This online seminar drew on Professor Daniel Oviedo’s experience as a researcher and lecturer in transport and development in UK and overseas, and his research and consultancy focus on urban and inter-urban transport, having worked in Latin America, Africa, Asia and UK. He has been an advisor for various national governments including for Colombia, Peru, Panama, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and has been a consultant to the Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank on issues related to transport planning, social equity and sustainability. He is the Director of the International Network for Transport and Accessibility in Low-Income Communities (INTALInC) in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Professor Oviedo’s presentation examined the evolution of Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure (BRT) to a fully integrated public transit system and its effects on social and spatial inequalities in the rapidly changing and socially segregated urban environment of Bogotá, Colombia. This case example offered a perspective on what ‘success’ means for public transport megaprojects such as BRTs (if one includes associated infrastructure) both for the city of Bogotá and more generally for cities in Latin America and the wider Global South. His presentation also revealed how a growing public transport system, influenced by a major new infrastructure investment project, can contribute to structural urban transformation.
He began by explaining that the Bogotá BRT system, which has seen phased development commencing in 2001 and is still developing as a city network, can be seen as a megaproject in terms of an overall system with a major impact on the city’s urban and economic development, even though individual phases are smaller in scale and cost compared to a single ‘megaproject’. He outlined how Bogotá faces urban and economic development challenges commonly experienced by many cities in Latin America (and the wider Global South) which are distinctive from cities in more developed countries. The city’s key challenges are high growth in population and urban expansion, high population density, very unequal distribution of incomes with a major contrast between low and high-income groups, and a major mismatch between the location of the city’s residents and the location of businesses and jobs. Low-income groups are geographically typically concentrated in high-density areas on the urban periphery, but businesses and job opportunities are concentrated in the city’s central area. Higher-income groups reside in lower density areas generally closer to the centre. Before the BRT was introduced to Bogotá in the early 2000s, the city’s transport infrastructure was largely road and car based, and contributed to this inequality: travel to work was having a major impact on low-income groups due to low car ownership and lack of good public transport resulting in low access to job opportunities, a high percentage of trips by necessity by walking, and (for longer travel to work trips across the city) relatively high percentage of income spent on travel to work. Additionally before the BRT was developed, because travel across the city was mainly by car this resulted in major congestion especially in the central area.
To address these issues, during the 1990s the city authority (led by the Mayor) considered the development of new public transport infrastructure for the city. A cost-benefit analysis undertaken at the time indicated that BRT offered a lower cost option and better cost-benefit ratio, compared to light rail transit or conventional rail links (and cost was a major consideration for the city’s limited budgetary capacity). There was an added benefit of promoting BRT in that it was presented as a sustainable public transport in line with UN Sustainable Development Goals. Phase 1 of the Transmilenio BRT system commenced in 2001, with later phases added in the 2000s to form a network focused on the main road corridors across the city, especially to/from the central area. This has since been deemed highly successful by many transport and urban planning specialists internationally. Bogotá was one of the earliest cities in the world to adopt a BRT approach, with a rapid expansion in adoption of the approach by other cities from 2000 to the present, especially in the Global South.
The speaker however explained how this ‘success’ was diluted by the fact that project appraisal study undertaken prior to the BRT’s introduction under-emphasised considerations of social equity, in particular the geographical distribution of benefits to the city’s population especially in terms of improved accessibility to job opportunities. The city authority gave priority to access to the central area of Bogotá (where much of the businesses and job opportunities are located) but phase 1 and subsequent early phases focused on links between the centre and the middle-income and high-income areas. Although later phases of the Transmilenio provided links between the centre and lower-income areas, Professor Oviedo argued that the apparent improvement in access to jobs was not reflected in passenger usage. He contended that the concept of accessibility should cover not only the availability of physical transport links but also the economic and social aspects associated with the use of these links, including the affordability of the services provided. Geographical analysis of accessibility to jobs enabled by phase one of the BRT scheme showed that the low-income areas still experienced relatively poor access to job opportunities especially to/from Bogota’s central area, even with the new Transmilenio routes available, due to the cost of their ticket fares.
In recognition of this, in 2013 the city authority initiated a pilot public transport subsidy scheme targeted on low-income residents based on an assigned assessment score, with amendments to the scheme made in 2016. A subsequent appraisal study using cost-benefit analysis was positive, and the scheme has resulted in a large increase in use of the Transmilenio by low-income groups – which then raised an issue of whether/how this initiative could be continued due to affordability concerns within the city authority’s budget. Professor Oviedo’s conclusions regarding this matter were that this approach has great potential to help promote a greater social focus on transport policies/infrastructure, not only in Bogotá but also for other cities, if accompanied by a greater examination of targeting mechanisms, explicit assessment of distributional impacts, and more discussion of sustainable public transport financing in the face of city budget pressures (including alternative financing sources).
The presenter also offered some comments on the role of the project planning and appraisal process employed for the BRT scheme as part of the Transmilenio, especially for the early phases. He considered that the city’s planning process was largely expert-led with little opportunity for participation by different stakeholder groups, notably low-income groups. This, combined with political forces and decision-making power within the city authority, resulted in initial priority to areas of the city with highest attractiveness and wealth, with little attention to less profitable parts of the city network irrespective of need, and little recognition of the diversity of travel needs across different social groups. He concluded the seminar by offering a different approach to planning and appraising public transport megaprojects based on what he referred to as ‘infrastructure and transport justice’, using three dimensions of social justice: equitable distribution (equitable access and mobility of all citizens in a sustainable manner), reciprocal recognition (transport planning, management and operation that recognises different social group identities), and party political participation (a transport system that actively engages all citizens in deliberations and decisions on its current and future nature).
The presentation was followed by a discussion session including comments from an expert panel comprising Juan Alberti and Professor Julio Davila. The former is a researcher and consultant in the field of infrastructure development who has worked as an international consultant for multilateral institutions such as the Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, and the United Nations in several Latin American and the Caribbean countries. Professor Davila is Professor of Urban Policy and International Development at the Bartlett’s Development Planning Unit, UCL. He has extensive experience in research and consultancy in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, including advisory roles at Universidad Nacional de Colombia, British Academy, and Children Change Colombia, and a consultancy role to the World Bank, GIZ (the international development agency of the German government) and DFID (UK government department for international development, now part of the Foreign Office).
Discussion focused mainly on the practical challenges of implementing Daniel’s wider approach to the planning and appraisal of transport infrastructure projects, with various points made including:
promotion of social equity in transport planning and appraisal is very much an issue of political power and priorities, and institutional perspective – transport operators and planners in Latin America approach still have a largely technical and economic efficiency perspective;
transport planning devolved to local authorities seems to be more responsive to social considerations than planning by larger authorities, which typically drive the promotion of megaprojects;
there is a major challenge of resolving conflicts of interest between decision-makers and other stakeholders;
transport planners (in Latin America) generally pay little attention to low-income groups and peripheral urban areas (which are typically low-income areas) since these groups and areas have little power or political weight; urban planners are inclined to pay more attention, but seem to have less influence on transport megaproject planning and appraisal;
transport project appraisal still pays little attention to benefits of carbon-reduction;
transport project appraisal seems to pay little attention to the differential social impacts/costs of infrastructure construction, which often falls disproportionally on lower-income areas; and
cost-benefit analysis remains heavily focused on economics, but perhaps a greater/additional focus on social costs and benefits is possible by recognising that it could generate political capital.
The general feeling in the seminar was that there remains a formidable challenge in changing ‘business as usual’ practices from a primary focus on the project business case, to use of wider metrics for project appraisal, particularly for mega transport projects.
The presentation slides of the seminar are available on the OMEGA Centre website: http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk
Associate
OMEGA Centre, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, UK
[email protected]