analysis of
secondary economic and environmental data and primary social data provided information
to conduct a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). Aggregating phase one and two of Rea Vaya
implementation results in a positive Net Present Value (NPV) of R693m, and a Benefit/
Cost-Ratio (BCR) of 1.09. The MCA identifies additional social benefits, giving the BRT a
clear advantage over the use of minibus (van) taxis.

1. INTRODUCTION

More than half of the global population lives in urban areas, requiring the consideration
and implementation of innovative infrastructure policies and practices to enhance urban
living conditions. These policies and practices can contribute to efficient and sustainable
development as cities continue to grow (Bassett & Marpillero-Colomina, 2013).

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was first developed and implemented in Curitiba, Brazil, in 1974
when the city’s mayor, Jaime Lerner, was exploring the possibility of implementing a
system that was efficient and low in cost (Patel, 2006). Though the BRT system in Curitiba
was not an instant success after the opening of the first line in 1974, it gradually worked its
way into the lives of residents. By 1993, the Curitiba BRT was carrying 1.5 million
passengers a day (Reed, 2015), and as of July 2019, a total of 170 cities in six continents
have implemented 5055 km of BRT lanes, transporting about 33.3 million passengers
every day (www.BRTdata.org).

The features of BRT include mixed traffic lanes, curb bus lanes, median busways on city
streets, reserved lanes on freeways and bus only roads (Levinson et al., 2003). Reserved
lanes are a feature that have been adopted from railway transit, where the road surface is
reserved for the exclusive use of the arterial buses (Patel, 2006). This allows the buses to
travel at high speeds without motor traffic interference. Stations are situated further apart

__________________________
Virtual Southern African Transport Conference 2021 – 5 to 7 July 2021
than traditional bus stops. Safe and comfortable pedestrian access is provided. Ramps are
used instead of stairs for universal access. Station length depends on bus volume, stations
typically accommodate two or three buses, whereas busy stations can accommodate four
or five buses (Levinson et al., 2003). Ticket purchases are made before entering the
platform, this further reduces the time the bus spends at each stop (referred to as ‘dwell
time’). Similar to train design, bus doorways are wide so that several passengers can get
on and off the bus at the same time (Patel, 2006). Station platforms are constructed at the
same level as the entry to the bus. This feature, along with the wide doors, significantly
reduces the dwell time (Patel, 2006).

The City of Johannesburg (CoJ) Metropolitan Municipality took a landmark decision to

support the BRT as its chosen mass transit solution for the city (City of Johannesburg,
2005). In order to improve mobility and accessibility the COJ’s integrated transport plan,
emphasis was shifted to improving public transport systems (City of Johannesburg, 2013).
It approved a 122-km network, which would be rolled out in phases until 2013. The long-
term vision was to develop Rea Vaya to the extent that it placed over 85 percent of
Johannesburg’s population within 500 metres of a Rea Vaya trunk or feeder corridor. The
objectives of the Rea Vaya project encompassed the fundamental pillars of
Johannesburg’s competitiveness as a city, including economic, social, and environmental
sustainability (City of Johannesburg, 2005).

Traditionally, transport projects are assessed using Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). In the
eighties, Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) was developed as a reaction to the limitations
posed by a CBA (Levinson et al., 2003). During the nineties environmental considerations
were added, followed by the establishment of sustainability assessment, introduced
by John Elkington (Elkington, 1998), encompassing a new framework to measure
performance in corporate America. This accounting framework was called the ‘triple
bottom line’.

In 2017, Bruun and Vanderschuren (2017) analysed public transport assessment methods,
their ability to assess the effectiveness of transport systems and the differences in
indicators included by ten countries in North America, Europe and Africa. Performance
indicators, related to the triple bottom line, were used as a guiding principle. Overall, 41
indicators were identified.

Although the study by Bruun and Vanderschuren (2017) established strong trends
regarding indicator choice, the available data for the Bus Rapid Transit in Soweto did not
provide the required level of information for particular identified indicators. While some of
the economic and environmental data was identified, no studies into the social impact of
the Soweto BRT had been conducted, thus far, even though Venter and Vaz (2014) hinted
that the BRT may ‘leverage social benefits in the future’.

2. METHODS

The aim of this study was twofold. Firstly, the study addresses the information vacuum
regarding the social impacts of the Soweto BRT. Secondly, the study assesses the impact
of the Soweto BRT in a three-pronged approach.

