2013 Measuring household expenditure on public transport
1. The South Africa I know, the home I understand
In-depth analysis of the National Household Travel Survey 2013 data
Measuring household expenditure on public transport
Technical
Report
Pali Lehohla
Statistician General
01 December 2015
2. • Background
• Household travel patterns
• Education related travel patterns
• Work related travel patterns
• Assess the level of affordability of public
transport
• Conclusion
Contents
4. Context
1996 White Paper on the National Transport Policy aims to
ensure that the South African transportation system is adequate
to meet basic accessibility needs (to work, health care, schools,
shops) in rural and urban areas.
The following are some of the strategic objectives of the
policy:
• Affordable public transport, with commuters spending less
than about 10 per cent of disposable income on transport
• Passenger transport services that address user needs,
including those of commuters, pensioners, the aged, scholars,
the disabled, tourists, and long distance passengers
• Appropriate and affordable standards of accessibility to work,
commercial and social services in rural areas
• Promote safe, reliable and sustainable passenger transport
5. Background
The National Household
Travel Survey (NHTS)
was conducted in 2003
and 2013 as a joint effort
by Statistics South Africa
(Stats SA) and the
Department of Transport
(DoT).
The aim of the
NHTS is to gain
strategic insight into
the travel patterns,
travel modes and
costs of South
African households
Data collection in
this regard took
place between
January and March
2013, and a total of
51 341 households
and/or dwelling
units were sampled,
using a random
stratified sample
design
6. Household income
information from
Census 2011 was
used to impute
household income for
cases that did not
report their household
income
The report highlights
some of the challenges
in collecting household
income and travel cost
information. E.g.
privacy and
confidentiality issues,
respondent fatigue and
use of proxy
respondents.
Due to data
constraints,
this report did
not consider
any travel
distance and
travel cost per
distance.
Cautionary notes
7. Definitions
Trip:
a one-way movement from an origin to a destination, to fulfil
a purpose or undertake an activity
Public transport Private transport
Animal drawn
vehicles
Other
Walking
CyclingTrain
Taxi
Bus
Car/truck driver
Car/truck
passenger
Public
transport
9. 51,0% 18,1% 7,6%
Most households use public transport
Main mode of travel for households
Private
21,0%
10,1%10,9%
Other
0,4%
1,9%
76,7%
10. Households main mode of transport by household income quintile
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Lowest income quintile
Highest income quintile
89,9 6,0 3,6
90,4 6,9 2,2
86,4 11,1 2,0
77,2 21,5 1,1
38,3 60,9 0,3
Public transport Private transport Walking all the way
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,3
0,5
Other
Most households
use public transport
from highest
income quintileexcept
11. Profile of households who used public transport
Train Bus Taxi Total
Metro 910 000 879 000 2 581 000 4 371 000
Urban 116 000 384 000 2 329 000 2 829 000
Rural 77 000 1 353 000 2 467 000 3 896 000
RSA 1 103 000 2 616 000 7 377 000 11 095 000
Approximately
11,1
million
households used
public transport
66,5%
23,6%
9,9%
12. Monthly cost of commuting using public transport
Quintile 4
Quintile 3
Quintile 2
Travel
costIncome
R 2 645
R 1 215
R 604
R 9 207
R 215
R 331
R 250
R 171
R 136
R 404Highest income quintile
Lowest income quintile
with increase
in quintile
Average per
capita monthly
household
income
Average monthly
travel cost
Income and
travel cost
increased
13. of income on public transport
Lowest income quintile
Spent highest %
% of monthly household income per capita spent on public transport (PT)
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Highest income quintile
Lowest income quintile
85,1 11,9 2,9
52,7 31,7 15,6
36,2 34,5 29,4
26,7 31,4 41,9
12,7 20,8 66,6
42,3 28,4 29,3
Less than 10%
Between 10% and 20%
More than 20%
14. Lowest income
quintile
Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Highest income
quintile
87,3%
73,3%
63,8%
47,3%
