CHAPTER 4.

Contributions of autorickshaw services to urban mobility and transport service provision in

Cape Coast

4.2.1 Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents

A total of 507(100%) of participants took part in the current study, out of which 62.9% were

males and 37.1% were female. Majority of the respondents (31.8%) were between the ages of

21 and 30 years, 30.4% of the respondents were between 31 and 40 years; 26.4% between

41 and 60 years, and the remaining 11.4% of the respondents were below 21 years. Results indi-

cate that all the commuter were within the active working age of Ghana ( )

Most of the participants had either basic (34.7%) or secondary (31.7%) level of education. Ap-

proximately 36 percent (35.6%) were employed, 16.5% were business owners, whereas the re-

maining were either unemployed (26.2%) or students (21.7%). Majority of participants were

single (80.1%) and did not own a functioning personal car (80.5%). This implies that they rely

heavily on public transport for their transport and mobility needs.

The monthly income bracket for the respondents were GHC 500 and below (37.5%), GHC 501

and 1000 (18.7%); GHC 1001 and 2000 (20.7%) and above GHC 2000 (23.1%) (Table 4.2.1)

Table 4.2.2 presents a summary on participant’s expenditures. The median daily expenditure on food and

transportation are GHC 18.00[15.00 – 20.00] and GHC 10.00[8.00 – 16.00] respectively. These daily

expenditure on food and transport can be estimated as monthly expenditure of GHC 540 and GHC 300

respectively. This implies that the expenditure on transport is more than half of what respondents spend

on food. Monthly median expenditure on electricity and water is GHC 120.00[80.00 – 150.00], rent is

GHC 300.00[140.00 – 450.00], clothing is GHC 60.00[30.00 – 200.00], health is GHC 100.00[50.00 –

120.00] and on savings is GHC 100.00[40.00 – 200.00].

Table 1: Sociodemographic Characteristics of study participants

Parameter Frequency Percentage (%)

Total 507 100.0
Gender
Male 317 62.9
Female 187 37.1
Age Group
20 years and below 57 11.4
21 - 30 years 160 31.8
31 - 40 years 153 30.4
41 - 60 years 133 26.4
Educational Level
None 37 7.3
Basic 175 34.7
Secondary 160 31.7
Tertiary 133 26.3
Occupation
Unemployed 132 26.2
Student 109 21.7
Employed 179 35.6
Business Owner 83 16.5
Marital Status
Single 406 80.1
Married 101 19.9
Monthly income
GHC 500 and below 190 37.5
GHC 501 – 1000 95 18.7
GHC 1001 – 2000 105 20.7
More than GHC 2000 117 23.1
Table 4.2.2: Summary on Participants Expenditures

Expenditure
Summary Electricity Health
Expenditure Rent Transport Clothing Savings
Statistics and Water (annual
on food daily (monthly) (daily) (monthly) (monthly)
(monthly) terms)
(GHC) (GHC) (GHC) (GHC) (GHC)
(GHC) (GHC)
Total
505 437 312 435 237 178 341
Number
Mean 21.41 121.16 316.87 17.24 120.70 207.58 146.86
Standard
15.58 78.74 202.70 43.14 114.15 460.06 135.59
Deviation
Median 18.00 120.00 300.00 10.00 60.00 100.00 100.00
Minimum 5.00 10.00 30.00 3.00 10.00 20 1
Maximum 100.00 400.00 900.00 400.00 500 2400 800
Percentiles
25 15.00 80.00 140.00 8.00 30.00 50.00 40.00
75 20.00 150.00 450.00 16.00 200.00 120.00 200.00

4.2.2 Vehicle ownership of respondents

Results indicates that majority of commuters (80.6 %) did not have their own private vehicle. Less than

twenty percent (19.4 %) of the commuters had private vehicles. Table 4.2.3 presents a chi-square test of

association between whether or not one owns a personal car with sociodemographic characteristics of

respondents. Gender [X2(df = 1) = 47.683, p<0.001], Age group [X2(df = 3) = 82.938, p<0.001],

educational level [X2(df = 3) = 75.105, p<0.001], Occupation [X2(df = 3) = 96.480, p<0.001], marital

status [X2(df = 1) = 29.242, p<0.001], monthly income [X2(df = 3) = 205.236, p<0.001] were

significantly associated with ownership of a functioning personal car. This was such that more females

(35.5%) than males (10.1%) own a functioning car. Generally, the older one gets, the higher ones

educational level, and the higher ones monthly income, the more likely he owns a personal car. More of

the employed (38.0%) and business owners (32.5%) own a car compared to students (0.0%) and their

unemployed counterparts (3.0%). More married (38.6%) than single (14.8%) participants own a car

(Table 4.2.3).
Table 4.2.3: Association between whether or not one owns a personal car with sociodemographic
characteristics of participants.

