CASE STUDY: THE METRO PROJECT IN QUITO, ECUADOR

GAYLE WOOTTON

WOOTTONG1@CARDIFF.AC.UK

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