Transportation Safety and Security Regulations: Advantages and Disadvantages

Topic: Law Words: 601 Pages: 3 Oct 3rd, 2022

It is important to note that transportation safety and security regulations have their advantages and
disadvantages, which can be reflected not only in cases of fatalities and injuries but also costs
incurred and the effectiveness of their implementations. The most evident advantage of such
regulatory practices is safety and security increase, which means that both transportation users and
nearby individuals are safer due to certain measures imposed on users and providers. In other
words, people are less likely to get hurt or killed due to negligence from users and providers since
the regulations outline severe consequences for non-adherence.

Our experts can deliver a Transportation Safety and Security Regulations: Advantages and
Disadvantages essay tailored to your instructions for only $13.00 $11.05/page

303 qualified specialists online

Another major advantage of such regulations on safety and transportation is an environmental one.
Transportation, such as automobiles, which utilize fossil fuels, are more significant contributors to
environmental pollution, which is why a stricter set of measures on users and providers can improve
the overall environmental metrics by discouraging the use of highly resource inefficient modes of
transportation and mandating the providers to design more environmentally-friendly alternative
solutions.

Moreover, transportation safety and security regulations act as a counterbalance for profit-driven
organizations usually represented by providers, where the latter is restricted to significantly
undermine the general safety to gain additional profits. These regulatory frameworks prevent
unethical or unsafe practices of transportation provision, and they also ensure that users are not
using insecure modes of transportation. Lastly, transportation safety and security regulations protect
the lives and health of those who are not participating in transportation use or not using many
modes of transportation, such as pedestrians or bystanders.

In the case of disadvantages, these can be manifested in economic costs and procedural burdens
imposed on both the users and providers. The first disadvantage emerges when the regulations are
not based on solid and reliable evidence, where costs imposed on organizations or individuals are
not justified by the safety improvements. For example, research finds that there are “differences in
the cost per expected fatality prevented for these reactions, with the airline accident investigations
being more cost effective. Overall, we observe trends in both the automotive and aviation sectors
that suggest that public transportation receives more regulatory attention than private transport”
(Waycaster et al., 2017, p. 1085).

In other words, certain modes of transportation are regulated more effectively and efficiently than
others, and thus, cost effectiveness evaluations might reveal that an excessive degree of burden
might be hindering an organization, sector, or even an entire economy.
Furthermore, the second disadvantage of transportation safety and security regulations is rooted in
the fact that they hinder market freedom and the availability of a wider range of products or
vehicles available to consumers. In other words, it is a direct form of market regulation, where both
users and providers are forced to comply with certain protocols to operate legally.

The last and most evident disadvantage of transportation safety and security regulations is
manifested in costs incurred on both users and providers. The latter is mandated to integrate
additional features and measures to improve the overall safety metrics of a vehicle, whereas such
practices are justified in the majority of cases, and in other situations, it might be hindering the
overall operational profitability and manufacturing efficiency. The regulatory institutions developing
and enforcing these regulations might be requiring an excessive amount of resources with little to no
impact on safety and security metrics within a state or nation.

On-Time Delivery!

Get your 100% customized paper done in

as little as 3 hours

There can be some degree of cost opportunity imposed by funding such organizations without
proper evaluative practices, where the performance of such regulations might not be justifying the
costs, where these resources could have been allocated to infrastructure improvements, which also
can increase safety.

Reference

Waycaster, G. C., Matsumura, T., Bilotkach, V., Haftka, R. T., & Kim, N. H. (2017). Review of
regulatory emphasis on transportation safety in the United States, 2002-2009: Public versus private
modes. Risk Analysis, 38(5), 1085–1101. Web.

