Hickman, R

English

UCL Discovery

Think of most of our transport investments – forexample a new highway, public transport or cyclingproject – and usually it is the higher-income groupsthat benefit most. These are the groups that use the new infrastructure to reach desired activities, or are least affected by adverse impacts such as air pollution, noise and severance. Typically, weoverlook these issues in transport planning,assuming that all will benefit from new infrastructureinvestment to the same degree, disregarding manyimportant equity issues. Of course, distributionalanalysis is challenging – the population that is  Town & Country Planning November 2019affected might be difficult to estimate; for example,they might move into or out of the affectedneighbourhood as a response to the interventionand hence are easily lost in any analysis.However, this position is becoming increasinglyuntenable as social equity differences becomegreater. The research on social equity (see Piketty’sCapital in the Twenty-First Century,1 etc.) isgenerally showing that inequity is getting worseover generations and that this is unacceptable forthe disadvantaged groups and also for society as awhole as resources are wasted.off the railsRobin Hickman examines the development of cycling networks in Bogotá – illustrating how transport investments can be directly targeted at disadvantaged groupsusing the difference principleHigh-quality, segregated cycle routes in low-income neighbourhoods in BogotáRobin HickmanTown & Country Planning November 2019Much of the contemporary research on socialequity mentions the work of Rawls,2 and oftendevelops some of the concepts he put forward. Anexample is his mind game of the ‘veil of ignorance’,which assumed that, in the hypothetical ‘originalposition’, we do not know the interests werepresent. Hence, if applied in public policy, we would favour disadvantaged groups whenconsidering which investments to prioritise. Wewould be concerned that we might be within adisadvantaged group, hence would give investmentto help these groups. His difference principledevelops this idea – such that the position of the least advantaged should be maximised.The question is: how we might apply this intransport? Perhaps we can understand the possibilitiesby examining practice internationally. An example is found in the cycling networks being developed inBogotá, where low-income neighbourhoods arepurposively given high-quality cycling routes.Bogotá has the most extensive network of cycleroutes of any city in South America. Known as theciclorrutas (cycle paths), these have gradually beendeveloped from the 1990s onwards into anextensive cycle network covering many of thedifferent neighbourhoods in the city, including thelower-income areas in the suburban outer areas.Progressive city mayors, particularly EnriquePeñalosa, were important in giving cycling supportand priority for investment.Cycling on the congested highways is veryuncomfortable in a busy city such as Bogotá, withhigh levels of traffic, including cars, taxis, buses andgoods vehicles – and much conflict with cyclists.This type of cycling is only for the very brave; trafficand cycle collisions are common, and often fatal orlife-threatening. Air pollution levels are very high –and add to the uncomfortable nature of cycling onbusy roads without cycle routes.Over time, cycling has been given much greaterpriority in Bogotá, and cycle facilities are beingimplemented with higher quality, includingsegregated routes – hence more people can beexpected to cycle. Over 550 kilometres of ciclorrutashave been built, allowing easy access from mostneighbourhoods, including the low-income areas,such as Kennedy. 80% of cyclists are from the threelowest income strata (the neighbourhoods in thecity are divided into six income categories). Cycleusage is tracked with an App, and it is possible tosee how cycling is distributed through manyneighbourhoods in the city, including travel from off the railsSimilar high-quality cycling in the city centre in BogotáRobin Hickmanthe poorer suburbs to employment locations in thecity centre. The cycle network allows people toparticipate in life in the city.There are different types of cycle route provision.The principal cycle corridors have segregated routesand connect the city centre to the peripheral areasin the south, north and west. Segregated routes run Town & Country Planning November 2019along the edge of road corridors or in the medianstrip; sometimes these are tree-lined and wellremoved from traffic. Temporary interventions areoften used to test applicability, with cyclists dividedfrom traffic by barriers – these help to assess thedemand for routes and acceptability, and generatelocal community support for interventions. The cycleoff the railsTracking cycle usage in BogotáBogotá Capital Mundial de la Bici. UnaVisión de Ciudad 3Town & Country Planning November 2019network is therefore developed in