Mobilizing ecologies: Participation and Intermodality to Build Coalitions Pro-

Sustainable Transport & BRTALC Center for BRT Excellence

Dr. Lake Sagaris 12 January 2016

Post-Doctoral Fellow and Adjunct ProfessorBus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence

Centro de Desarrollo Urbano SustentableFacultad de Ingeniería - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

http://www.brt.cl/http://cedeus.cl/

Itinerary

1. Methods & definitions: Rethinking social sustainability and transport

2. Ecologies of Modes3. Ecologies of Actors4. Final reflections

Prueba de parrilla para bicis, Santiago, Buses Vule, 21-VIII-2015

1. Rethinking social sustainability and transport

In a context of urgency…social sustainability

Global warming, but also

Health (obesity, happiness, clean air and water, freedom from noise)

Inclusion, Access, Equity (political, social and economic rights)

Complex governance systems and barriers to change

Central dilemma: How to change?

The very old saying ‘you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink’ must have been coined by people at the sharp end of sustainable transport. Globally we are drowning in excellent material. [We know plenty about] how to produce huge gains for quality of life, health, community, air quality, poverty and accessibility, reduce death and injury on the roads and create lively, viable communities. All these topics have been covered in detail in our last 20 years. The reality is we are just not doing it. John Whitelegg, editorial, World Transport Policy & Practice (2014)

We know a lot, but we’re not achieving enough…

Start from new positionality: outside the transport system,

looking in from the city

Redefining the QUESTION: not (only) how to move more people better, but…

How to make them healthier, happier, more active, more equal

Guarantee equal access to political, social and economic rights

Contribute to resilience (ability to recover from threats and disasters) and sustainability (social, economic and environmental)

Not only work-related, but other kinds of trip purpose

Not only “average” (male) user, but the outliers, girls and women, from 8-80 years

Diverse modes, each with own “niche”, a combination of purpose, capacity, price, and distance

Planning shift 1: not for averages but for “outliers”, those most vulnerable, least served

Planning shift 2: Backcasting for sustainability

Rather than projecting past trends into the future, establishes specific targets and then works towards them, usually within a scenario development approach

Better understanding of how people can shape more or less desirable futures (Hickman and Banister 2014, pp. 79-83).

Examples Visioning and Backcasting for Transport, VIBAT, Canada, India, the UK, Australia and China.

Planning for targets can help build “trend-break futures” (Hickman and Banister 2014, p. 81).

Roads as social spaces

Inequalities and transport: on the road

Modal distribution, some cities (%)

CityWalk/Cycle/Public Transport

Car

Beijing* 95 5

Havana* 84 6

Hong Kong 84 16

Santiago (Chile) 65 22

Buenos Aires* 69 24

Amsterdam 67 34

Sao Paulo 66 34

New York 62 32

Delhi 57 29

Copenhagen 51 49

London (UK) 50 50

Toronto 42 58

Chicago 12 88

Although walking, cycling and public transport are majority modes, cars

use 90% or more of road space, producing noise, air and water

pollution, premature deaths and terrible illnesses.

Santiago modal share

Bicycle: 4% (2012), +today Walking: 35%

Public transport: 26% Private (motorized): 26%

Fuente: http://www.sectra.gob.cl/Indicadores_de_Movilidad/Indicadores/viajes_modo.html (27-III-2013)

Inequality on roads and sidewalks

Number 1 killer of children and youth (Comisión Nacional de Seguridad de Tránsito)

vs. Roads as multi-purpose, nourishing

socially essential, public and civic places

“Livable” StreetsAppleyard, San Francisco, 1970,1981

Mientras menos automóviles pasan por tu calle, más personas conocerás, más relaciones sociales tendrás, más lugares para

jugar, interactuar, ser feliz...

the street as public space

Streets

% of urban territory

“Developed”

New York, 22%

London, 23%

Tokyo, 24%

Paris, 25%.

“Developing”

Shanghai, 7.5%

Bangkok, 11.4%

Delhi, 21%

Sao Paulo, 21%.

(Vasconcellos, 2001)

Green space Optimo:

40 m2/capita

Mínimo internacional (WHO): 9m2/cap.

Berlín: 60.0 m2/cap. Curitiba: 51.0 m2/cap. Córdoba: 9.6 m2/cap. Madrid:7.0 m2/cap.

Santiago: 3.2 m2/cap. Sao Paulo: 2.7 m2/cap.

Livability (creativity, income, environmental services)

Art Recycling Service

2. An ecology of modes

“Intermodality”

Multimodality: The presence of different transport modes, usually with little or no coordination among them.

Intermodality: The seamless integration of diverse motorised and active transport systems that are socially, environmentally and economically sustainable - as a response to human diversity and needs. “Integration” refers to social inclusion, physical information and fares, and considers hubs and links as strategic points.

Forms of bike-bus integrationMain Measures Examples

Strong information and promotion / behaviour change, usually combined agency and civil society effort.

1 Bike parking at train and bus stops Bogotá, Munich, Amsterdam

2 Bike racks on buses Mainly North American cities3 Bikes on rail cars Common in Europe, off-peak US4 Bike rentals The Netherlands, tourism

5 Public bike systems Netherlands, Germany, Copenhagen

6 Bikesharing, some fare-integration Paris, Santiago, Barcelona, etc.

7 Bike routes connecting to public transport stations/stops

Netherlands, Germany, Denmark

9 Shared bus-bike-tram lanes France, Belgium, Germany, UK10 Cycle Taxis/Rickshaws/Smartphoneapp India

Source: Godefrooij et al., 2009; Pucher and Buehler 2012; observations in diverse cities; presentations Velo-City conferences (2012 Vancouver, 2015 Nantes).

+ Medium trips (5-15 km), BRT-Metro

Distance, density and trip purpose

0 km 10-15 km5 km

Many people /m2

Few people /

m2

More people /

m2

Low density, long distances, Private car

Medium and high densities + short trips (0-10 km), walking and cycling (bicitaxis, bikeshare, tricycles)

central

outskirts/ruralKEYWalk

Cycle

Public transport

Car

Relocate daily services within walking and cycling distances

CYCLE-BUS-METRO: University, work, main needs, higher density

WALK-CYCLE: School, corner store, urban

orchards, primary health, cycle-share (not only

bikes).

CARS-CARSHARE-AUTO-RICKSHAW: longer, lower density trips, (peri-urban,

rural)

50%?

40%?

10%?

IN 2012 Walk (35%); + Cycles (4%) = 39%Bus-Metro 26%Car 26% % Trips 90%

Benefits of bike-bus integration for addressing “last-mile” and other issues

Reduce low-volume/empty bus trips

Improve service and access: help with packages and children over short distances, eliminate long waits at peripheral/suburban locations and travel direct to more rapid trunk/subway service

Fewer motorized trips, more active transport: Clean, quiet, safe, health-enhancing, user-friendly

More space for environmental services, “edible” cities, reduce urban heat island (reforestation)

Implications

Planning to meet evidence-based targets relevant for public education, deliberative participation, and other debates that can move sustainable planning forward

Potential modal shift targets: % of trips

Well over half and up to 75% of car trips in the Bay area (above) and

Metro Santiago (below) more

suited to walking and

cycling

For Peer Review

16

FIGURE 1. Total number of automobile trips in the Bay Area (top) and Santiago (bottom) suitable for mode shifting based on distance thresholds.

FIGURE 2. Proportion of automobile trips in the Bay Area (top) and Santiago (bottom) suitable for mode shifting based on distance thresholds.

Page 16 of 24

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jper

Journal of Planning Education and Research

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Potential for modal shift targets

For Peer Review

17

TABLE 4. Mode shift targets in the San Francisco Bay Area and Santiago de Chile.

Share of trips (%) Current mode

share (%) < 2 km 2 – 8 km > 8 km Target modal share (2020)

San Francisco Bay Area Automobile 71.5 23.4 44.8 31.7 12.9 Walking 19.3 96.3 3.7 0.03 37.7 Bike 2.1 47.7 46.8 5.5 36.7 Public transit 6.0 16.0 39.8 44.2 12.9 Santiago Metropolitan Region Automobile 25.6 21.6 42.0 36.2 13.3 Walking 34.4 95.8 3.8 0.39 46.6 Bike 4.0 62.8 32.4 4.8 26.7 Public transit 29.4 8.9 39.3 51.7 13.3 Source: Data from California Department of Transportation (2013) and SECTRA and Universidad Alberto Hurtado (2014). Estimates of potential for modal shift described in text.

As Table 4 indicates, both cities show substantial potential for shifting modal share according

to distance. The relative similarity of both the existing distribution of trips and the mode share

targets was unexpected. Clearly, however, the distance between the current situation and the goal

is much larger for the Bay Area, meaning that efforts to engender sustainable transport will be

much more difficult in developed contexts. These are not absolute figures, but they do give a

sense of the magnitude of the possible shift, and therefore the potential benefits from backcasting

to this target. It would be absurd to argue or worse try to enforce a policy arbitrarily requiring all

trips of a specific length to be realized using a specific mode. On the other hand, the analysis

points to the substantial potential for strategies relating to behavioral change, economic

incentives, land use, and the built environment applied in the context of collaborative planning

approaches, to achieve these shifts. We discuss these possibilities in the concluding section.

5.0 IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING: ENGAGEMENT, DISTRIBUTION OF ROADSPACE, LOCATION AND LAND USE Crucial issues of intermodality and integration come to the fore when sustainable transport is

analyzed from a social, as well as an economic and environmental perspective. The analysis of

travel data for the Bay Area and Santiago metropolitan regions presented here indicates that for

Page 17 of 24

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jper

Journal of Planning Education and Research

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Eg. Can nourish planning debates and decisions with simple, easily understood evidence

Public interest in solutions to congestion can consider that almost half of car trips (Santiago) are under 5 km, rethink distribution of road space.

Walkability/cycle-inclusion strategies are health, small business, and transport opportunities

Meeting the “first/last km” challenge for public transport: With diverse bicycle/tricycle/electric-assisted combinations highly efficient, sustainable in all 3 dimensions.

Implications for equity & sustainability

Comfortable, cheap Walk-Bike-Public Transport integration is essential to car-free lifestyle, which is most sustainable

Governance & spatial planning

Regional transport authorities planning inter modally (eg. Transport for London), in charge of sidewalks, key roads, cycling, bus, train and other transport facilities

Shift from planning car-free streets to car-free, walking-cycling priority areas (3x3 km, 5x5 km, 8x8 km) linked by public transport?

3. An ecology of actors

Based on success in

cycle inclusionSantiago RM, 2006-2012

Cycling modal share doubledImage went from obsolete and

poor to trendy and “in”Cyclepaths quadrupled

Women’s share upCyclists rising 20-25% main paths

Planning and participation today

Today, what little citizen participation there is in transport usually occurs at the project level, and is often too little, too late

We don’t pay enough attention to participation at the planning level: the process to define the consensuses necessary to get the most out of public transport

In the planning system

Different views from different disciplines

Linear view of change

Citizens with good ideas

Technical staff

PoliticiansChange (laws, regulations,

procedures, policies, programs, projects)

Implem

entation

Technical staffX

Nacional

Regional

Local

Regional

The importance of civil society (organized citizens)

And the kind of “participation”Susskind et al. 1983.

Conflicto Paternalismo Coproducción

Paternalism: Predominant today (in Chile) . It is sterile.

Delivers informationControlsImposes

Power¡Yes!

Citizens

Conflict: opens doors (opportunity)

Individual and collective learning and development

Capacity for change

Builds autonomous active citizens

Power

¡No!Citizens

Coordinadora No a la Costanera Norte, movimientos de Aisén, Freirina, movimiento estudiantil, otros.

More fruitful:

Co-produce, collaborate

Power

DeliberationDiversityInterdependence (Booher & Innes 2002)

I understand

Builds strategic convictionSystemic changeCredibility and continuity

Mesa Ciudadanía - Gobierno para el Plan de Ciclo Rutas del Bicentenario

(2007-2010), con asesoría holandesa.

Nested scales: Personal, social, political

Changes the individualChanges the groupInfluences the communityInteractions at global and national scalesThe world in the local

Understand we are an “ecology” of actors

Diverse

Interdependent

With different profiles, leaderships, strategies and organizations, and some common objectives

4. Final reflections

A diverse, complex, robust ecology of citizen organizations is vital to shifting toward sustainability

How robust is our ecology of citizens for BRT and public transport?

Urban measures •US$48 million fund for cycling infrastructure

• Training in traffic calming and other diverse measures

• Training in quality infrastructure, standards

•Vision beyond cycle pathsCycling

economy • More bikes for women,

cargo, packaging, etc. • Better trained consultants for

design and planning •Studies tendered for

bikeshare

Behavioural change

•Training in civil society and participatory methods

• Design, testing and ongoing realization of women’s cycling school •More diverse media presence

•Links with culture, gender, recyclers, and other

Moving beyond lists of competing measures…

Urban measures

Cycling economy

Behavioural change

To focus on the crucial balance between systemic elements

Government: regional & local

Private sector

Civil Society

And actors

A century of car-centred planning

Economy deeply linked with banks, tourism,

manufacturing, etc.

Billions in advertising and associated behavioural

modification efforts

Automobility and increasingly cycle-inclusion…

All work together very effectively

Urban measures: some

segregated busways, few complete grids

(none?)

Economy (new jobs, direct and

indirect) ???

Customer “information”,

few efforts to excite, seduce, attract, win

hearts

BRT

Policy implications: for more sustainable transport we need to

Partner with cyclists, walkers and other sustainable transport users

Build powerful alliances with health, environmental and social justice actors

Build robust civil society ecologies

Consider complementary modes and diverse business models

Implications for research

We need to know more about social sustainability, especially the politics of sustainability and social justice, as they relate to cities and “transport-sheds”

We should complement models using simple causality models with complex causality approaches

We need to take civil society organization and participatory theory and practice more seriously.

We need more attention to real-life experiments in the living laboratories of our own cities-regions

Laboratory for Social Change A space for research in the community, with the

community, led by Transport Engineering (PUC) and Living City, which brings together leaders and partners working in the Living Laboratory of real cities. With support

from the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (Cedeus) and the Across Latittudes and Cultures, Center for BRT Excellence

www.cambiarnos.cl

Gracias

Research-participation-action

Dr. Lake Sagaris lsagaris@uc.cl