CASE STUDY: THE METRO PROJECT IN QUITO, ECUADOR
GAYLE WOOTTON
INCLUSIVE URBAN MOBILITY:
SOCIAL EQUITY AND MASS
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
Mobility is essential
Mobility is unequal
Transport-related social exclusion exists
Governments should and do act
Limits of Participative approaches
Mobility as a right
And what could rights-based approaches do…..?
INCLUSIVE URBAN MOBILITIES
The problems of mobility
Logic of participation
A rights-based approach
Research scope
Quito context
Metro de Quito
Legal aspects
Field work
Initial findings
Questions
SCOPE
Mobility is fundamental to a ‘good way of living’
Mobility is unequal depending on you and the system
Do rights-based approaches hold the answer to
transport disadvantage?
THREE THINGS
MOBILITY IS UNEQUAL
People living within cities have unequal access to
transport options;
Access to private transport
Proximity to public transport modes
Personal characteristics
Reduced mobility can deny people the equality of
opportunity (H ine and Mi tc he l l 2001)
A ‘new form of social inequality’ (Mi ra l les 2002)
‘differential distribution’ of mobility
as a resource in the 21st century (C resswe l l , 2010) .
‘ inaccessibility to essential goods
and services, as well as ‘lock -out’
from planning and decision-making
processes, which can result in social
exclusion outcomes ’ ( Lucas , 201 2) .
Lack of access to adequate
transport tends to be concentrated
amongst those already at risk of
social exclusion (Kenyon 2003) .
MOBILITY IS FUNDAMENTAL
= Point at which a lack of transport options limits a person’s ability to travel
Situation where ability to access jobs, housing, education, leisure opportunities, social networks etc is limited
Personal factors
income level,
age,
gender,
mental or physical capabilities
Systemic factors
provision of services, frequency, safety
Affects disadvantaged groups and individuals
Women, older people, children and young people, ethnic minorities, lone parents, people with disabilities, people on low incomes
Developing and developed contexts
TRANSPORT DISADVANTAGE
Issues of the individual
Cost (including time)
Concern for safety
Structural issues
the availability and physical accessibility of transport;
the cost of transport;
services located in inaccessible places;
safety and security—fear of crime (SEU, 2003)
City planning and land use integration
Traditional planning methods satisfy demand not need
BARRIERS TO MOBILITY
Purpose: to influence decisions made (B ic ker sta f f e t a l . 2002)
‘Challenge the technocratic system of current practice’ (Hea ley
1997)
History of ‘Prepare -reveal-defend’
But….
Information provision/consultation/participation/engagement?
Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969)
Unbalanced power dynamic often remains
‘Ideal speech’ unrealistic (Habermas 1981)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-
MAKING
ARNSTEIN’S
LADDER
1969
Purpose: to influence decisions made (B ic ker sta f f e t a l . 2002)
‘Challenge the technocratic system of current practice’ (Hea ley
1997)
History of ‘Prepare -reveal-defend’
But….
Information provision/consultation/participation/engagement?
Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969)
Unbalanced power dynamic often remains
‘Ideal speech’ unrealistic (Habermas 1981)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-
MAKING
A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO
MOBILITY?
A new approach?
Akin to a partnership?
Conveyance of rights, and entitlement to a rights -holder
Questions of process, enforcability, appeals etc
Fundamental basis – participation and accountability
Is there a right to mobility?
Or implicit in a Right to the City? (At toh 201 2)
Part of the right to a decent standard of living (Mar tens 2006)
A ‘need -based model’ to mobility would assess ‘to what extent
the existing or future transport network is able to secure a
minimal level of accessibility for all population groups.
Through a case study in the global south, to what extent does a
rights-based approach (RBA) to governance influence the planning
and operating of mass transport systems?
How are mass transport systems currently planned, and what are the
shortcomings?
What are rights-based approaches to governance; why are they
needed and through what processes and mechanisms do they
operate?
In the chosen case study, has the RBA been applied to transport
planning and if so, what does or could an RBA approach add over and
above the current system?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
PHD THESIS
New projects
Existing BRTs
Constitutional rights
QUITO, ECUADOR…..WHY?
CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFER
http://www.terraecuador.net/documentos/carta_traq_btr_files/image070.gif
• 1995- El Trolé
• 2000- La Ecovia
• 2005, 2010, 2012 - Three bus corridors
• 135 conventional bus routes
• 4m journeys per day, 62% by public transport
• 73% of 2.2m residents classified as public transport users
Consti tut ion 2008
“Persons have the right to fully enjoy the city and its public spaces, on the basis of principles of sustainability, social justice, respect for different urban cultures and a balance between the urban and rural sectors. Exercising the right to the city is based on the democratic management of the city, with respect to the social and environmental function of property and the city and with the full exercise of citizenship”. (Art 31 )
“citizens, individually and collectively, shall participate as leading players in decision making, planning and management of public affairs” (Art 95)
The participation of citizens in all matters of public interest is a right , which shall be exercised by means of mechanisms of representative, direct and community democracy (Art 96).
Article 278 states that ‘to achieve the ‘good way of living’, it is the duty of people and communities, and their various forms of organisation….to participate in all stages and spaces of public management and national and local development planning , and in the execution and control of the fulfillment of development plans at all levels”.
CITIZEN RIGHTS
January-March 2015 (& ongoing
data collection)
Interviewed…
Retired people
People with disabilities
PT Users
Government officials (national
and city)
Academics
NGOs
Ex-Government officials
Politicians
Business owners near stations
FIELD WORK
70 questionnaires with users
Focus group with retired people
Events - academic and civil society
Documentary analysis (policy documents and
technical studies)
Media analysis (2009-present day)
Radio interviews
Social media
THE ANALYSIS CONTINUES... .
INITIAL FINDINGS
Transport-related social exclusion exists
Categorised by Church et al and Cass et al
Physical –uneven coverage within city
Organisational – overcrowding
Operational – cost subsidised, but not integrated.
Perception-based – personal safety
Demographic-based –difficult access for those in
wheelchairs
1: TRANSPORT- RELATED SOCIAL
EXCLUSION EXISTS
Not mentioned in 2009 Masterplan
Yet a Mayoral campaign commitment in same year
Oct 2010 - feasibility studies commissioned
Feb 2011- Mayor travels to Madrid - declares metro feasible
April 2011 – Executive Decree signed and National
Government commits to 50% funding
June 2011 - City Government receives final studies
……Tenders and commissioning of phase 1……
Public awareness raising programme starts July 2012.
2. TIMINGS OF THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS
Jan 2014 Phase 1 (two interchange stations) commissioned
May 2014 New Mayoral elections - winning candidate,
Rodas , claims ‘The Metro is coming’
April 2015 - Two stations completed
Summer 2015 - Shortfall of $500m for Phase 2 just about
agreed. Outcry over delay.
October 2015- Phase 2 contract awarded.
TIMINGS PART 2…
Justification for the project
‘the project has passed the most important stage, that is to determine if
it is feasible or not. It is feasible to construct a metro in Quito. The city
needs a system of this type, because it is the best mode of transport . The
Quito of today has mobility difficulties, we spend too much time travelling
from one place to another . The essence is to improve the journey time
and quality of life for residents of Quito. The city has a particular
geomorphology, it is elongated and there is no availability of physical
space on the surface’. (Edgar Jacome, CX of Metro Project, 24 th June
2011)
Justification for the route
‘The principal reason is the economic factor. For this [project] a mayor
investment is needed. Moreover, between Quitumbe and El Labrador there
is more demand for this type of massive service’. (Edgar Jacome, CX of
Metro Project, 24 th June 2011)
3. THE BASIS OF DECISIONS
Social Impact Study (October 2012)
post decision
categorised social groups based on opposition/support for project, level of
influence and level of importance
Reflecting the ‘impact that each actor could have in the development of
the project’
‘Public’ not a category
Existing public transport users
Passive support, very important, low influence as dispersed and unorganised.
Car drivers –
not a majority but very important as ‘responsible for the traffic in Quito’,
‘important to work with these to establish the characteristics that influence them
not to use public transport’
Passive support, moderate importance, little influence.
Pedestrians –
more important for the project than car drivers
4. PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS
LESS THAN REQUIRED
n=80 semi -st ructured inter v iewees
5-6 businesses by each of the proposed 15 stat ions
25 of 80 had no knowledge of the project , 3 had pr ior knowledge. Great major i ty
only learned of the project through these inter v iews.
Most knew ver y l i t t le and in many cases were confused about the detai ls ,
par t icular ly the route . Th is shows a ‘ lack of interest in th is group and a lack of
d isseminat ion about the project in th is segment of the populat ion’ .
93% are in favour of the metro
78.8% respondents thought that the Metro would negat ively af fect the i r bus iness –
reduct ion in c l ients and the increase in de l incuency, p lus impacts dur ing
construct ion (dust )
Requested that the C i ty Government
Warn them about construction activities
Have high levels of security to avoid delincuency.