The assessment part of the study applies the traditional Cost Benefit Analysis, calculating
the Net Present Value (NPV = Benefits - Costs) and a Benefit/Cost-Ratio (BCR), followed
by a more comprehensive (expanded) CBA and a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), to include
further environmental and social aspects. A project is considered worth investing in if the
NPV is more than zero or the BCR is larger than one. As public transport projects are
implemented for the greater good, the BCR is considered the more important indicator.

The initial CBA includes construction and operational costs, as well as time saving,
improved road safety, reduced direct emissions and vehicle operating cost savings. This
was followed by a broader CBA, adding land-use and wider economic impacts, such as
the contribution to the regions Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and secondary job creation.

Finally, the MCA was conducted to incorporate further impacts, such as user affordability
and satisfaction. The weighted sum method, which was applied in this study, is widely
used in the MCA for multi-objective optimization. The method transforms multiple
objectives into an aggregated objective function by multiplying each objective function by a
weighting factor and summing up all weighing’s (Kim & De Weck, 2004). The MCA also
includes a scenario where services are provided by other modes, such as the minibus taxi,
as is prevalent in the case study area.

This study relied extensively on secondary data. An important source of information was
the City of Johannesburg website and a study called: ‘Economic Assessment of Rea Vaya’
conducted by Standish et al. (2012). Where required, these sources were complemented
by information for the region available in the South African National Household Travel
Survey (Stats SA, 2014).

Primary data was collected during the months of October and November 2017. Surveys
were dropped off and collected from random respondents in Pimville, Diepkloof, Orlando,
Meadowlands, Kliptown and Jabavu (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the Primary Data Response Rates

Data included personal information (gender only), travel information (actual transport
modes), as well as opinions (reasons for using/not using Rea Vaya). A sample of 129
usable responses were collected. Although this sample is quite small, statistical analysis
on the data revealed a 98% confidence interval for the Rea Vaya (BRT) data, while this
was only 85% for minibus taxi related information. As the sample size for the different
subareas was not large enough, differences between areas are not analysed in this paper.

In total, 300 surveys were distributed (Figure 2) randomly in the six Soweto areas
previously identified. Where possible, people were identified from within their communities
to participate in the distribution of surveys. This included individuals utilizing public spaces.
The advantage of using a self-completion survey is anonymity, which results in more
honest, as well as unbiased responses as the researcher cannot influence how
respondents complete the survey. A limitation of this method of data collection was a
language barrier, all surveys were completed in English, which may have affected how
respondents completed the questionnaire. Overall, 129 useable surveys were received
back, which is a 43% response rate. Considering the way in which the survey was
circulated, this is an acceptable amount.

A total of 33 respondents indicated that they use the Rea Vaya, while 93 respondents do
not, with 3 respondents who did not indicate whether they use Rea Vaya or not. The
gender split for Rea Vaya users was 50:50, excluding 7 respondents who did not disclose
their gender, while 63% of non-users were female, compared to 37% male and 33 non-
users who did not disclose their gender.

Survey participants had to be 18 years and older, due to the time-consuming method of
requiring permission from parents/guardians to interview younger commuters. This
presents constraints, since this limit respondents to those who are part of the working
class rather than those travelling to educational institutions. Furthermore, over 30% of the
population in Soweto is under the age of 18 years old and is thus excluded from the
survey.

3. CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION: SOWETO AND THE REA VAYA

Soweto is a township covering approximately 200km2, located in the south west of the city
of Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa. It is a product of segregationist planning with the
objective to house black labourers who worked in mines and other industries in the city
centre (City of Johannesburg, 2017). According to the 2011 Census, Soweto had a
population of approximately 1.3 million of which 98% was made up of Black Africans.
Although the township has a growing middle class, the inhabitants are predominantly low-
income, working-class.

Figure 2: Locality Plan of Phases 1A & 1B including Relevant Suburban Names

(Standish et al., 2012)
Operators are paid per vehicle kilometre, while BRT operations across a network of trunk
and feeder routes are controlled centrally by the City of Johannesburg. The locality plan
includes two phases (1A and 1B), which are included in Figure 2.