an iterativeprocess over time, testing facilities with users andgradually providing improved infrastructure.Cycling is now the fastest growing mode inBogotá – in 2015, the mode share for cycling was at5% of trips, with TransMilenio bus rapid transit(BRT) at 15%, other bus at 29%, pedestrian at 30%,and private car at 11%. Later surveys indicate thatcycling mode share has risen to 9%-10% of tripsand that now more than 1 million trips are made bycycles in Bogotá every day.3The provision of cycle networks was part of theresponse to the urban problems in Bogotá in the1990s, including rapid population growth, migrationfrom the countryside, the growth of informalsettlements, and poor-quality, unregulated publictransport. Cycle routes have purposively beendeveloped in lower-income areas to provide accessto the city for all, including for employment,education and leisure activities. An example is theAlameda El Porvenir cycle route, which links twolow-income communities in the south west of thecity. The cycle route was built before the developmenttook place in the surrounding neighbourhoods, andhence became the ‘spine’ to the area, shaping howit grew.The cycle routes also integrate with the BRTinterchange stations, providing ‘last mile’ connectivityto the bus network. High-quality cycle parking isprovided at many of the BRT portals, with internal,secure parking and cycle hire and repair available.The development of the Bogotá cycle network isa clear example of targeting transport investmenttowards particular disadvantaged groups. Typically,this is not done in transport planning, whichconventionally assumes that all will benefit fromnew infrastructure investment. Indeed, investmentis usually given to projects and areas that areestimated to benefit most in economic terms – and hence is often regressive in practice.The justification from Enrique Peñalosa was that,in giving cyclists their own space, he ‘democratised’the city by giving a person with a $50 bike the samespace and right to move as a person with a $50,000car. Similarly, as all income levels start to cycle, both rich and poor meet equally on the bike lane,and gain a greater understanding of different typesof neighbourhoods and people – thus helping toresolve many social problems which are rooted ininsularity.There is much inspiration for wider application ofthese ideas in transport planning, including targetingcycle routes, public transport and other projects inlower-income neighbourhoods and for the use ofdisadvantaged groups. Think of transport investmentin London, and the focus given to projects takingpeople into central areas. Why not also use thedifference principle and give investment to the most deprived neighbourhoods – Tower Hamlets,Hackney, Newham, Haringey, Hackney, andincreasingly the outer boroughs where poverty isconcentrating, such as Brent and Barking andDagenham? Why not have a proportion of theinfrastructure budget allocated for the use ofdisadvantaged groups – even using a participatorybudget mechanism, such as being applied in Parisand Madrid?All of these ideas would strengthen thedemocratic nature of infrastructure funding. Theycan be used beyond London, in all of the cities andtowns in the UK where there are high levels ofdeprivation. This is a great task for transportplanning – to start recognising and tackling thedistributional issues. High-quality cycle networks,public realm and even tram and bus projects can be developed for all of the most socially-deprivedneighbourhoods. Transport investments should notonly be for privileged groups; they should be for allin society – allowing all of us to access the activitiesthat we wish to participate in.● Robin Hickman is Reader (Associate Professor) at theBartlett School of Planning, University College London. He is Director of the MSc in Transport & City Planning. e: r.hickman@ucl.ac.uk. The views expressed are personal.Thanks are due to Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischerZusammenarbeit (GIZ) (the German overseas funding agency)for funding an e-learning course on sustainable urban mobilityfrom which the material in this article is drawn; and to David Uniman, Dario Hidalgo and Thomas van Laake fordiscussions on cycling in Bogotá.Notes1 T Piketty: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. BelknapPress, 20142 J Rawls: A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press,19713 Bogotá Capital Mundial de la Bici. Una Visión deCiudad. Bogotá Secretaria Distrital de Movilidad, Mayorof Bogotá, 2019. https://planbici.com/alcaldia-penalosa-lanzo-el-libro/off the rails‘This is a great task fortransport planning – to startrecognising and tackling thedistributional issues’

Using the difference principle

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10086372/7/Hickman_OTR5_difference%20principle%20bogota%20cycling_Nov2019%28edited%29.pdf

Using the difference principle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery