Sustainability and Transportation: Creating Equity in Brasilia’s Social
Landscape
Carolina Silva (single author)
MLA Graduate Student
Department of Landscape Architecture
Pennsylvania State University
[email protected]
121 Stuckeman Family Building
University Park, PA 16803
Abstract
There is large acknowledgement that transportation systems based on private
automobiles are not sustainable. However, most developed and developing
countries are experiencing increasing rates of automobile ownership with
consequential decreases in public transportation ridership, bicycling, and walking.
The disconnection between transportation planning and sustainability affects many
countries but is more devastating in cities of developing countries. Unsustainable
transportation systems exacerbate issues of access to urban centers and equality of
opportunities, and are not socially sustainable. This paper explores the aspects of
social sustainability in transportation in Brasília, Brazil, designed under the principles
of functionalism in 1956. It addresses some of the impacts of transportation in the
social landscape and provides an overview of social exclusion in transportation in
Brasilia.
2
Introduction
Transportation is one of the most visible manifestations of modern
societies, bridging distances, connecting people, and contributing to economic
development (Black and Nijkamp 2002). It is also a major structural element of
landscapes, especially urban. In cities, most activities depend on the movement of
people and goods, and accessibility to localities play a major role in the social
production of spaces. For all these important factors, transportation has great
impact on economic, social, and environmental dimensions of modern societies.
Unfortunately, transportation’s impacts are not always positive, as transportation
systems can contribute to economic failure of communities, environmental
degradation, and social exclusion. In fact, most modern transportation systems do
not address sustainability concerns at all (Vasconcellos 2001).
The concept of sustainability is fairly new, very variable in terms of
approach, and is still evolving (Wheeler 1998), although it has a common ground:
equilibrium among human and natural systems. The idea of sustainability evolved
from the 1960s and 1970s environmental movements, and began to acquire status as
an official policy among governments particularly after its adoption by the World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), established in 1983 by
the United Nations General Assembly. The WCED report, also called the
Brundtland report, established the tripartite definition of sustainability, which is the
equilibrated relation among economic needs, social well-being, and environmental
protection (Zetter and White 2002).
For all its importance in structuring modern societies, and as a main
consumer of natural resources, transportation has a major role in sustainable
development. Since early 1990s the issues of sustainability in transportation have
been greatly researched, with large advances in understanding transportation’s
3
economic, environmental and social impacts and costs, as well as planning and
evaluating alternatives (Banister 1980; Hilling 1996; Gehl and Gemzoe 2001; Black
and Nijkamp 2002; UITP 2003; Root 2003). Besides the undeniable importance of
these studies, the issue of social justice and equity as major components of
sustainable transportation systems have not received the same importance, and the
number of studies addressing them is much smaller, especially concerning
developing countries. Transportation research has focused on logistical, and
technological aspects, as well as ‘econometric models of travel behavior’ (Root
2003), with little concern for how transportation affects and interacts with social
exclusion (McKenzie 2003; Solomon 2003; Donaghy, Poppelreuter, and Rudinger
2005). Transportation systems will never achieve true and lasting sustainability
unless the related social aspects are furthered explored, and unless we acknowledge
them as intrinsic and necessary components to achieving sustainable societies.
The issue of social sustainability in transportation affects and involves both
developed and developing countries, though sustainable transportation systems are
particularly rare in developing countries (Vasconcellos 2001), resulting in aggravated
social issues related to transportation, such as equity of access, travel time, comfort,
affordability, safety and others. Since developing countries face larger social
disparities, they also face greater challenges in addressing these social issues.
This paper explores the social aspects of sustainability in transportation in
developing countries, and, most specifically, the spatial dimension of social
exclusion in transportation. These issues are explored in the city of Brasília, the
capital of Brazil. This paper is part of a larger study that aims to develop a
theoretical and methodological framework that, although here applied to one case
study, can be extended to other contexts and serve to comprehend transportation
social impacts in a more global context.
4
The paper is organized in 4 parts. The first is a theoretical overview,
including the construction of an ethical argument for social equity in transportation,
as well as discussions of how citizenship, social exclusion, and the right to the city
are related. It also discusses the concepts of sustainability, social sustainability, and
their applications in transportation. The second part is a historical overview of
Brasilia and its urban planning in order to inform the audience, as well as to set the
evidences of Brasilia’s automobile driven planning. The third section is Brasilia’s
case study on social exclusion in transportation. It was developed using quantitative
data (from the Household survey on transportation done by the Company for
Planning of the Federal District [Companhia de Planejamento do Distrito Federal in
portuguese - CODEPLAN] and qualitative data collected by the researcher through
participatory observations of low-income people’s trips during one given weekday.
The last section is the conclusion, with discussions of possible alternatives and
future research.
Significance
Sustainability is a multidimensional concept that includes at least
environmental, economic and social concerns. In transportation research, the
environmental and economic impacts are well known and developed, with an
extensive literature. On the other hand, the social dimension of sustainable
transportation has been essentially unaddressed; with fewer authors dedicated to it,
although social concerns constitute a major component of sustainability. There has
been research focusing on social sustainability in North America and Europe, but
the gap is much larger for developing countries. This research will help to fill this
gap, providing a perspective focused on developing countries and their challenges to
achieve equity in transportation.
5
Theoretical framework - Social inclusion in transportation: an ethical
argument for accessibility
Citizenship, social inclusion and equity
Citizenship is a multidimensional concept, with several different definitions.