4. FINDINGS FROM THE PRIMARY DATA

4.1 Travel Demand of Rea Vaya Users

The majority of Rea Vaya users (85%) use the system four or more days per week. Almost
55% of trips are for work purposes, while 30% of trips are to educational institutions and
12% are shopping trips. Almost 80% of Rea Vaya users indicate that they do have other
traveling options. Nearly 67% of Rea Vaya users indicate that minibus taxis would be the
most obvious alternative to the Rea Vaya. Not quite 25% of respondents indicate that they
(also) have a private vehicle available, while train, bus and Uber are mentioned by a mere
3% of respondents as an alternative.

Almost 55% of respondents indicate that they use Rea Vaya because the travel time is
shorter, while 42% of respondents indicate that they travel by Rea Vaya even though the
travel time is longer (3% of Rea Vaya users did not respond to this question).

Analysing the time gain or loss for Rea Vaya users, it appears that the majority of users
(39%) gain 11 to 15 minutes of time saving, 33% gain 16 to 20 minutes, while another 17%
gain more than 20 minutes (See Figure 3a).

Figure 3a: Time gain for rea vaya users with Figure 3b: Time loss for rea vaya users with
shorter travel times (n=18) longer travel times (n=15)

The majority of Rea Vaya users indicate that they use the service despite a longer travel
time (see Figure 3b), lose 16 to 20 minutes (47%), followed by more than 20 minutes
(33%). Most Rea Vaya users consider the service as affordable. Of these respondents,
14% spent less than R200 per month on transport, 54% spent between R200 and R400,
while 32% of respondents who consider the Rea Vaya as affordable, spent more than
R400 per month.

4.2 Travel Demand of Rea Vaya Non-Users

The majority (67%) of Rea Vaya non-users did not disclose how often they travel and 66%
did not indicate their travel purpose. However, those who disclose their travel frequency,
travel significantly less than Rea Vaya users. Only 31% of the respondents that do not use
Rea Vaya travel four days or more per week. Regarding the purpose of the trip, 24% of
non-users travel to work, while 10% travel to school.

Respondents who do not use Rea Vaya were asked whether they have used the service
before. Some 61% of these participants had tried using the service, however, chose to not
continue using the service, as they prefer other modes for their day-to-day travel. The
main reasons given by non-users for not using Rea Vaya are displayed in Figure 4.

A lack of convenience (35%) and the distance to the service (33%) are the main reasons
cited for not using the Rea Vaya service, followed by the inconvenience of the timetable
(8%) and a lack of cover (8%), jeopardizing access to the destination. It is noteworthy that
affordability was not indicated more prominently (2%) as significant in the choice of
transport mode.

An additional reason affecting choice, communicated by non-users, was that the Rea Vaya
timetable did not always coincide with their need to arrive on time to catch their second
transport mode in one trip.

Respondents, furthermore, listed accessibility as a reason for not moving to the BRT
system as a transport mode. Pensioners also mentioned that the BRT service currently
does not offer pensioner discounts, therefore, pensioners have no incentive to move from
their current transport mode to Rea Vaya.

Figure 4: Reasons for Not Using Rea Vaya (n=57)

4.3 Perception of Rea Vaya System

As part of the study, the researchers wanted to establish key reasons why respondents
value their transport mode. Safety, affordability, accessibility, travel time and the quality of
the transport service were listed as possible choices. Respondents could choose multiple
reasons and were given a chance to elaborate whether other reasons were more valuable
for them.

Rea Vaya users indicate that they use the BRT service, because of its travel time (33%),
its accessibility (33%), the affordability (24%), the quality of the service (15%) and, to a
lesser extent, its safety (12%). It is important to note that multiple reasons were allowed
when answering this question.

Respondents that do not use Rea Vaya mostly use a private vehicle (47%) or minibus taxi
(42%) to travel. A minority of non-users walk (4%) or take the conventional bus (5%). The
reason why nonusers use these modes of transport is given as accessibility (70%), travel
time (24%), affordability (20%), safety (16%) and the quality of the service (16%).
Respondents indicated that accessibility to the transport system is the leading reason for
selecting the transport mode, as commuters are always looking for the most efficient way
to travel, especially when traveling to work. This was especially important for commuters
using multiple modes to reach their destination, as these commuters may have a small
buffer period between moving from one mode to the other.

Affordability is the third most important reason for both Rea Vaya users and non-users
when choosing their actual mode. Given the fact that Soweto houses predominantly low-
income households, this is not surprising. What is surprising, in the light of previous
research (Vanderschuren et al., 2019), was that road safety scores relatively low (12% and
16%, respectively). It must be noted that road safety is distinguished from issues of
commuter security during transit and on the way to stations, bus stops and minibus taxi
ranks.