Own a functioning personal car X2- P-

Parameter df
No Yes Total Value Value
98(19.4%
Total 406(80.6%) 504(100.0%)
)
Gender
Male 285(89.9%) 32(10.1%) 317(62.9%) 47.683 1 <0.001
Female 121(64.7%) 66(35.3%) 187(37.1%)
Age Group
20 years and
57(100.0%) 0(0.0%) 57(11.3%) 82.938 3 <0.001
below
21 - 30
156(97.5%) 4(2.5%) 160(31.8%)
years
31 - 40
94(61.4%) 59(38.6%) 153(30.4%)
years
41 - 60
97(72.9%) 36(27.1%) 133(26.4%)
years
Educational Level
None 33(89.2%) 4(10.8%) 37(7.3%) 75.105 3 <0.001
Basic 175(100.0%) 0(0.0%) 175(34.7%)
Secondary 109(68.1%) 51(31.9%) 160(31.7%)
Tertiary 89(66.9%) 44(33.1%) 133(26.3%)
Occupation
Unemployed 128(97.0%) 4(3.0%) 132(26.2%) 96.48 3 <0.001
Student 109(100.0%) 0(0.0%) 109(21.7%)
Employed 111(62.0%) 68(38.0%) 179(35.6%)
Business
56(67.5%) 27(32.5%) 83(16.5%)
Owner
Marital Status
Single 346(85.2%) 60(14.8%) 406(80.1%) 29.242 1 <0.001
Married 62(61.4%) 39(38.6%) 101(19.9%)
Monthly Income
GHC 500
186(97.9%) 4(2.1%) 190(37.5%) 205.236 3 <0.001
and below
GHC 501 –
90(94.7%) 5(5.3%) 95(18.7%)
1000
GHC 1001 –
91(86.7%) 14(13.3%) 105(20.7%)
2000
More than
41(35.0%) 76(65.0%) 117(23.1%)
GHC 2000

4.2.3 Major transport modes of commuters

 Results indicate that the respondents’ main mode of transport was the autorickshaw (Pragya)

(38.9%), Taxi (22.8%) and private cars (13.8%). Other mode of transportation are walking (7.5

%), patronage of institutional buses (7.1 %), trotro (5.5 %) and bicycles (3.6 %). Respondents

who use motorcycles and coda collectively constituted less than 1 % of the total respondents.

(Figure 4.2.1)

The reasons attributed to the choice of autorickshaw are that it is economical (85.1%), flexibility

(79.7%), and proximity (79.7%). The main reasons for choosing taxi is because of its flexibility (86.6%),

proximity (78.4%) and Safety/ personal security (78.3%). Private car was a major choice for reasons such

as Safety/ personal security (100.0%), flexibility (97.1%), and the quickest (89.9%) (Table 4.2.4)

Figure 4.2.2 presents the choice of mode of transport before fuel increment. The most popular first modes

of transport before the fuel hike were taxi (40.0%), autorickshaw (16.6%), private car (15.0%) and

motorcycle (13.2%). Other modes of transport such as trotro, institutional bus, walking, coda, and bicycle

collectively constituted less than 20% of the transport mode most preferred (first choice) by the

commuters. The second most preferred modes of transport were Taxi (41.0%), Trotro (22.4%) and

autorickshaw (16.0%). Whiles autorickshaw (33.3%), Trotro (17.0%) and Walking (12.0%) were the

third most preferred mode of transport.

Fuel price increase affected transportation mode choices of the commuters. The most popular first modes

of transport after the fuel hike were autorickshaw (21.9%), Taxi (19.2%), and Walking/Motor (13.4%).

The most popular second choice modes of transport were autorickshaw (35.9%), Trotro (25.0%) and Taxi

(16.0%). The most popular third choice mode of transport was by Taxi (32.9%), Pragya (16.6%) and

Walking (13.2%).
Commuters’ main mode of transport

Figure4.2.1: Percentage distribution of commuters’ main modes of transport

Table4.2. 4: Reasons for choice of mode of transport

Main mode of travel to work/school

Reason for School
choice /Company Total
Bicycle Coda Motor Pragya Private Car Bus Taxi Trotro Walk

