This document summarizes a presentation on building coalitions for sustainable transport and bus rapid transit (BRT). It discusses: 1) Rethinking social sustainability and transport by focusing on health, inclusion, and resilience rather than just mobility. 2) An "ecology of modes" that integrates diverse transportation options like walking, cycling, and public transit through intermodality. 3) An "ecology of actors" that recognizes the importance of a diverse and robust network of citizen organizations in shifting to sustainability. It argues for more participatory planning and building powerful alliances to support sustainable transportation goals.

1. Mobilizing ecologies: Participation and
Intermodality to Build Coalitions Pro-
Sustainable Transport & BRT
ALC Center for BRT Excellence
Dr. Lake Sagaris
12 January 2016
Post-Doctoral Fellow and Adjunct Professor
Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence
Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable
Facultad de Ingeniería - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
http://www.brt.cl/
http://cedeus.cl/

2. Itinerary
1. Methods & definitions:
Rethinking social
sustainability and
transport
2. Ecologies of Modes
3. Ecologies of Actors
4. Final reflections
Prueba de parrilla para bicis,
Santiago, Buses Vule, 21-VIII-2015

3. 1. Rethinking social
sustainability and transport

4. 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

5. 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…

6. Start from new positionality:
outside the transport system,
looking in from the city

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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).

10. Roads as
social spaces

11. Inequalities and transport: on the road
Modal distribution, some cities (%)
City
Walk/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
NewYork 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

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

13. vs. Roads as
multi-purpose, nourishing
socially essential, public and
civic places

14. “Livable” Streets
Appleyard, 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...

15. 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.

16. Livability (creativity, income,
environmental services)
Art Recycling Service

17. 2. An ecology of modes

18. “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.

19. Forms of bike-bus integration
Main 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 cities
3 Bikes on rail cars Common in Europe, off-peak US
4 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, UK
10 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).

20. + 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/rural
KEY
Walk
Cycle
Public
transport
Car

21. 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%

22. 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)

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

24. 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
rPeerReview
1. Total number of automobile trips in the Bay Area (top) and Santiago (bottom) suitable for mode
ased on distance thresholds.

25. Potential for modal shift targets
ForPe
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
of 24 Journal of Planning Education and Research

26. 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.

27. Implications for equity &
sustainability
Comfortable, cheap Walk-Bike-Public
Transport integration is essential to car-free
lifestyle, which is most sustainable

28. 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?

29. 3. An ecology of actors

30. Based on
success in
cycle inclusion
Santiago RM, 2006-2012
Cycling modal share doubled
Image went from obsolete and
poor to trendy and “in”
Cyclepaths quadrupled
Women’s share up
Cyclists rising 20-25% main paths

31. 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

32. In the planning system

33. Different views from different disciplines

34. Linear view of change
Citizens with
good ideas
Technical
staff
Politicians
Change (laws, regulations,
procedures, policies,
programs,
projects)
Implementation
Technical
staff
X

36. Nacional
Regional
Local
Regional

39. The importance of civil society
(organized citizens)

40. And the kind of “participation”
Susskind et al. 1983.
Conflicto Paternalismo Coproducción

41. Paternalism: Predominant today (in
Chile) . It is sterile.
Delivers information
Controls
Imposes
Power
¡Yes!
Citizens

42. 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.

43. More fruitful:
Co-produce, collaborate
Power
Deliberation
Diversity
Interdependence (Booher &
Innes 2002)
I understand
Builds strategic conviction
Systemic change
Credibility and continuity
Mesa Ciudadanía - Gobierno para el Plan
de Ciclo Rutas del Bicentenario
(2007-2010), con asesoría holandesa.

44. Nested scales: Personal, social,
political
Changes the
individual
Changes the group
Influences the
community
Interactions at global
and national scales
The world in the
local

45. Understand we are an “ecology” of
actors
Diverse
Interdependent
With different profiles,
leaderships, strategies
and organizations, and
some common objectives

46. 4. Final reflections

47. 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?

48. 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 paths
Cycling
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…

49. Urban measures
Cycling economy
Behavioural change
To focus on the crucial balance
between systemic elements

50. Government:
regional & local
Private sector
Civil Society
And actors

51. 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

52. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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