In general, citizenship entails the idea of belonging to a group or society; it has the
meaning of membership and participation. All who possess the status of citizens are
equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed
(Marshall 1997).
If citizenship ensures equality of duties, but most importantly for this study,
of rights among citizens, it is closely related to inclusionary and exclusionary
processes. Those who are citizens have full access to the community; those who are
not are excluded from the community, from the society. This is the key to social
inclusion, and conversely, to social exclusion, that being defined as the inability of
an individual or group of individuals to participate in the political, social and
economical functions of the community in which they live, thus being inextricably
linked with inequity, because some groups are granted with full access to these
benefits, and some are not (Buvinic 2004). Those who are socially excluded have an
extremely important part of their citizenship denied.
Citizenship is, therefore, full participation in society, granting full access to
its benefits. The Brasilia case study explores how physical access to the city through
an equitable public transportation system can benefit excluded communities, and
help restore their full citizenship. This is defined as ‘the right to the city’, which is
not only the right to access the location where all these activities take place, but also
‘the place where different people with different projects (…) struggle over the shape
6
of the city, the terms of access to the public realm, and even the rights of
citizenship’ (Mitchell 2003). The city is the stage for democracy, and access to it is a
premise of citizenship.
Mobility, accessibility, transportation and citizenship
Considering the context above, one fundamental dispute in the urban space
is for less commuting time. In most countries, the ruling elites and upper classes
produce an urban space that optimizes its automobile commuting needs, therefore
worsening the conditions for other classes. When the state invests in a
transportation system that prioritizes the private automobile instead of public
transportation it increases the differences among social classes, improving the
accessibility and mobility of some in detriment of others (Villaça 2001).
Mobility is an important indicator for quality of life, since to move around
the city is a basic requirement for the fulfillment of many human activities, be it for
leisure, work, education or commercial purposes. As such, spatial mobility is directly
related to social inclusion. While some can choose their mobility patterns freely,
there are large portions of populations, in developed as well as in developing
countries, living with restrictive and ineffective mobility opportunities, a condition
perpetuated by the concentration of infrastructure investments that privilege the
automobile over the public transportation system. In all cities, but most especially in
cities of developing countries where the absolute majority of the population cannot
afford to have and maintain a car, these inequalities in transportation planning
creates social and economic inequalities, and increase spatial segregation by making
movement of low-income population difficult or even impeding it.
Unfortunately, following the example of developed countries, many
developing countries have invested in car-oriented transportation planning, even
though this does not benefit the majority of their population (Vasconcellos 2001).
7
These developments have great impact on encouraging people to buy cars; therefore
raising motorization levels (table 1). With higher incentives to private cars, public
transportation becomes less attractive and effective, ridership decreases, and
environmental and social problems are acerbated. Public transportation is struggling
to compete with the private automobile all around the world (Cervero 1998).
If a government does not plan for its reality, it deviates from its main goal,
which is to represent the population and its interests. It violates the rights of its
people, and, therefore, must be held accountable for perpetuating inequities in its
society. When the population faces mobility constraints, it affects their access to the
city and its assets, violating people’s constitutional rights, and depriving them of
their full citizenship. The paradoxical relationship between the government’s
purpose of defending its people, and its role as a perpetrator of its own population’s
problems challenge its existence, and the concept of democracy itself.
Another paradigm: sustainable mobility
As transportation systems are main structures of urban space and social
practices, as well as a main consumer of non-renewable resources, true sustainable
development cannot be achieved without considering them, and, most importantly,
redefining them. The concept of sustainability in transportation and more broadly,
of sustainable mobility, is defined to establish a new paradigm for the movement of
people and goods through space, one that considers the social and environmental
impacts of transportation rather than only its economic needs.
As the concept of sustainability itself is very variable, so are the concepts of
sustainable transport, i.e. sustainable transportation systems, and sustainable
mobility. These concepts are often restricted to the environmental dimension,
limiting the understanding to ‘those that meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs’ (Tolley 2003). Since
8
all impacts of human development, including transportation, have multidimensional
consequences, not only environmental, this is a narrow and simplistic
comprehension of sustainability. If sustainability depends on equilibrated relations
between natural and human systems, we cannot superimpose one for the other; we
need to consider the human interactions with the environment and their needs. In
this paper more holistic approaches to sustainability in transportation are
considered, especially those that focus on the social aspects.
The concept of sustainable transportation systems includes the
characteristics of the transportation system necessary to achieve sustainability.
Basically, it allows society to access the benefits of the city in a manner consistent to
the environment’s capacity and to the society’s needs. It is affordable, efficient,
offers mode options, limits pollution emissions and natural resources consumption,
and recycles when possible (UITP 2003).
The concept of sustainable mobility is broader than that of sustainable
transportation systems because it involves not only the system’s performance but
also the user’s characteristics. Therefore, sustainable mobility clearly implies social
justice and equity of opportunity in transportation, aiming towards equity of access
among all citizens.
Sustainable mobility’s main goal is reducing the social and environmental
impacts of the existing motorized mobility, i.e. excessive use of private vehicle
transportation. It prioritizes the pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation over
private motorized modes, through adequate management of investments, incentives,
and formulation of policies and plans that consider the social, environmental and
economic impacts to present and future generations (UITP 2003). This is a holistic
approach, which takes into account not only the environmental and economic
issues, but most importantly, the social dimension of sustainability.
9
The social dimension of sustainable mobility
The social dimension of sustainability in transportation deals with issues of
social exclusion and inequity of access related to transportation. It is clear that there
are relationships between low mobility, relative inaccessibility, and social
disadvantage (Pickup and Giuliano 2005) although the complexity of these relations
are not completely understood, and the aspects that compose this complexity greatly
differ depending on the author. Despite these varieties, there is consensus around
the idea that social sustainability in transportation demands systems that privilege
the access of minorities and the poor to the benefits of the city, namely jobs,
education, health, leisure, and shops (Vasconcellos 2001; Root 2003; Solomon 2003;
Lucas 2004; ITRANS 2004; Donaghy, Poppelreuter, and Rudinger 2005; Pickup and
Giuliano 2005). This can be achieved through investments in public transportation
and non-motorized modes (the most affordable and environmentally friendly)
and/or better distribution of the location of the city’s benefits.
The aspects that compose social sustainability in transportation vary in the
literature, so we compiled and adapted them to the following items, which will be
considered for the analysis of the case study: trips per transportation mode and
income; infrastructure supply per mode; location of jobs and educational
institutions; safety; mobility levels by income; trip purpose; and time spent on trips.
Transportation and Exclusion in Brazil
In the middle 1950s, Brazil (figure 1) experienced great industrial
development and growth, heavily financed by international capital, mostly from
United States. Consequently, the country suffered intense and mostly unplanned
urbanization, which began in 1955, with the governmental project ‘fifty years in five’
under President Kubitschek. It was a period of great economic growth as Brazil
10
intensified its industrialization process, both in urban and rural areas. Machines
substituted labor in agriculture, and huge numbers of people migrated from rural to
urban areas, in such a fast process that cities could not properly absorb it. In less
than 30 years, Brazil changed from a rural society to one of the most urbanized
countries in the world. Lots of favelas, vilas, and “informal” settlements – all spatial
manifestations of social segregation - were established during that period, and proof
that the cities’ governments could not cope with the rapid urban growth they faced.
These problems intensified social disparity and exclusion in the landscape (Villaca
2001).
Today, Brazil is considered a highly urbanized developing country.
Currently, 83% of its more than 180 million inhabitants live in cities, with a
prevision of population increasing to more than 200 million by the year 2010
(ANTP 2003). This population increment alone will be responsible for an increase
of 20% in the number of daily trips, which will augment from 200 million to 240
million trips/day (ANTP 2003).
There is a close relationship among poverty, social exclusion and spatial
segregation in Brazil. It is proved that the poorer the person, the largest percentage
of income is spent on transportation (Gomide 2003; ANTP 2003; Pickup and
Giuliano 2005). Brazilian families that have monthly income up to 2 minimum
wages (MW)1 spend up to 16% on transportation and public services. Mobility
patterns2 also vary among social classes. People with monthly income of less than 2
MW perform 60% of their daily activities through walking, while people with
monthly income superior to 20 MW perform 80% of their daily activities by car.
Walking is a more sustainable mobility pattern indeed. Though, if we
consider that most of the low-income communities in Brazil are located in the
periphery of cities, far from where the jobs are, either they are not getting to the city
11
as much as they need to, or they are taking too long to get there by walking. Gomide
provides data on the motivation for walking, and most of the low-income people
interviewed affirmed they walked because they couldn’t afford the rates of the
public transportation. This is social exclusion transformed into spatial exclusion
(Gomide 2003).
In 2001, 45% of the Brazilian population earned less than 3 MW per month,
but they represented only 27% of the public transportation users. Considering that
the majority of this segment of the population does not have access to private
transportation, this data indicates low mobility levels3 (ITRANS 2004). Problems
range from high fares of public transportation, poor service offered, distant bus and
metro stations or stops, low frequency, long travels, more than one line necessary to
achieve destinations, delays and irregular schedules, security issues, and
overcrowding (ITRANS 2004).
Brasilia: Brazilian Case Study in Sustainable Transportation
Brasilia4 (figure 2) is more than Brazil’s national capital; it is the realization
of the conquest of the national territory, the iconic symbol of a development
project, and a physical expression of a new political era for Brazil. Brasilia was born
out of the dream of claiming the interior lands of the gigantic country, of escaping
the political corruption of Rio de Janeiro (the former capital), and of framing a new
vision for Brazil – one of development and future.
The idea of transferring the capital to the hinterlands dates from the 17th
century, and was formalized in the Brazilian Constitution of 1891. After that, there
were 2 exploratory expeditions to the interior of the country in order to define the
best location for Brasilia5 (Batista, Ficher and Leitao 2002). Due to political reasons,
the transfer of the capital was put aside until 1952, when the congress approved
12
final and definitive studies for the location of the capital. In the presidential
campaign of 1955, candidate Juscelino Kubitschek, later elected, used the
construction of Brasilia as a political platform. He would be the one to transform
more than a hundred years of discussions and speculations into reality.
In the end of his first mandate year, 1956, Kubitschek, assisted by the
Brazilian Institute of Architects [IAB] called for a national competition for the pilot
plan of the new capital. The regulations of the competition asked for basic design
principles and a justification report. The criteria for selecting the winning proposal
demanded that the design was completely different from any other Brazilian city
with the same population (600,000 inhabitants), and reflected the grandiosity and
monumentality of Brazil. These demands clearly reflect the symbolic importance of
the new capital, which should not even resemble traditional Brazilian urbanism,
deviated from colonial sources, and, instead, should represent the new development
path Brazil would attempt to follow. The winning project designed by architect and
urbanist Lucio Costa fulfilled these criteria completely, based on the ideas of
functionalist urbanism synthesized in the Athens Charter (ICOMOS 1987; Ficher
2000).
Lucio Costa’s pilot plan for Brasilia was mostly a written report, illustrated
with sketches and small perspectives, complemented by one drawing with a
schematic plan. The report was structured in 23 items, each concerning an aspect of
the city’s plan. Not surprisingly, transportation was a major component of the
report, and one of the most innovative aspects of the plan, at that point of time.
Eight of the 23 items of the report are devoted to transportation.
Costa’s plan: consequences to transportation social exclusion in Brasilia
The most important aspects related to transportation in Costa’s plan are: the
city is structured by two traffic axes that have ‘fast central lanes’ and no
13
intersections, clearly devoted to motorized transportation (figure 3); the separation
between motorized and pedestrian traffic; the importance given to the automobile6,
which occupies even the center city7 (figure 4); the fact that the automobile was
considered ‘domesticated’ and ‘one of the family’; the strict single-use zoning; the
failure to address the city’s future expansion, especially low income. It was totally
designed in accordance to Kubitschek’s aspiration to build a city to the automobile
(Ficher 2000).
The consequences are severe to sustainable mobility as the city is automobile
dependent. The distances among the different sectors is large, imposing great
separation between places to live, work, shop, and have leisure. These distances
demand motorized transportation for the completion of most daily activities,
contributing to the dehumanization of the public spaces. The large, uninterrupted
roads, as well as the large availability of free parking increase automobile efficiency,
making them highly desirable. Brasilia has a very low ratio of people per car– only
1.3 – and devotes more space to roads and parking than most of the other
researched Brazilian cities besides Sao Paulo (table 3). However, Sao Paulo is a
world megalopolis whose scale makes this comparison unreasonable (ANTP 2003).
Low-income housing: the satellite cities and urban sprawl
Lucio Costa addressed housing for different social classes in a very utopian
and ingenuous manner. In his plan, all classes would live within the same
neighborhoods, and this would be regulated by different prices on the apartment
buildings8 (Costa 1960). The government would be responsible for providing
adequate housing to avoid slums and favelas. Unfortunately, Costa’s idea of social
gradation was not economically feasible, and the government failed to reinforce this
aspect of the plan. The planned section of the city is very expensive, with lowdensity and high quality infrastructure, which was not compatible with low incomes
14
and low tax revenue. Today, the price per square meter of an apartment located in a
superblock in Brasilia is around US$ 2,000, double the price of similar
neighborhoods in Brazilian cities with comparable population (Correio Braziliense
2003).
According to Costa’s plan, Brasilia could support up to 600,000 inhabitants.
After the city’s population achieved this number, satellite cities9 would be
constructed to accommodate the expanding population (Costa 1960). However,
several reasons leaded the government to anticipate this urban solution, and the first
satellite city, Taguatinga, was inaugurated in 1958, even before Brasilia was finished
(Ficher 2000).
The need to construct an entire city in 4 years demanded a large work force,
and great number of workers migrated from all over Brazil to Brasilia. The
possibility of a new, successful life in the city of the future was also a main attraction
source. The government expected most of the workers to return to their original
hometowns, which never happened. In fact, the workers ended up bringing their
families along as an attempt to establish a life in the new capital. This immense lowincome population settled on the margins of Brasilia, in shantytowns without any
basic infrastructure. They quickly proliferated.
Poverty and misery were absolutely incompatible with the symbolic
importance of Brasilia, which was not supposed to reproduce the great socioeconomical problems of other Brazilian metropolis. The government decided to
evacuate the slums, transferring their population to satellite cities distancing at least
25 km from the capital. It was a clear attempt to forge the fallacy of Brasilia and the
new Brazil as represented in Kubitschek’s development plan. The satellite cities
were a cheap and fast solution to hide all the poverty that Brasilia attracted but was
never able to change.
15
From before its inauguration, Brasilia defined its urban pattern: a rich center
city, surrounded by low-income sprawl, which aggravated issues of accessibility
across its social landscape (figure 5).
Mobility in Brasilia today
This part of the research was accomplished combining quantitative data
from the survey developed by the Federal District Government and qualitative data
collected by the researcher through participatory observation. The researcher
consensually followed 4 persons that live in Ceilandia, a low-income satellite city, in
all their trips during one given weekday. The main objective was to illustrate the
quantitative data with real situations, using personal statements, photographs, and
the researcher’s own observations. The research participants were chosen by their
work location – in Brasilia, in another satellite city or in Ceilandia - so there would
be examples of all possible travels. The names of the people involved were changed
to preserve their identity.
Travel per transportation mode and income
The transportation modal split in Brasilia is similar to other Brazilian and
developing cities (table 2), with high percentages of trips by public transportation
and walking: 33.62% of trips are by public transportation, 36.70% by car, 27.83%
walking, and only 1.85% by bicycle or motorcycle. The more sustainable modes,
which are public transit (see Appendices), walking and bicycling account for 64.30%
of travels in Brasilia. This mode pattern is much more environmentally sustainable
than those of most developed countries, where the share of travels by private cars is
much larger. The challenge in Brasilia, as well as in most cities of developing
countries is that this high travel share of sustainable modes is not the outcome of
transportation planning and policing that prioritizes public transportation over cars.