The survey data was split between Rea Vaya users and non-users to compare the safety
rating of Rea Vaya versus other transport modes (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Safety Rating for Rea Vaya Users (n=33) versus Non-Users (n=93)

A larger percentage of non-users feel very safe (29%) or just safe (33%) compared to Rea
Vaya users that feel very safe (12%) or just safe (42%).

However, a slightly larger percentage of non-users feel not safe at all (9%), compared to
6% of Rea Vaya users. Respondents indicated that, when commuters choose a transport
mode, they are aware of the risks involved with selecting that transport mode. Other
aspects are, however, more important.
As part of the survey, the researchers asked participants 1 to estimate the monthly amount
of money spent on travelling. The results were split to compare non-users to Rea Vaya
users’ monthly expenditure on transport (see Figure 6). As mentioned previously,
affordability was mentioned as one of the important considerations, both by Rea Vaya
users (24%) and non-users (20%).

Figure 6: Affordability Rating for Rea Vaya Users (n=33) versus Non-Users (n=93)

Rea Vaya non-users spend significantly more on transport. When analysing the actual
costs, it appears that a larger group of non-users spent R400 or more (almost 65%). The
majority of the Rea Vaya users spent between R200 and R400 (52%). It is interesting to
see that Rea Vaya users travel, on average, more often but spend less on transport. The
fact that every journey is charged independent of the number of transfers, is likely to play a
role. During the 2017 study period, the maximum charge per BRT trip was R14.10. In the
case of the minibus taxi services, users are charged separately in every vehicle.

4.4 Rea Vaya Cost Benefit Analysis and Multi-Criteria Analysis

To justify the implementation of any project, the benefits should outweigh the costs. Based
on the information made available to the researcher (Standish et al., 2012), as well as the
primary data collected in this study, a CBA and MCA was conducted for the base year
2012.

The total contribution of Rea Vaya to GDP for 2011/12 was R1.91billion. GDP is important,
not just because it is income, but because income adds to national wealth (Standish et al.,
2012).

Table 1 specifies the categories assessed as either costs or benefits of the BRT initiative.
The table compares costs and benefits for the transport related scenario with that of a
more elaborate scenario, including land-use impacts, as well as secondary and tertiary
employment opportunities. In both columns the construction and operational costs are
identical. What differs is the way benefits are calculated. Based on the calculation, the
primary transport benefits alone do not warrant the implementation of the Rea Vaya. Only
when secondary benefits are added is the BCR for the Rea Vaya elevated to more than 1.
A BCR of 1.09 indicates that each Rand invested in the Rea Vaya generates a profit of
R0.09 (R1.00 = US$0.07).
 Table 1: Cost benefit analysis for transport and elaborated scenario (Standish et al., 2012)

Transport Related
Cost Item Elaborate Scenario
Scenario
Construction 3 813 3 813
Operational 3 557 3 557
Total 7 370 7 370
Benefits
Time saving 2 028 2 028
Accident saving 464 464
Reduced emissions 42 42
Vehicle operating savings 3 441 3 441
Land-use changes 197
Wider economic benefits 1 891
Total 5 975 8 063
Net Present Value (NPV) -1 395 693
Benefit/Cost-Ratio (BCR) 0.81 1.09

An alternative to implementing BRT is to assume that informal minibus taxis provide the
transport services. The primary data collected was used to conduct a weighted score
analysis for five performance indicators investigated (Table 2). The weighting for each
category was also based on the findings of the primary data. Accessibility had the highest
weighting as it was valued most highly by the respondents and is, thus, prioritized above
other transport mode selection criteria.

Table 2: Weighted sum score for primary data performance indicators

Criteria* Weight** Rea Vaya Minibus taxis

Safety 0.10 80 80
Affordability 0.20 80 60
Level of service 0.08 90 80
Travel time 0.22 80 70
Accessibility 0.40 50 70
Total 1.00 69 70

Based on Table 2, it can be concluded that there is no significant difference in the user’s
evaluation of Rea Vaya’s performance from the manner in which non-users value their
alternative mode, i.e. the minibus taxis. Combining the secondary (Standish et al., 2012)
and primary data, an MCA analysis was conducted. The manner in which the MCA was
structured was inspired by literature regarding the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998).
Each of the three criteria were given equal weighting, representing a neutral, academic
weighting. Depending on the stakeholder, the weightings can be amended.