Total 18(3.7%) 2(0.4%) 2(0.4%) 195(39.8%) 69(14.1%) 29(5.9%) 109(22.2%) 28(5.7%) 38(7.8%) 490(100%)
Economical 9(50%) 2(100%) 1(50%) 166(85.1%) 36(52.2%) 23(79.3%) 76(69.7%) 24(85.7%) 31(81.6%) 368(75.1%)
Flexibility 15(83.3%) 0(0%) 1(50%) 153(79.7%) 67(97.1%) 26(92.9%) 97(86.6%) 16(57.1%) 12(31.6%) 387(79.1%)
Proximity 10(76.9%) 2(100%) 2(100%) 102(79.1%) 50(80.6%) 29(87.9%) 69(78.4%) 17(60.7%) 21(65.6%) 302(77.6%)
Lack of
alternative 0(0%) 2(100%) 1(50%) 31(18.1%) 43(61.4%) 23(63.9%) 26(24.5%) 16(57.1%) 23(63.9%) 165(35.2%)
The
quickest 11(61.1%) 2(100%) 1(50%) 66(34.2%) 62(89.9%) 15(53.6%) 45(42.5%) 13(46.4%) 22(57.9%) 237(49%)
Safety/
personal
security 6(33.3%) 2(100%) 2(100%) 123(63.4%) 69(100%) 31(86.1%) 83(78.3%) 11(39.3%) 11(28.9%) 338(68.6%)
 Figure 4.2.2: Choice of mode of transport after the fuel increment
Figure 4.2.3: Choice of mode of transport before the fuel increment

4.2.4 Frequency of usage of transport modes before and after fuel hikes

Result show that the percentage of commuters who walked often (at least 5 times a week) to their
destination were the same before and after the fuel price increase. However, with the alternative modes of
transport, Trotro (37.7%), Bicycle (35.4%), private car (33.0%), motorcycle (29.1%) and autorickshaw
(21.7 %). After the hike in fuel prices, there was an approximately four time increase (81.9 %) in the
percentage of commuter using autorickshaw at least five times in a week; making it the most frequently
used transport mode in the Cape coast municipality. The frequency of commuters’ usage of Trotro,
Motorcycle and Bicycle also increased to 59.6%, 52.2% and 52.8% respectively, after the fuel price
increases, However, there was a decrease in the percentage of commuters who often patronized taxi (49.0
%), private cars (19.5 %) and Coda (10.6%). The frequency of usage of a particular mode of transport is
related to the fares and the income of the commuters.
Table 5: Frequency of use of various modes of transport before and after the fuel hike

Frequency of Use
Mode of
Transport Often Sometimes/Rarely
(at least 5x a Not Used
week) (2-3x a week)

Before fuel hike

Taxi 312(66.1%) 156(33.1%) 4(0.8%)

Trotro 165(37.7%) 80(18.3%) 193(44%)
Private car 137(33.0%) 186(44.8%) 92(22.2%)

Motorcycle 113(29.1%) 183(47%) 93(23.9%)

Bicycle 129(35.4%) 106(29.2%) 129(35.4%)

Walking 165(40.0%) 176(42.8%) 71(17.2%)

Autorickshaw 88(21.7%) 176(43.5%) 141(34.8%)

Coda 66(19.4%) 172(50.4%) 103(30.2%)

After fuel hike

Taxi 195(49.0%) 90(22.6%) 113(28.4%)

Trotro 265(59.6%) 16(3.6%) 164(36.8%)

Private car 79(19.5%) 202(49.9%) 124(30.6%)

Motorcycle 204(52.2%) 130(33.2%) 57(14.6%)

Bicycle 172(52.8%) 94(28.8%) 60(18.4%)

Walking 169(40.2%) 243(57.9%) 8(1.9%)
Coda 34(10.6%) 211(66.4%) 73(23%)
Autorickshaw 397(81.9%) 87(17.9%) 1(0.2%)
Others 16(50.0%) 6(18.8%) 10(31.2%)

Table 6 presents the means of reaching terminal/transit point and waiting time before departure. Majority
of participants (45.8%) posits that the walking distance from home to the terminal/transit point is less than
5 minutes, 425(83.8%) walk to the terminal/transit point, 218(43.0%) have walking as their most
preferred means of transport for a less than 3km travel within the city. One hundred and fifty-seven
(31.0%) prefer boarding a taxi for a more than 3km travel within the city. Close to 83 percent (82.6%)
profess that the waiting time to board a vehicle at the terminal/transit point is mostly between 0 to 10
minutes whereas 266(52.5%) agree that there is no waiting time for vehicle to get full before setting off.
Table 6: Means of reaching terminal/transit point and waiting time before departure

Parameter Frequency Percentage(%)