The state of public

transport in South Africa
The state of public transport in South
Africa – Understand
A special thank-you to Londeka Ngubane for writing this article.
Londeka works in the Criminology and Forensic Studies Department of University of
KwaZulu-Natal
Related resources
National Safe Taxis Charter - Advocacy
23 Aug 2017 Soul City Institute
Public Transport and Safety Symposium - Report/Study
27 Jul 2018 Sonke Gender Justice
Crime and public transport - designing a safer journey - Report/Study
12 Jul 2007 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Content

 Introduction

 Historical development of public transport in South Africa

 Challenges 

 Solutions 

 Conclusion

 References
Introduction
Transportation is an essential part of the development of any country.
In South Africa, the public transport industry comprises of three main modes of transport: the
traditional commuter rail system and the new Gautrain high-speed rail between
Johannesburg, Tshwane (Pretoria) and the Oliver Tambo International Airport; the subsidized
and unsubsidized commuter bus industry, including the two-bus rapid (BRT) system in
Johannesburg and Cape Town, and a growing 16 seater minibus-taxi industry (Aropet, 2017).
In the 2013 National Household Travel Survey, findings obtained revealed that 68.8% of
South African households use taxi services daily, followed by commuter bus (21.1%) and
commuter rail operations (9.9%), (Statistics S.A 2014:6). 
Despite the available modes of transportation, South African transport is still plagued with
several challenges. These comprise of low ridership, lack of public transport accessibility in
rural areas, equity imbalances and congestion (Jennings, 2015). The South African public
transport industry is currently under immense enquiry as captive users of these systems face
unsafe, unreliable and costly systems (Walters, 2014). 
Aropet (2017) argues that the provision of safe, accessible, and affordable public transport
infrastructure is a vital requirement for the socio-economic development of the South African
population. This scholar propagates that it also holds the potential to provide for decent
wages and working conditions for the sector’s employees, as well as for those sectors that
depend upon it for demand for their output (Aropet, 2017).
The system of apartheid in South Africa left a legacy of social segregation, and a highly
distorted separation of people from both their places of work and most of social services
required to live a productive life (Walters, 2014). Therefore, this scholar annotates that the
post-apartheid challenge has been to restructure these geographies of exclusion and inequality
and provide a more effective system of public transportation.
 

Historical development of public

transport in South Africa
Passenger transport under apartheid, and white minority rule before apartheid, was a critical
site of contestation and common protest.
Khosa (1995), argues that “The South African passenger transportation system was by and
large designed for daily transportation of labor to and from the workplace” (Khosa,
1995:167). This habitually involved transporting people of African descent from the
peripheries of urban centers into the inner cities. This was often based on the racially
segregated nature of minority rule (Khosa, 1995:167). Moreover, this scholar propagates that,
“in time, transport became a site of popular struggles and a dramatic expression of tensions
and disputes over control, management and affordability of racially divided spaces” (Khosa,
1995:168).
Particular struggles have been documented by scholars and activists during the years which
establishes a rich historiography surrounding the important questions of public transport in
South Africa.
As a result of the Group Areas Act, certain communities were located some distance from
places of employment, recreation and shopping facilities (Thomas, 2016). Thus, cheaper
modes of transport were introduced to ease commuter financial travel burden.
During that time, transportation was regarded as a basic human right, along with other
important social services such as health and education (Thomas, 2016).

Challenges 
More than 21 years into the democratic era, South Africa’s dreams of efficient, affordable
and integrated public transportation systems remain deferred (Mthimkhulu, 2017). This
scholar argues that “existing challenges that are present emanate from years of poorly
provided, yet heavily subsidized, systems and networks among spatial segregation and other
roots of unequal provision of infrastructure” (Mthimkhulu, 2017).
During the scope of the 1996 White Paper on National Transport Policy and the past
pioneering papers such as the Moving South Africa (MSA) strategy, the Public Transport
Strategy (PTS) and Action Plan, and most recently, the Integrated Public Transport Network
(IPTN) plans; efforts have been made to transform the provision of public transport
infrastructure (Walters, 2008).
To get a conceptual understanding of the state and challenges of public transport in South
Africa, this paper draws from findings obtained in the National Household Travel Survey
(NHTS) study as a clear point to start. Conducted in 2014, this study assessed the degree to
which public transport services are offered and facilities provided and expresses the
associated cost and affordability for the users of public transport.
The data obtained in this study revealed that “only 30% of households in South Africa own a
car with the other 70% depending on taxis, buses, trains and other non-motorised transport
modes” (Mtizi, 2017:2). Each of the available modes of public transport in South Africa has
numerous challenges.