Provide temporary parking at the stations
BUSINESS OWNERS NEAR TO
STATIONS
QUOTES FROM INTERVIEWEES
“The truth is no”
“No, they don’t take us into account”
“Nothing, absolutely nothing….I know that there is a law,
but in reality we do not have it”
“No, they haven’t asked us how businesses are doing, if
we will be affected’
“They always ignore us….I hope that they will ask for our
opinions and, hopefully, they will accept what we think”
LOCAL RESIDENTS
But…..
“They have to talk with the people who are here….we have
rights, and we must participate in all that they do”
“The city government came here and asked us our opinion,
one or two months ago it was, yes they came to ask us what
benefits we would have in this area, for businesses and about
the problems that we have now”……
(on rights) “I think its one of the best things because, apart
from an individual’s ability to participate, a person can know
everything that happens both at the city or the country level”
BUT…..
Socialisation events
Began July 2012
post decision and tender process already begun
13 information stations
leaflet with route shown, web-links given
‘little interest in the technical information’
many concerns about cultural heritage
PARTICIPATION CONTINUED…
Citizen Observatory for Mobil ity
Aims to understand the legal context for cit izen participation in transport issues
Has found ‘no documentary evidence of the incorporation of cit izens in the planning criteria, implementation and execution of plans and projects’ since 2008
Has polled cit izens, via Twitter (n=342) on measures to improve mobil ity
Poor road condition, potholes
Car pool system
Changing timetables
Buses given priority on roads
Take freight off the roads during the day
84% think mobility has worsened since 2008.
Conclude that City Government has not developed the institutional capacity to deal with mobil ity issues facing residents, despite suf ficient legal framework.
Nor have the ‘ implemented valid cit izen participation mechanisms’
5. ROLE OF CIVIL-SOCIETY
ORGANISATIONS
“For all these reasons we invoke and urge you, citizens and
authorities, to initiate a participatory, comprehensive and
inclusive process of technical and purposeful discussion
around this sensitive issue , in order to, if appropriate, take
immediate and urgent decisions that Quito demands”.
“The scheme of representation in Ecuador is the only real
expression that allows the citizen who does not know how to
exercise their right to participate. The participatory approach is
not granted from the authorities under any
circumstances…why?….because it is always problematic, there
are always dif ferent interests….there are always dif ficulties” (CB , 5 th Marc h 2015)
VOICE OF CSO
Mobility is fundamental to a ‘good way of living’
Mobility is unequal depending on you and the system
Do rights-based approaches hold the answer to
transport disadvantage?
THREE THINGS
Arnstein S.R. (1969) "A ladder of citizen participation." Journal of the American Institute of
planners Vol 35.4, p. 216-224.
Attoh , K . A . 201 2. The t ranspor ta t ion d i sadvantaged and the r ight to the c i t y in Sy racuse ,
New York . Geograph ica l Bu l le t in - Gamma Theta Ups i lon 53(1) , pp . 1 -19 .
Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., & Walker, G. (2002). Transport planning and participation: the rhetoric
and realities of public involvement. Journal of transport geography , 10(1), 61-73.
Cebollada, À. and Avellaneda, P. G. 2008. Equidad social en movilidad: reflexiones en torno a los
casos de Barcelona y Lima. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales
12.
Cresswe l l , T. (2010) . Towards a po l i t i cs o f mobi l i t y. Env i ronment and p lann ing . D , Soc iety
and space , 28 (1 ) , 17
Habermas , J . (1981) . The theor y o f communicat ive ac t ion : Reason and the ra t iona l i za t ion
o f soc ie ty (T. McCar thy, Trans . ) . Boston : Beacon Press .
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies . UBc Press.
Hine, J. and Mitchell, F. 2001. Better for everyone? Travel experiences and transport exclusion.
Urban Studies 38(2), pp. 319-332.
Kenyon , S . 2003. Under s tand ing soc ia l exc lus ion and soc ia l inc lus ion . Proceed ings o f the
ICE -Mun ic ipa l Eng ineer 156(2) , pp . 97 -104.
Lucas , K . 201 2. Transpor t and soc ia l exc lus ion : Where a re we now? Transpor t Po l i cy 20,
pp . 105 -113 .
Mar tens , K . 2006. Bas ing t ranspor t p lann ing on p r inc ip les o f soc ia l jus t i ce . Berke ley
P lann ing Journa l 19(1) .
SEU. 2003 . Mak ing the connect ions : t ranspor t and soc ia l exc lus ion . Soc ia l Exc lus ion Un i t ,
The S tat ioner y Of f i ce , London .
REFERENCES
Any
questions?
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING
Top Related