Total 507 100.0
Distance (walking) from home to the terminal/transit point
Less than 5 mins 232 45.8
5-10 mins 134 26.4
11 -20mins 118 23.3
21-30mins 23 4.5
Means to the terminal/transit point
Walking 425 83.8
Private Car 25 4.9
Taxi 25 4.9
Bicycle 19 3.7
Motorcycle 11 2.2
Coda 2 0.4
Choice of mode of transport for a less than 3km travel within the city
Walking 218 43.0
Taxi 94 18.5
Motorcycle 74 14.6
Bicycle 55 10.8
Private Car 55 10.8
Trotro 7 1.4
Coda 2 0.4
Pragya 2 0.4
Choice of mode of transport for more than 3km travel within the city
Taxi 157 31.0
Motorcycle 116 22.9
Walking 68 13.4
Trotro 67 13.2
Private Car 52 10.3
Bicycle 44 8.7
Coda 2 0.4
Pragya 1 0.2
Waiting time to board a vehicle at the terminal/transit point
0-10 mins 419 82.6
11-20mins 61 12.0
31mins-1hr 8 1.6
more than 1hr 19 3.7
Waiting time for vehicle to get full before you set off
No Waiting 266 52.5
 1-5mins 142 28.0
11-20mins 10 2.0
6-10mins 88 17.4
More than 30 minutes 1 0.2

Table 7 presents the major causes of travel delays in the Metropolis. Among the top causes are vehicle
traffic (60.2%), Bad Roads (33.7%) and Mechanical Problems (19.7%).
Table 7: Major causes of travel delays

Travel delays Rank

in the Sometimes/
metropolis Often Not Used
Rarely
294(60.2
Traffic 193(39.5%) 1(0.3%)
%)
160(33.7
Bad Roads 299(62.9%) 16(3.4%)
%)
Mechanical
87(19.7%) 304(68.9%) 50(11.4%)
Problems
Driver/
66(14.7%) 310(69.2%) 72(16.1%)
Conductor
112(25.9
Weather 28(6.5%) 292(67.6%)
%)
Other 83(81.4%) 9(8.8%) 10(9.8%)
Data is presented as frequency and percentage, f(%).

Table 8 presents a Chi-Square Test of Association between Main mode of travel to work/school and
socio-demographic characteristics of study participants. Gender [X 2-Value(df = 8) = 99.319, p<0.001],
Age group [X2-Value(df = 24) = 182.057, p<0.001], Educational level [X2-Value(df = 24) = 282.153,
p<0.001], Occupation [X2-Value(df = 24) = 314.79, p<0.001], Marital status [X 2-Value(df = 8) = 144.45,
p<0.001], and Monthly Income [X2-Value(df = 24) = 315.513, p<0.001] were significantly associated
with main mode of travel to work/school.
 Table 8: Association between Main mode of travel to work/school and sociodemographic status of study participants.