In the MCA, the Rea Vaya and the alternative mode were allocated a score based on their
combined performance in the data that was received (see also Table 1). Scores were
standardized by normalising each criterion out of 100 based on findings from primary and
secondary data. Rea Vaya scored 80 for economy, due to its established contributions to
the economy. This resulted in the BRT having an overall score of 73, which is 10 points
higher than the 63 scored by competing transport systems (Table 3), indicating that Rea
Vaya has a higher overall benefit.
 Table 3: Weighted sum score using the triple bottom line

Criteria Weight Rea Vaya Minibus Taxis

Economic 0.33 80 60
Environment 0.33 70 60
Social 0.33 70 70
Total 1.00 73 63

5. CONCLUSIONS

Since its first inception in Curitiba in 1974, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems have been
developed in various cities around the world. As of July 2019, there are 170 cities with
recognized BRT systems (www.BRTdata.org). According to the BRT website, South Africa
has 3 cities, i.e. Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town, with recognized BRT systems,
moving almost 500 000 passengers in total and including 89 km of dedicated
infrastructure. The Rea Vaya, discussed in this paper, is the BRT system running from
Soweto to Johannesburg. This system was the first operational corridor in the country.

Rea Vaya users travel mostly for work purposes (55%) and do so for four or more days a
week (85%). Most of these respondents (80%) indicate that they do have other mobility
options, however, they prefer Rea Vaya. Minibus taxi is considered an alternative mode by
most Rea Vaya users (67%). Furthermore, 25% of Rea Vaya users indicate they could use
private vehicles.

Most respondents that do not use Rea Vaya, did not declare what their actual mode of
transport is, nor what their travel purpose is. Those that were willing to disclose their mode
of transport, mostly used minibus taxis. In contrast to Rea Vaya users, only 31% of non-
users travel for four days or more and only 24% of non-users travel to work. A total of 61%
of non-users indicated that they have used the Rea Vaya service before.

Main reasons for not using the BRT system is a lack of convenience (35%), the distance to
the service (33%), an inconvenient timetable (8%) and a lack of cover (8%), i.e. the
network does not cover the destinations they want to frequent. Pensioners also mentioned
that other services offer pensioners discount, which is not the case with Rea Vaya.

Respondents that do not use Rea Vaya spent significantly more on transport. The majority
of nonusers spent R400 or more (almost 65%), compared to Rea Vaya users who spent,
on average, between R200 and R400 (52%). The maximum charge per single trip for the
Rea Vaya is most probably the reason for this differed, as minibus taxi users will be
charged again when transferring to a different vehicle.

Non-Rea Vaya users travel less frequently and not as much for work purposes. It is likely
that the percentage expenditure on transport is much higher for non-BRT users. A study
conducted one year before this survey concluded that 60% of households in Soweto earn
a mere R500/month and spend over 20% on transport (Omarjee, 2016).

The question arises as to whether the BRT system makes socio-economic sense. In this
paper, three analyses were conducted to answer this question.
If direct benefits, alone, are compared to the investment and operational costs, it has to be
concluded that Rea Vaya is operating at a loss. If secondary benefits, such as indirect job
creation and land values, are added, Rea Vaya is making a slight ‘profit’ of R0.09.

This is much less than the value that was recently established for Gautrain, a high-speed
rail connection between Pretoria and Johannesburg, which generates a profit of R1.60 for
every Rand invested (Phalama & Mamabolo, 2019). As Gautrain serves a higher income
bracket, these results should be compared with caution as high- income travellers are
more likely to increase economic benefits.

Using a triple bottom line analysis, the standard economic analysis for Rea Vaya was
combined with the primary data, collected in this study, in order to generate a more
nuanced tool to assess value. Using the weighted sum method, a more holistic analysis of
Rea Vaya, compared to minibus taxis, was conducted. Rea Vaya has a 13.5% higher
overall benefit when contrasted with the minibus taxi scenario.

6. REFLECTION

South Africa is a middle-income country, with areas of world-class infrastructure and

services contrasting with areas of significant neglect. As a large part of the population lives
in relative poverty, the provision of high-level services requires infrastructure and operating
subsidies.

Given limited budgets in municipalities and provinces, it is paramount that holistic

assessment methods are standardized and applied to identify beneficial projects, including
BRT projects. Holistic assessment approaches can also assist in the ranking and
prioritizing of investment projects.