Trains
According to the NHTS, “in 2014, train users (42%) were generally more than satisfied
(37%) with train services” (NHTS, 2014: 8).
Before making use of the available modes of transport, commuters place emphasis on
“punctuality of service, levels of crowding, distance from the station and the security of
trains” (NHTS, 2014: 8).
Trains are often overcrowded, and underpoliced. However, the major problem is that
Metrorail trains have been flawed by the constant lack of structure in terms of schedules.
Even though a timetable is provided on their website, the findings of the NHTS (2014)
revealed that the trains do not show up and 37.8% of train users claimed it was not available. 
Mini-bus taxis 
In South Africa, there is an abundance of the low capacity vehicles (16-seater mini-bus taxis),
which provide a door-to-door service and flexibility to many commuters.
This mode of transportation is more accessible than trains, due to the route and network
flexibility (NHTS, 2018). However, several mini-bus taxis operate without licenses and, in
some cases, they are driven by unlicensed drivers. This has been followed by complaints
from commuters, who are affected by the violence associated with this transport mode (Mtizi,
2017).
The driving behavior of most taxi drivers is usually reckless as they have a habit of breaking
most of the rules of the road and taxi fares are not stagnant, but alternate due to peak time and
weather.
In this industry, there are no strict laws or rules to guide their activity, and as there are issues
with government officials owning taxis, regulation is not prioritised.
There are high rates of sexual harassment reported from taxi drivers as well as high rates of
traffic crimes committed. 
Thus, law enforcement needs to be held more accountable during road blocks so that they can
actually enforce the laws (Mtizi, 2017). Additionally, police officers have a tendency of
setting up illegal road blocks in order to collect money from road users. 
Moreover, the increase in the number of traffic offenders getting off using bribes is another
government challenge. Therefore, Barret (2008) argues that weak enforcement of traffic
regulations, vehicle inspection, driver behavior, and traffic management is a common practice
in many African cities (Barret, 2008).

Buses
Complications with the bus service are largely attributed to infrequent bus service during off-
peak hours (Mtizi, 2017).
Mitizi (2017) argues that bus services do not cover certain routes leaving commuters with the
option to walk long distances or use another form of transport to get to their destination
(Mtizi 2017).
However, buses are regarded as a safer option when compared to the other modes of
transport. For the average commuter, these challenges translate to longer travel time which
has a significant impact on their transport costs.

Additionally, the availability of travel information for all the modes of transport in South
Africa continues to be a challenge.
Therefore, there is a need for greater regulation in this industry as most issues raised by
commuters in the NHTS (2014) highlighted the unavailability of policies and universal
guidelines that facilitate information sharing among the different role-players in the public
transport sector.
Most of the modes of transport available in South Africa are ill-maintained and old, making
them a hazard to people and the environment. Buses have a speed limit and they operate at
low speed for long hours. However, Minibus taxis operators cause noise pollution as they
usually call and hoot for passengers (Mtizi, 2017). Many public transport operators are
ignorant towards environmental consciousness and this is a grave challenge for future public
transport in South Africa. 
The cost and availability of fuel is a critical challenge for public transport in South Africa.
Mtizi (2017) annotates that access to fuel at an affordable price is a crucial factor in
transportation and is politically very sensitive. “Fuel costs commonly account for 10–40
percent of overall vehicle operating costs” (Starkey et al., 2001: 37).
Fuel is a determinant of the fare paid for the transport service and when adjusted, it mostly
affects the passengers. “Fuel levies and taxes, which also affect fuel price, are used for the
road maintenance and improvement, connoting the existence of them is a necessity” (Mtizi
2017: 5).