Main mode of travel to work/school

School
Private /Compan X2-
Parameter Bicycle Coda Motor Pragya Car y Bus Taxi Trotro Walk Total Value df P-Value
18(3.6% 2(0.4% 2(0.4% 197(39.1% 69(13.7% 116(23.0%
Total ) ) ) ) ) 36(7.1%) ) 26(5.2%) 38(7.5%) 504(100.0%)
Gender
12(3.8% 2(0.6% 1(0.3% 171(53.9% 41(12.9% 317(62.9% <0.00
Male ) ) ) ) ) 10(3.2%) 51(16.1%) 8(2.5%) 21(6.6%) ) 99.319 8 1
0(0.0% 1(0.5% 28(15.0% 26(13.9%
Female 6(3.2%) ) ) 26(13.9%) ) ) 65(34.8%) 18(9.6%) 17(9.1%) 187(37.1%)
Age Group
20 years 0(0.0% 1(1.8% 14(24.6% 12(21.1% 182.05 2 <0.00
and below 5(8.8%) ) ) 13(22.8%) 7(12.3%) ) 4(7.0%) 1(1.8%) ) 57(11.3%) 7 4 1
21 - 30 0(0.0% 0(0.0% 16(10.0%
years 3(1.9%) ) ) 94(58.8%) 4(2.5%) ) 22(13.8%) 11(6.9%) 10(6.3%) 160(31.8%)
31 - 40 10(6.5% 0(0.0% 1(0.7% 29(19.0%
years ) ) ) 30(19.6%) ) 4(2.6%) 66(43.1%) 7(4.6%) 6(3.9%) 153(30.4%)
41 - 60 2(1.5% 0(0.0% 30(22.6%
years 0(0.0%) ) ) 60(45.1%) ) 2(1.5%) 22(16.5%) 7(5.3%) 10(7.5%) 133(26.4%)
Educational Level
0(0.0% 0(0.0% 282.15 2 <0.00
None 0(0.0%) ) ) 26(70.3%) 4(10.8%) 4(10.8%) 0(0.0%) 1(2.7%) 2(5.4%) 37(7.3%) 3 4 1
0(0.0% 1(0.6% 108(61.7% 26(14.9%
Basic 5(2.9%) ) ) ) 7(4.0%) 13(7.4%) 14(8.0%) 1(0.6%) ) 175(34.7%)
10(6.3% 2(1.3% 1(0.6% 17(10.6% 23(14.4%
Secondary ) ) ) 32(20.0%) 4(2.5%) ) 62(38.8%) ) 9(5.6%) 160(31.7%)
0(0.0% 0(0.0% 55(41.4%
Tertiary 3(2.3%) ) ) 31(23.3%) ) 2(1.5%) 40(30.1%) 1(0.8%) 1(0.8%) 133(26.3%)
Occupation
Unemploye 0(0.0% 0(0.0% 132(26.2% 2 <0.00
d 7(5.3%) ) ) 96(72.7%) 0(0.0%) 3(2.3%) 10(7.6%) 8(6.1%) 8(6.1%) ) 314.79 4 1
 0(0.0% 1(0.9% 29(26.6% 21(19.3%
Student 5(4.6%) ) ) 27(24.8%) 7(6.4%) ) 19(17.4%) 0(0.0%) ) 109(21.7%)
2(1.1% 0(0.0% 43(24.0% 18(10.1%
Employed 0(0.0%) ) ) 29(16.2%) ) 3(1.7%) 80(44.7%) ) 4(2.2%) 179(35.6%)
Business 0(0.0% 1(1.2% 20(24.1%
Owner 6(7.2%) ) ) 45(54.2%) ) 1(1.2%) 5(6.0%) 0(0.0%) 5(6.0%) 83(16.5%)
Marital Status
14(3.4% 0(0.0% 2(0.5% 190(46.8% 406(80.1% <0.00
Single ) ) ) ) 23(5.7%) 33(8.1%) 95(23.4%) 20(4.9%) 29(7.1%) ) 144.45 8 1
2(2.0% 0(0.0% 47(46.5%
Married 4(4.0%) ) ) 7(6.9%) ) 3(3.0%) 21(20.8%) 8(7.9%) 9(8.9%) 101(19.9%)
Monthly income
GHC 500 0(0.0% 2(1.1% 32(16.8% 29(15.3% 190(37.5% 315.51 2 <0.00
and below 8(4.2%) ) ) 73(38.4%) 11(5.8%) ) 26(13.7%) 9(4.7%) ) ) 3 4 1
GHC 501 - 0(0.0% 0(0.0% 10(10.5%
1000 4(4.2%) ) ) 69(72.6%) 0(0.0%) 1(1.1%) 11(11.6%) ) 0(0.0%) 95(18.7%)
GHC 1001 2(1.9% 0(0.0%
- 2000 6(5.7%) ) ) 53(50.5%) 8(7.6%) 1(1.0%) 21(20.0%) 6(5.7%) 8(7.6%) 105(20.7%)
More than 0(0.0% 0(0.0% 51(43.6%
GHC 2000 0(0.0%) ) ) 2(1.7%) ) 2(1.7%) 58(49.6%) 3(2.6%) 1(0.9%) 117(23.1%)
Data is presented as frequency and percentage in parenthesis, f(%).
Table 9 presents the main mode of transport among schoolchildren. The main modes of transport for
schoolchildren were by School Bus(25.9%), Walking(22.2%) and Pragya(18.5%). Most of the male
school children go to school by walking (35.3%) whereas their female counterparts go by School bus
(60.0%).
Table 9: Main mode of Transport among Schoolchildren
Main Mode of Transport among Schoolchildren
Parameter
Bicycle Pragya Private Car School Bus Taxi Trotro Walk Motor
Total 5(9.3%) 10(18.5%) 7(13%) 14(25.9%) 4(7.4%) 1(1.9%) 12(22.2%) 1(1.9%
Gender
Male 5(14.7%) 6(17.6%) 7(20.6%) 2(5.9%) 1(2.9%) 1(2.9%) 12(35.3%) 0(0.0%
Female 0(0.0%) 4(20.0%) 0(0.0%) 12(60%) 3(15.0%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 1(5.0%
Data is presented as frequency with percentage in parenthesis, f(%).