14,9%
% of households spending more than 10% of their monthly
household income per capita on public transport (PT)
Households from
lowest income quintile
more likely to
spend more
highest income quintile
on travel than
R
15. % of households spending more than 10% of their monthly
household income per capita on public transport (PT)
Taxi
users
Bus
more likely to
spent more
users
on travel than
R
58,6%
60,1%
49,2%57,7%
17. Main mode of travel for learners
Other
0,8%
63,4%
14,8% 5,2% 1,2%
21,2%
1,6%
Private
14,5%
12,9%
Most of learners to their educational institutions
18. Metro
45,2%
Main mode of travel for learners by geographic location
28,8%
Private
Transport
Urban Rural
1,3%
62,0%
21,8%
15,3%
0,9%
79,1%
14,7%
5,8%
0,4%
learners
were most likely
to their
educational
institutions
24,8%
Other
19. Total number of learners who used public transport
Train Bus Taxi Total
Metro 173 000 348 000 1 166 000 1 687 000
Urban 13 000 208 000 736 000 958 000
Rural 18 000 356 000 686 000 1 060 000
RSA 205 000 912 000 2 588 000 3 705 000
Approximately
3,7
million
learners used
public transport
69,8%
24,6%
5,5%
21. Monthly cost of commuting using public transport
Quintile 4
Quintile 3
Quintile 2
Travel
costIncome
R 2 624
R 1 200
R 606
R 8 283
R 233
R 406
R 374
R 345
R 351
R 447Highest income quintile
Lowest income quintile
with increase
in quintile
Average per
capita monthly
household
income
Average monthly
travel cost
Income and
travel cost
increased
22. of income on
public transport
than 10%
% of monthly household income per capita spent on public transport (PT)
20,6 22,8 56,6
23,2 18,2 58,7
34,0 20,3 45,7
21,8 21,8 56,4
Less than 10% Between 10% and 20%
More than 20%
users
most likely to
spent less
23. % of learners spending more than 10% of their monthly household
income per capita on public transport (PT)
Taxi
users
more likely to
spent more
users
on travel than
R
78,2%
79,4%
66,0%76,8%
25. 26,5% 7,6% 5,0%
Main mode of travel for workers
Private
38,4%
7,6%30,8%
Other
1,3%
21,1%
39,1%
Most of workers
use public and
private transport
to reach their
workplace
26. Total number of workers who used public transport
Train Bus Taxi Total
Metro 650 000 446 000 2 080 000 3 176 000
Urban 34 000 235 000 987 000 1 256 000
Rural 16 000 380 000 603 000 999 000
RSA 700 000 1 061 000 3 670 000 5 431 000
Approximately
5,4
million
workers used
public transport
67,6%
19,5%
12,9%
27. Monthly cost of commuting using public transport
Quintile 4
Quintile 3
Quintile 2
Travel
costIncome
R 2 668
R 1 222
R 634
R 8 459
R 281
R 549
R 505
R 496
R 491
R 582Highest income quintile
Lowest income quintile
with increase
in quintile
Average per
capita monthly
household
income
Average monthly
travel cost
Income and
travel cost
increased
28. % of monthly household income per capita spent on public transport (PT)
15,2 22,3 62,5
16,8 19,9 63,3
36,7 25,9 37,4
18,4 22,3 59,3
of income on
public transport
than 10%
users
most likely to
spent less
Less than 10% Between 10% and 20%
More than 20%
29. % of workers spending more than 10% of their monthly household
income per capita on public transport (PT)
Taxi
users
Bus
more likely to
spent more
users
on travel than
R
83,2%
84,8%
63,3%81,6%
30. Conclusion
The report identified ways in which the measurement of
household income and transport expenditure can be improved.
Households from lowest income quintile spent more on public
transport than to households from highest income quintile.
Majority of households who spent more than 20% of their
monthly household income per capita on public transport live in
rural areas.
Workers and learners in households from highest income
quintile were more likely to spend more on travel than workers
from lowest income quintile
31. • Taxi and bus users were more likely to spend more than 10% of
their monthly household income per capita than train users.
• There is a need to reconsider the current public transport
affordability measure, i.e. the benchmark set by the 1996 White
Paper on National Transport Policy.
• The current public transport affordability measure provides a
partial view of household well-being and should be linked with
poverty, deprivation and other social and economical measures.
Conclusion