It rather indicates that the population is highly dependent on public transit and non-
16
motorized modes because they cannot afford to use the more comfortable, safe and
flexible mode: the automobile. The population does not have a choice; they are
obligated to use the public transportation, as well as to walk and bike. This
environmentally friendly pattern is ironically supported by low incomes and poverty,
and this is clearly not socially sustainable (figure 6).
The anecdotal evidence collected through participatory observations
illustrates the social exclusion described by the quantitative data. For example, Ana,
25, works as a secretary during the day and studies Law at night, both in Brasilia.
She uses several strategies in order not to use public buses, which she considers
slow, time consuming, and uncomfortable. She goes to work by car with a friend,
and pays the bus fare to help her friend with the cost. Other 2 people do the same,
so the car is always full. To go from work to school, she gets a ride, this time for
free, with another co-worker that studies in the same college. To go back home,
since there is no public bus available at the time classes ends – 11:00 pm – and
because the 10 minute walk from the bus stop to her house is dangerous, Ana pays a
private bus that runs from her college to Ceilandia, and leaves her at the door of her
house. Ana spends 18% of her salary on transportation. She clearly believes that the
solution to her transportation problem would be to own a car.
Besides Brasilia’s automobile driven planning, 45.98% of the households do
not possess a car, while only 17.55% have more than 1 car per household. This
means that people either travel chain a lot or that very few people have access to
cars on a daily basis. In the case of the participants, none personally owns cars,
though other members of the family (parents or siblings) may have them. They did
not use the cars available at their households because the people that owned them
had different schedules or worked in different areas of the city, although they all
expressed a desire to use them.
17
Infrastructure supply by mode
Brasilia has 457,800 m2 of paved roads and 114, 450 m2 of parking lots
(ANTP 1999). These numbers are higher than in any Brazilian city, except Sao
Paulo. Even cities with larger populations and larger motorized fleet, such as Rio de
Janeiro, have much lower areas destined to motorized transportation, and, in the
case of parking area, areas dedicated exclusively to private cars.
In terms of public transportation, the most important mode, the bus, as well
as the alternative vans, have no infrastructure exclusively designed to improve their
performance, such as busways. The buses run on mixed traffic, suffering the
consequences of congestion due to the excess of cars even though they carry many
more people in the same space; one bus can carry up to 70 passengers in the same
space of 2 cars, which carry 10 people at the most.
The metro has great potential to increase its ridership once integrated with
the bus system. For now, the metro is underutilized due to the lack of connectivity
to the rest of the transportation system and small coverage (figure 7).
There are no bike paths or bike lanes for functional purposes in Brasilia. The
infrastructure for bikes is restricted to bike paths inside urban parks dedicated to
leisure activities.
Sidewalks exist, but pedestrians face several problems in terms of
connectivity, continuity, quality, and safety. The single zoning makes it impossible
for people to walk from home to work, to study, to access health services, leisure,
and major shopping areas. The great discontinuity among the different areas,
separated by high-speed roads and great distances, makes walking an almost
impossible activity. The fact that walking plays a major role in low-income
communities’ modal split is another proof that there is inequity in the provision of
infrastructure adequate for the society’s needs.
18
Jobs and educational institutions locations
The Pilot Plan concentrates the absolute majority of jobs positions – 44.80%
- while the second place, Taguatinga, has only 10.71%. This concentration has
obvious impacts on transportation since daily commutes to the Pilot Plan occur in
great numbers. The elementary and high school educational institutions are better
distributed among all areas, though Brasilia and Taguatinga concentrate the absolute
majority of universities and colleges.
One interesting aspect noted during the participatory observations is that 3
participants studied at night, in addition to their full time jobs, and none of them
studied in Ceilandia. Their colleges were located either in Brasilia or Taguatinga,
which added extra challenges to their routine, such as more time and money spent
on transportation, and safety, considering that the classes were on the night shift.
Safety
Brazil had 337,190 accidents with victims in 2002, with 18,877 fatal victims.
Brasilia accounts for more than 2% of these deaths, with 444 fatal victims. When we
consider its population, Brasilia has an extremely high number of fatal victims per
100,000 inhabitants, leading the list when compared to the 10 larger cities in Brazil
(DENATRAN 2002). Although there are a number of reasons for the high number
of fatal victims in traffic accidents, the major one is related to Brasilia’s urban form:
its large streets allow higher speeds, leading to more fatal and frequent accidents. A
city has to respect its people before its vehicles, and it is fundamental for the social
sustainability of transportation that the safety of people is considered more
important than the speed of cars.
Another threaten to safety in transportation is related to the alternative
transportation system. In order to carry more passengers, the vans drive fast,
disrespect traffic regulations, and put the life of the passengers in danger. For
19
instance, when I was shadowing Adriana, 35, we used a van to go from her work to
her college, both in Taguatinga. The driver had already left the bus stop, but the
door was still open and the ‘doorkeeper’ was standing on the edge of the vehicle.
An extra challenge to safety is related to the built environment and walking.
Since most of the city’s neighborhoods have no mixed use, most of the streets are
empty after 9pm, and those who have to walk are more susceptible to urban
violence due to lack of ‘eyes in street’ (Jacobs 1961), or co-presence, which is the
presence of different people in social, public environments. For example, when I
was walking to Julia, 20, from the bus stop to her house around 7 pm, we were
verbally harassed by three men that were walking in the street. We felt very
uncomfortable and unsafe, especially because there was no one else in the street,
and all surrounding buildings had blind walls; no house had its facade facing the
street. As Julia was familiar to the place, she advised us to walk through a parallel
street until we reached a commercial avenue that had more people, so we would be
safer. The tension in Julia’s face is a proof of her sense of vulnerability, and how
walking in these urban conditions can be unpleasant, and potentially harmful.