Solutions 
Public transport enables many economic and societal activities. Therefore, the disparity in
levels of efficient and affordable public transport provision for those who are in the lower
income range of earners is one of the key challenges that require responding to. 
In the 21 years of the new dispensation, solutions to public transport challenges in South
Africa need to be tackled contextually and these solutions are presented as follows as
according to Mthimkhulu (2017):

1. There needs to be wide-ranging planning that increases accessibility and provides an

integrated transport system for people located in rural areas. People located in remote
areas require less motorised forms of transport, highlighting the importance of
strengthening non-motorised transport. Mtimkhulu (2017) postulates that the
emphasis on using vehicles such as bicycles can improve access of people in rural
areas. This scholar further annotates that cycling will not require a large investment in
infrastructure, and with the advantage of being environmentally friendly it is an
important option to consider.
2. In the South African minibus taxi industry, stringent guidelines must to be put in
place for taxi drivers. There needs to be a taxi driver registry, indicating the licenses
(valid licenses), the roadworthiness of the vehicle; drivers should require training in
terms of defensive driving and first aid training (Mthimkhulu, 2017).  This scholar
further propagates that, with the increase in road accidents, drivers need to be aware
of how to save passengers’ lives and be accountable to their passengers. The policy
should also include GPS devices placed on taxis, to monitor speed, and driving
behaviour.
3. Mbara (2006) notes that the local authorities have the responsibility to provide
infrastructure and services to residents in urban areas. The location of physical
infrastructure such as houses, industries and commercial centers have implications on
transport costs. Thus, Mbara (2006) further argues that the appropriate land use
 planning policies that integrate residential and employment places will significantly
solve some of the public transport challenges. Lastly, transport infrastructure usually
takes place after the development of an area. Therefore, developments need to be
alongside already existing infrastructure as this will reduce the need for huge capital
investments required to build transport infrastructure.

Conclusion
This paper has indicated that several pressing issues will need to be addressed for a more
inclusive, accessible, and effective system of public transport to exist in South Africa.
It also identified the challenges related to public transport and it identified amicable solutions
to public transport problems in the South African context.
It must be noted that there is a need for better integration of social outcomes within public
transport policy at the strategic tactical and operational levels. 
This paper concludes by arguing that with access to emerging transport infrastructure and
technologies, South Africa can become the test-bed and breeding ground for tomorrow’s
urban transport systems. New mass transit systems can be introduced to replace or work
alongside existing services.
Cape Town and Johannesburg have been successful in implementing Bus Rapid Transit
services that work together with existing public transport services.
This goes to show that it is possible to accommodate a range of transport types to account for
all means of public transport services and in future, we hope to see the same in the Durban,
eThekwini Municipality.

References
Aropet, R (2017). Southern African solutions to public transport challenges. 36th Southern
African Transport Conference (SATC 2017) ISBN Number: 978-1-920017-73-6.
Barret, A. K. a. F., 2008. Stuck in Traffic: Urban Transport in Africa, s.l.: Africa
Infrastructure Country Diagnostic.
Jennings, G. (2015). Public Transport Interventions and Transport Justice in South Africa: A
Literature and Policy Review.
Khosa, M. M. (1995). Transport and popular struggle in South Africa. Antipode,27(2), 167-
188.
Mbara, T. C., 2006. Coping with demand for urban passenger’s transport in Zimbabwe:
Challenges and Options, Harare: University of Zimbabwe.
Mthimkhulu, N., (2017). Southern African solutions to public transport challenges. 36th
Southern African Transport Conference (SATC 2017) ISBN Number: 978-1-920017-73-6.
Mtizi, C., (2008).  Southern African solutions to public transport challenges.  36th Southern
African Transport Conference (SATC 2017) ISBN Number: 978-1-920017-73-6.
National Household Travel Survey 2014. 2016. Statistics South Africa.
Statistics South Africa, 2014, National Household Travel Survey, February to March 2013,
Statistical release P0320.
Thomas, P.D., (2016). Public Transportation in South Africa: Challenges and Opportunities.
 
Walters, J. (2008). Overview of public transportation policy developments in South Africa.
Research in Transportation Economics, 22, 98-108.
Walters, J., 2014. Public transport policy implementation in South Africa: quo vadis? original
research. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 8(1), pp.1-10.

Against the ‘Privatisation’ of Transport

Please support efforts to keep public transport in public hands. Sign the petition
at  https://ourtransport.org.au/take-action/

Public transport is a public service that needs to be run for the public good, not the private profit.
The privatisation of public transport is an ideological obsession of the right, which consistently
makes baseless claims in order to further this ideological agenda. Privatisation consistently fails to
live up to the hype of its proponents and typically does not provide any benefits for the travelling
public or the taxpayer. It is purported that the privatisation of services will deliver benefits such as a
more reliable and innovative service delivery as well as better value for money for taxpayers. None
of these things are true. Instead, a decrease in services, higher costs, and poorer outcomes for
workers and commuters alike are the only things that are realistically achieved by the privatisation
of public transport. 