In this paper, the triple bottom line was used to assess the sustainability of the Rea Vaya.
Bruun and Vanderschuren (2017) identified 41 indicators that would add to the
effectiveness of the measurement of the triple bottom line. These were not all incorporated
in this study, due to a lack of data availability. Data improvements and a broadening of
indicators could provide further insights into the sustainability of Rea Vaya. These
initiatives in altering data collection parameters takes time to implement and requires
partnerships. In addition, adapting the approach to include sustainable transport indicators,
as identified by the United Nations (United Nations, 2016), could also broaden insights.

Last, but not least, the authors are of the opinion that Rea Vaya, and other BRT systems in
the country, could consider the use of fare specials to attract and increase passenger
numbers. Targeted fare structures could include off-peak discounts for scholars and
pensioners. Counterflow discounts, i.e. lower fares for BRT users that travel in the
opposite directions to the main peak flows, would also make the system more efficient.
The latter might require land-use changes to make travelling counter to the main peak
traffic flow more attractive. This is, therefore, a long-term consideration.

7. REFERENCES

Bassett, TE & Marpillero-Colomina, A, 2013. ‘Sustaining mobility: Bus rapid transit and
the role of local politics in Bogotá’, Latin American Perspectives, 40(2):135-145. doi:
10.1177/0094582X12468867.
Bruun, E & Vanderschuren, M, 2017. ‘Assessment methods from around the world
potentially useful for public transport projects’, Journal of Public Transportation, 20(2):103-
130. doi: 10.5038/2375-0901.20.2.6.
City of Johannesburg, 2005. REA VAYA BRT: Phase 1B Business Plan.
City of Johannesburg, 2013. ‘Johannesburg Strategic ITP Framework’, (2):1-120. Available
at: https://www.joburg.org.za/Campaigns/Documents/2014. Documents/CoJ SITPF Draft
13 May 2013 (1).pdf.
City of Johannesburg, 2017. The City of Johannesburg’s 2017/18 Integrated Annual
Report. Johannesburg. Available at: www.joburg.org.za.
Elkington, J, 1998. ‘Accounting for the Triple Bottom Line’, Measuring Business
Excellence, pp. 18-22. doi: 10.1108/eb025539.
Kim, IY & De Weck, O, 2004. ‘Adaptive weighted sum method for multiobjective
optimization’, in Collection of Technical Papers - 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary
Analysis and Optimization Conference, pp. 236-248. doi: 10.2514/6.2004-4322.
Levinson, H et al., 2003. ‘Bus Rapid Transit: Synthetic Case Study’, Transportation
Research Board.
Omarjee, L, 2016. Public transport can drive economic growth, Fin24. Available at:
https://www.fin24.com/Economy/public-transport-can-drive-economic-growth-20160704.
Accessed 20 February 2020.
Patel, SB, 2006. ‘Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit Systems’, Economic and Political
Weekly, p. 2035.
Phalama, M & Mamabolo, J, 2019. The Economic and Social Impact of Gautrain. Available
at: http://gma.gautrain.co.za/development/Shared Documents/Economic and Social Impact
of Gautrain - 2019.pdf.
Reed, D, 2015. ‘How Curitiba’s BRT stations sparked a transport revolution: a history of
cities in 50 buildings, day 43’, The Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/26/curitiba-brazil-brt-transport-revolution-
history-cities-50-buildings. Accessed: 21 February 2020.
Standish, B. et al., 2012. ‘Economic assessment of Rea Vaya Phase 1A and B’.
Stats SA, 2014. ‘National Household Travel Survey Febrauary to March 2013’, pp. 1-179.
United Nations, 2016. Mobilizing Sustainable Transport for Development: Sustainable
Development Knowledge Platform. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2375&menu=1515. Accessed 23 February 2020.
Vanderschuren, MJWA, Phayane, SR & Gwynne-Evans, AJ, 2019. ‘Perceptions of
Gender, Mobility, and Personal Safety: South Africa Moving Forward’, Transportation
Research Record. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2673(11):616-627.
doi: 10.1177/0361198119854087.
Venter, C & Vaz, E, 2014. Transformation through transportation: Some early impacts of
Bus Rapid Transit in Orlando, Soweto, Chapter 22 in Changing Space, Changing City:
Johannesburg after apartheid, Wits University Press, doi: 10.18772/22014107656.26.