Mobility levels
The average mobility level for Brasilia is 1.4 trips per person per day when
walking trips are included. When the walking trips are excluded, the average mobility
level drops to 1.02, confirming the importance of walking in Brasilia. Of course,
there are differences among the richest and poorest areas. For example, the mobility
level for the Pilot Plan is 1.86, while it is only 1.08 in Planaltina (figure 8). People
with lower incomes travel less due to prohibitive travel costs, constraining their
travels to the minimum necessary and affordable. The ratios of trip purpose by
income confirm this.
Trip purpose
20
Working and studying account for 83.96% of travels, while shopping,
leisure, and eating account for only 3.10%. These numbers also vary a lot depending
on income. Generally, low-income people travel less for shopping and leisure,
constraining their options to what is available in their own neighborhoods (figure 9).
Indeed, one of the main complaints of people in satellite cities is lack of leisure
options in their communities. The research participants traveled less during
weekends. Ana complained of lack of entertainment options in Ceilandia, what
makes her travel to Taguatinga and Brasilia. Simone, 19, also complains of lack of
leisure options in Ceilandia, and constrains her weekend’s trips only to a walk to the
church.
Time
As said before, trips per bus are, in average, 4 times longer than by car in
Brasilia. This is not because there is lack of paved roads. This means more paved
roads per inhabitant than any other city in Brazil (ANTP 2003). The travel time
difference between car and bus trips is the result of lack of infrastructure specifically
designed to make bus trips faster, such as bus ways, and congestion caused by
excess of cars. A good example is the time difference between Simone and Ana’s
travel. It takes Simone about 1:45 hs to get to work by bus, and it takes 56 min for
Ana, although Ana’s job is more than 10 km farther than Simone’s. Simone spends
almost double the time to cover less distance than Ana.
Conclusions and future research
It is clear that there is a strong relationship between poverty and social
exclusion in transportation.
•
People with low incomes depend more on public transportation;
•
Walk a lot although sidewalks in their neighborhoods are rare or in
terrible condition;
21
•
Spend a larger percentage of their income with transportation than
wealthier people;
•
Live further from job centers;
•
Are more vulnerable to traffic accidents and urban violence while
walking;
•
Have lower mobility levels;
•
Travel less for entertainment and shopping;
•
Spend more time in traffic;
•
And have less flexibility in their trips.
And why is that? It is mainly because the cities are designed for car
efficiency, and low-income people cannot afford to have cars and enjoy their
advantages. However, the solution, in a sustainable mobility paradigm, is not to
increase car ownership. The example of developed countries shows that high car
ownership levels have severe environmental, economic, and social consequences,
and do not contribute to lessen social exclusion since there still is an underserved
population (Lucas 2004; Hanson and Giuliano 2004). Sprawl, high consumption of
agricultural and forested land, high consumption of non-renewable resources, air,
water, soil and sound pollution, decay of public spaces are only a few of the
problems that challenge highly motorized developed nations, and threatens
developing countries that pursue the same type of transportation planning.
Developing countries have to consider their low private motorization rates as an
asset rather then a stigma of underdevelopment. Indeed, their current modal shares,
with high use of public transportation and non-motorized modes can be considered
environmentally sustainable. Governments, planners and designers should consider
alternatives to improve social inclusion in transportation, addressing the issues
discussed in this paper, maintaining these statistics.
22
There are some examples of cities in developing countries that chose to
address sustainability in transportation in a holistic approach, including social
aspects as well as economic and environmental. Cities as Curitiba and Porto Alegre
in Brazil, Santiago in Chile, and Bogotá in Colombia, are known for their initiatives
and investments in better public and non-motorized transportation infrastructure,
including changes in zoning and urban design to benefit low-income communities
and provide them more opportunities (Gehl and Gemzoe 2001; World Bank 2002;
ANTP 2003). Future research will investigate these cities to evaluate their planning
alternatives, and build a theoretical and practical framework to inform
transportation planning focusing in social inclusion.
23
References
Affonso, N.S. (2004) ‘Mobilidade e Qualidade de Vida’, Rua Viva, Brasilia.
ANTP – National Association of Public Transportation (2003), Mobilidade e
Cidadania, ANTP, Sao Paulo.
Barki, J. (2005) ‘A Invenção de Brasília: o “Risco” de Lucio Costa’, Risco, 2(2), pp. 423
Batista, G., Ficher, S., Leitao, F, Franca, D. (2002) ‘Brasilia: uma Historia de
Planejamento’, Mimeo, Brasilia.
Black, W. R., and Nijkamp, P. (eds) (2002) Social Change and Sustainable Transport,
Indiana University Press, Indiana.
Boer, E. (ed) (1986) Transport Sociology: Social Aspects of Transport Planning, Pergamon
Press, New York.
Buvinic, M. (2004 ) ‘Social Inclusion in Latin America’, in Buvinic, M.; Mazza, J.;
and Deutch, R. (eds) Social Inclusion and Economic Development in Latin America,
Inter-American Development Bank, Washington.
Cervero, R. (1998) The Transit Metropolis: a Global Inquiry, Island Press, Washington.
CODEPLAN – Companhia de Planejamento do Distrito Federal (2002) Pesquisa
Domiciliar: Transporte, CODEPLAN, Brasília.
Companhia do Metropolitano (2007) Mapa do Metropolitano. Available in:
http://www.transportes.gov.br/bit/ferro/metrodf/mapadf.htm. Accessed
in: April 29, 2007.
Costa, L. (1960) ‘Relatorio do Plano Piloto de Brasilia’, Modulo, 18, pp.1-20
Donaghy, K.P., Poppelreuter, S., and Rudinger, G. (2005) ‘Social Dimensions of
Sustainable Transport: Introduction and Overview’, in Donaghy, K.P.,
24
Poppelreuter, S., and Rudinger, G. (eds) Social Dimensions of Sustainable
Transport, Ashgate, Burlington.
Fraser, N. (1992) ‘Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of
actually existing democracy’, in Barker, F., Hulme, P., and Iverson, M.
(ed)Postmodernism and the Re-reading of Modernity, Manchester University Press,
New York.
Faiz, A. (2000) ‘Sustainable Transport for the Developing World: the Social and
Environmental Nexus’, Journal of Transportation Engineering, November/
December, pp. 451-454
Ficher, S. (2000) ‘Brasilias’, Projeto Design, 242, pp. 48-59
Gehl, J. and Gemzoe, L. (2001) New City Spaces, The Danish Architectural Press,
Copenhagen.
Gomide, A.A. (2003) Transporte Urbano e Inclusão Social: Elementos para Políticas Publicas,
IPEA, Brasilia.
Goncalves, A.R., Fortes, J.A.A.S. (advisor) (2000), Avaliacao de Sistemas Integrados de
Transporte Publico Coletivo Urbano: Estudo de Caso de Quatro Cidades Brasileiras,
Master Thesis, UnB, Brasilia.
Hanson, S. and Giuliano, G. (2004) The Geography of Urban Transportation, The
Guilford Press, New York.
Heinberg, R. (2003) The Party's Over, New Society Publishers, Canada.
Hilling, D. (1996) Transport in Developing Countries, Routledge, London.
Hoyle, B.S. (1973) Transport and development, Macmillan Press, London.
ICOMOS – International Council on Monuments and Sites (1987) ‘World Heritage
List #445’, Mimeo, Paris.
ITRANS – Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Informação em Transporte (2004)
Mobilidade e Pobreza: Relatório Final, ITRANS, Brasilia.
25
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, New
York.
Le Corbusier (1973) The Athens Charter, Grossman Publishers, New York.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) Writings on Cities, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Lucas, K. (ed) (2004) Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Environmental
Justice, Policy Press, Bristol.
Maricato, E. (2000) ‘As idéias fora do Lugar e o Lugar fora das Idéias: Planejamento
Urbano no Brasil’, in Arantes, O., Vainer, C. & Maricato, E. A Cidade do
Pensamento Único: Desmanchando Consensos, Vozes, Petrópolis.
Maricato, E. (2001) Brasil, Cidades: Alternativas para a Crise Urbana, Vozes, Petrópolis.
Marshall, T.H. (1997) Class, Citizenship and Social Development, Chicago University
Press, Chicago.
McKenzie, C. (2003) ‘Transport. Modernity and Globalization’, in Root, A. (ed)
Delivering Sustainable Transport: a Social Science Perspective, Pergamon, Oxford.
Mitchell, D. (2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space, The
Guilford Press, New York.
Newman, P., Kenworhty, J. (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile
Dependence, Island Press, Washington.
NTU – Associação Nacional das Empresas de Transportes Urbanos (2001) Anuário
Estatístico, NTU, Brasília.
Onaga, M. (2003) ‘O Alto Custo dos Imóveis em Brasilia’, Correio Braziliense, July
6th, Brasília.
Pickup, L., Giuliano, G. (2005) ‘Transport and Social Exclusion in Europe and
USA’, in Donaghy, K.P., Poppelreuter, S., and Rudinger, G. (eds) Social
Dimensions of Sustainable Transport, Ashgate, Burlington.
26
Raia Júnior, A.A., Silva, A.N.R. (advisor) (2000) Acessibilidade e mobilidade na estimativa
de um índice de potencial de viagens utilizando redes neurais artificiais e sistemas de
informações geográficas, Mater Thesis, USP, São Carlos.
Rolnik, R. (2004) O que é cidade, Brasiliense, São Paulo.
Root, A. (2003) ‘Morphing Mobility: a Methodological Critique’, in Root, A. (ed)
Delivering Sustainable Transport: a Social Science Perspective, Pergamon, Oxford.
SEDUH – Secretaria de Estado de Desenvolvimento Urbano e Habitação (2005)
Informe Demográfico, SEDUH, Brasilia.
Simon, D. (1996) Transport and development in the Third World, Routledge, London.
Solomon, J. (2003) ‘What is Transport Exclusion?’, in Root, A. (ed) Delivering
Sustainable Transport: a Social Science Perspective, Pergamon, Oxford.
UITP – International Association for Public Transport (2003), Ticket to the Future: 3
Stops to Sustainable Mobility, UITP, Roma.
UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (1995) Poverty and the
Environment: Reconciling Short-term Needs with Long-term Sustainability Goals,
UNEP, Nairobi.
Tolley, R. (ed) (2003) Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban
Environments, CRC Press, Cambridge.
Vasconcellos, E.A. (1999) ‘Deseconomias do Transporte Urbano – Visão Geral da
Experiência Internacional’, Revista dos Transporte Públicos, 82.
Vasconcellos, E.A. (2000) Transporte Urbano nos Países em Desenvolvimento: Reflexões e
Propostas, Annablume, São Paulo.
Vasconcellos, E.A. (2001) Urban Transport, Environment, and Equity: The Case for
Developing Countries, Earthscan, London.
Villaça, F. (1998) Espaço Intra-urbano no Brasil, Studio Nobel, São Paulo.
27
Wheeler, S. (2003) ‘Planning Sustainable and Livable Communities’, in LeGates,
R.T., Stout, F. (eds)The City Reader, Routledge, London.
World Bank (2002) Cities on the Move: A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review,
The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Young, I. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zetter, R., and White, R. (eds) (2002) Planning in cities: Sustainability and Growth in the
Developing World, ITDG Publishing, London.
28
Table 1
Vehicle stock growth rates (percentages)
Passenger cars
Area
1951 - 1990
World
790
North America
350
Europe
2.360
Asia (excl.Japan)
3.290
Central and South
America
3.340
Africa
1.420
Source: Hilling 1996
29
Table 2
Modal Split of Daily Trips, Selected Cities in Developing Countries
(approximated percentages)
City and data year
NMT*
Public
Private
Other
Sao Paulo, Brazil (1997)1
35
33
31
1
Porto Alegre, Brazil (2003)2
Brasilia, Brazil (2002)3
7
30
58
33
33
37
2
0
Caracas, Venezuela (1991)1
16
50
34
1
Santiago, Chile
(2002)4
Buenos Aires, Argentina (1992)1
39
53
41
6
9
60
24
7
Cairo, Egypt (1998)1
36
47
17
0
Pretoria, South Africa (1996)1
11
57
30
2
*NMT: Non-motorized transportation (walking and bicycling)
Sources: 1) Vasconcellos 2001; 2) EPTC 2003; 3) CODEPLAN 2002; 4)
30
Table 3
Areas Destined to Roads and Parking Lots, Selected Brazilian Cities
Cities
Area of roads (m2)
Belo Horizonte
246.318,75
Brasilia
457.800
Campinas
193.687,50
Curitiba
14.357,50
Joao Pessoa
122.910
Porto Alegre
79.031,25
Recife
117.750
Rio de Janeiro
206.100
Sao Paulo
5.551.496,25
Source: Vasconcellos 1999.
Area of parking lots
(m2)
61.579,69
114.450
48.421,88
3.568,88
30.727,50
19.757,81
29.437,50
51.525
1.387.874,06
Total (m2)
307.898,44
572.250,00
242.109,38
17.926,38
153.637,50
98.789,06
147.187,50
257.625,00
6.939.370,31
31
Footnotes
1
In Brazil, the minimum wage is defined per month, and not per hour as in United
States. The IBGE – Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, agency
responsible for the Brazilian Census, uses the number of minimum wages earned
per month (MW/ month) as a criterion to classify the Brazilian Population in
different economic strata. Nowadays, one minimum wage values U.S. $ 238. 00.
2
Mobility pattern refers to the type of transportation used to move, e.g. walking,
bicycling, private car, bus, metro, and so on.
3
Mobility levels refer to the number of trips performed daily by one person,
excluding walks with less than 15 minutes of duration.
4
The Federal District was defined by the Constitution of 1946 as the area where the
new Brazilian capital would be located. The Federal District is composed of one
political unity, the city of Brasilia, which is divided into 19 Administrative Regions
(RAs): Brasilia and 18 Satellite Cities. The RA is a similar concept to the districts in
North American cities.
5
The expeditions took place from 1892 to 1894, and from 1894 to 1896. Both were
presided by Luis Cruls, and were named after him ‘The Cruls missions’.
6
There are 15 guidelines specifically directed to automobile traffic and parking.
7
‘The intersection of the monumental and residential axes (…) called for the creation of a broad
platform where only parking and local traffic would be permitted (…)’ (Costa 1960).
8
‘Social gradations can easily be regulated by giving a higher value to certain blocks (…). Along
the residential axis, the blocks closer to the highway will naturally be valued more highly than the
inner blocks, which will permit gradations inherent to the economic system. (…) it is very important
to avoid the agglomeration of slums in the urban and rural areas; it is up to the Urbanizing
32
Company, within the proposed plan, to provide decent and economic accommodation for the entire
population’ (Costa 1960).
33
Captions to illustrations
Figure 1 – Map of Brazil. Source: adapted from SEDUH 2005.
Figure 2 – Map of Brasilia and Satellite Cities with the planned area by Costa
highlighted. Source: adapted from SEDUH 2005.
Figure 3 – Monumental axis. Source: Cleber Figueiredo.
Figure 4 –Brasilia’s downtown area. Source: Cleber Figueiredo.
Figure 5 – Income by neighborhood. Source: adapted from CODEPLAN 2002.
Figure 6 – Percentage of travel by modes and income. Source: adapted from
CODEPLAN 2002.
Figure 7 – Subway map in Brasilia. Source: Companhia do Metropolitano 2007.
Figure 8 – Mobility level and income by neighborhood. Source: adapted from
CODEPLAN 2002.
Figure 9 – Trip purpose by neighborhood. Source: adapted from CODEPLAN
2002.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43