This is currently a major issue in New South Wales. The New South Wales State Government has
plans to privatise the state owned State Transit Authority, and contract out its services to private bus
operators. This comes despite the fact that previous sales of State Transit operated services under
the current government failing to deliver on their promises. Across bus and ferry services in Sydney
and Newcastle, private operators replacing State Transit have not been able to provide a better
service, and in many cases, have actually delivered worse outcomes than those achieved by State
Transit.
 Privately run
transport services are worse than government delivered ones – Transport NSW Blog Collection

One of the most common claims surrounding privatisation is that it will help improve reliability of
services. This is simply not true. In Region 6 (Inner Western and Inner Southern Sydney), bus services
were sold to Transit Systems in July 2018. Since then, Transit Systems has only met key performance
indicators (KPIs) for on time running and customer satisfaction three times in over 20 months. On
average, nearly 10% of all Transit Systems in Region 6 services ran late, no better than the last 20
months of State Transit operation. Over the same time period, services operated by State Transit
average an on time running rate of over 96%. This demonstrates that privatising bus services has not
improved the reliability of bus services at all.

The NSW Government points to the fact that services operated by private operators in Western
Sydney consistently perform better than State Transit run services. Whilst true, this isn’t a fair
comparison. Traffic on the backstreets of Western Sydney is much more consistent and less
congested than the roads in the Inner City areas that State Transit operates. In fact, the experience
of Transit Systems in the Inner West underscores that it is the operating conditions, not the private
operators that are allowing for more reliability in service operations. The only solution that will lead
to a sustained improvement in on time running in State Transit operating areas is additional bus
priority infrastructure. Private operators can’t magically part traffic and they most certainly cannot
build infrastructure on publicly owned roads. To improve reliability, the NSW Government needs to
invest in more bus priority infrastructure rather than spending time privatising services.

The reliability argument can also be translated to rail services. Whilst we cannot access on time
running data for privately run trains or trams in Sydney, comparisons of services elsewhere in
Australia or overseas demonstrate that privately run rail services are highly unreliable. Privately run
trains in Melbourne are the most unreliable in Australia and consistently suffer from cancellations
and breakdowns at a much higher rate than all other cities. This is despite being the only major city
that has a privately run rail system in Australia. For many years after privatisation of rail services in
Melbourne, services would be randomly terminated before the terminus and turned around in order
to decrease late running. This would leave commuters stranded and decreased overall reliability of
the rail network. The Victorian Government later restricted the practise. In the UK, privatisation of
rail services saw cancellations double and overall services levels decrease. This demonstrates that
government run services are more reliable for commuters than privately run services.

In addition, the idea that privatisation delivers more innovative services is laughable. In fact, it
appears that ‘more innovative services’ has become a codeword for service cuts. Across the Inner
West and Newcastle, there has been reductions in frequency of services, the closure of bus stops
and cancellation of routes across the network. The most notable “innovation” that has been
introduced to date by private operators is the introduction of “On Demand” bus services. However,
according to high profile transit planner Jarrett Walker, these demand responsive services are highly
inefficient and areas serviced by such services are usually better serviced by better fixed route
services to increase patronage instead of removing fixed route trips in favour of demand responsive
options.  In the Concord area of the Inner West of Sydney and the southern suburbs of Newcastle,
there has been an overall cut to transport services through the replacement of fixed route transport
by “On Demand” buses.

Beyond the counter productive “On Demand” experiment, there has not been any significant
innovations to transport service, and the service offering has not become more innovative. Typically,
private operators have developed highly inefficient and ineffective service offerings on public
transport. This is evident across Western Sydney where service levels are significantly lower than the
Inner City and in cities overseas such as Auckland. Innovation in public transport hasn’t been
delivered by the private sector, and it would be misguided to believe that it would be delivered in
the future. 

Further, that privatised services offer better value for money for taxpayers is an ideological fantasy
of the right. State Transit is one of the most cost effective and efficient operations in the world
thanks to a cost cutting drive in 2017. Purported cost benefits are actually based on costs considered
in a decade old Infrastructure Australia report, which didn’t take into account the potential for the
public sector to also achieve the same cost base that private operators did. State Transit offers one
of the lowest costs per passenger cost bases in transport today. Other government run transport
services tend to be highly cost effective as well. In Victoria, cost to taxpayer of private rail operators
were up to 50% higher than the cost prior to the privatisation of services. The way that privatisation
achieves the promised cost efficiencies – cutting driver pay, cutting maintenance and cutting
services. The key argument here is that this doesn’t make a service better value for money, it simply
represents cuts to essential spending. Our bus drivers don’t deserve have their pay cut to minimum
wage, the public doesn’t deserve to catch poorly maintained buses and they don’t deserve service
cuts. Private operators pay their drivers significantly less than public operators do across Australia.
The average private sector bus driver is estimated to earn over $20 000 less than the average public
sector bus driver.

The reality of Sydney’s privatisation model is that it is the same buses, on the same routes with the
same drivers for the most part. The only way that they can actually achieve a lower operating cost is
to spend less in areas that need the spending. It is also important to note that private companies
need to make a profit from these services, whilst the government doesn’t. This means that instead
of reinvesting any profits back into better services as the government operator would, the profits
will go to the shareholder of the private operating companies. 

Most of the problems that the government claims are present with State Transit can actually be
fixed by the government itself. Service reliability has been impacted by bad timetabling and
insufficient layover time between trip to make up for delays. The government sets timetables and
service levels. Reliability is also impacted by a lack of proper investment in infrastructure. The
government controls infrastructure spending and what infrastructure gets built. The government can
introduce innovations and any private sector innovations in NSW still require government approval.
Finally, private operators would be lucky to even match the cost per passenger of State Transit, a
cost which the government has to cover regardless of who operates the service.

In the UK, public transport patronage fell 50% as a result of privatisation in the 1980s. In Newcastle,
overall services were cut by more than 20%. In Sydney, private operators of services once in
government hands have failed to deliver the innovations and service improvements that were
promised. Transit Systems and Keolis Downer have delivered service worse than the previous State
Transit services across the Inner West and Newcastle did. Privatisation isn’t the silver bullet to
deliver a more reliable and innovative service at a lower cost. Instead, bus drivers get a pay cut,
money spent on maintenance is decreased and all profits get shipped offshore.

Please support efforts to keep public transport in public hands. Sign the petition
at https://ourtransport.org.au/take-action/

References

Currie, G. (2016). Public Transport Issues in Melbourne. Retrieved

from http://publictransportresearchgroup.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PRESENTATION-2016-
ALP-Public-Transport-Issues-in-Melbourne.pdf

Donaldson, D. (2017). Franchising: why privatising public transport doesn’t live up to the hype.
Retrieved from https://www.themandarin.com.au/79973-franchising-privatising-public-transport-
doesnt-live-hype/

Our Transport. (2020). HELP UP KEEP OUR BUSES PUBLIC. Retrieved

from https://ourtransport.org.au/take-action/

Public Transport Users Association. (2015). POLICIES: PRIVATISATION. Retrieved

from https://www.ptua.org.au/policy/privatisation/.

Salena, G. (2017). Why privatisation won’t make Sydney’s buses run on time. Retrieved
from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/09/privatisation-wont-make-sydneys-
buses-run-on-time-and-expect-new-problems

Rail Tram and Bus Union (n.d.) Privatisation would puts profits before passengers. Retrieved
from http://www.rtbu.org.au/privatisation_puts_profits_before_people

Transport for NSW. (2020). World class transport operators invited to register for bus tenders.
Retrieved from https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/world-class-
transport-operators-invited-to-register-for-bus-tenders

Transport for NSW. (2020). Buses – On-time running. Retrieved

from https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-and-research/passenger-travel/buses-on-time-
running

Walker, J. (2015). No, Let’s Not “Uber” Our Bus System. Retrieved
from https://humantransit.org/2015/05/no-lets-not-uber-our-bus-system.html

Share this: