IMPLEMENTING BRT: IMPLEMENTING BRT: Controversies, Alliances and Emergent ActorsControversies, Alliances and Emergent ActorsControversies, Alliances and Emergent ActorsControversies, Alliances and Emergent Actors
Claudia Gutierrez (PUC) - Onesimo Flores (MIT)
January 18th, 2011
0. INTRODUCTION
� Institutional dimension of BRT system: different manners in which
“the state, society and private agencies define and implement
transport related public policies” (Vasconcellos2001 p 85).
� Then, how is it possible to create a formal framework for the BRT � Then, how is it possible to create a formal framework for the BRT
system implementation?
� An analysis of the design, planning and implementation of BRT
systems from an institutional perspective should acknowledge the
role played by two differents actors : entrepreneurs and an often
forgotten –although increasingly relevant- actor: the non-expert
and the multitude of emergent groups .
1. AIMS
1.1. Generals
� To study empirically how BRT implementers navigate through
controversies arising during the design, planning and implementation
stages of the emerging system.
� To study empirically how non-experts and emergent groups are
incorporated in the key controversial situations of the design, planning
and implementation of transportation system.
�How do BRT projects evolve from vision to reality?
�How new technological knowledge is “built” within controversies
arising from the implementation of a BRT system.
1.2. 1. Specifically, how do BRT implementers adjust their
strategies and respond to claims arising from:
1. Incumbent transit operators and other actors in the
transportation industry
1. AIMS
transportation industry
2. Bureaucracies (different jurisdictions, different levels of
government, different agencies).
3. Non experts and emergent groups from civil society such
as (but not limited to) neighborhood and environmental
activists.
1.2.2. Specifically, how are non-experts and emergent groups
incorporated in the key controversial situations of the design,
planning and implementation of the metropolitan
transportation system.
1. AIMS
� How and when do non-expert and emergent groups arise in
the developmental history of BRT system implementation.
� Which are the agendas or framings mobilized by these groups.
� How these collectives organize themselves.
� Which are the effects of these groups on the technical,
financial or political scheme of BRT system implementation.
2.1. An evolving relationship with incumbent bus operators
Leve
l o
f in
volv
em
en
t o
ffe
red
to
Quito’s BRT System
March 17-19, 1996:
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
Time
Leve
l o
f in
volv
em
en
t o
ffe
red
to
incu
mb
en
t o
pe
rato
rs
Ecovía (2001)Trolebus (1995) Central Norte (2006)
March 17-19, 1996:
“El Buserato”
Leve
l o
f in
volv
em
en
t o
ffe
red
to
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
2.1. An evolving relationship with incumbent bus operators
Time
Leve
l o
f in
volv
em
en
t o
ffe
red
to
incu
mb
en
t o
pe
rato
rs
Línea 2 (2007)Línea 1 (2005) Línea 3 (2011)
Mexico City’s BRT
System
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
2.2. The bureaucracies: Many actors, many interests
Vertical and
Intra-agency tensions
Inter-agency conflicts
Electoral cycle
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
2.2. The bureaucracies: Many actors, many interests
BRT systems: a new pool of resources (money, prestige, patronage, “turf”, etc) worth fighting for.
Vertical and horizontal
fragmentation
Electoral cycle / Continuity challenges
� An institutional analysis of BRT systems has to include the increasing
importance of non-experts as critical actors because:
� The context of transport planning has changed in different ways. The
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
2.3. Non-experts and emergent groups: the hidden institutional factor
� The context of transport planning has changed in different ways. The
“marketisation and politicization of transport; the democratic turn in
public policy; the complex nature of the public interest; the emerging
social exclusion agenda; and the culture of opposition in transport
planning” (Booth and Richardson 2001, 142) .
� Ever-growing participation of non-experts and emergent groups that
claim their right not only to voice their opinion on technological
issues but, more radically, to intervene in the solutions and designs.
� Controversies: the place where new knowledge is produced.
� Account of Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel
developmental history (Altshuler &
Luberoff 2003).
� Reconstruction of the planning process in
Barcelona’s Cerdà Plan (Aibar & Bijker
1997).
The emergence of interest groups
can impose new
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
2.3. Non-experts and emergent groups: the hidden institutional factor
1997).
� Emergent actors in Santiago managed to
redefine the design of both Costanera
Norte and Autopista Central, two flagship
urban highways.
� In Mexico: citizen mobilizations stopped
the construction of Texcoco Airport, in
Mexico City.
� In Argentina: neighborhood organizations
in Villa Elisa and Lugano have paralyzed
the construction of ‘Autopista de
Vinculación’ and Dellepiane highway
respectively. … among others
can impose new forms of
articulation between scientific research, political
identities and technological
implementations.
Transit operators and other
actors in the transportation
industry
2. FRAMING: BRT as “model”
2.4. BRT implementation: as “local stories”
political arrangements,
cultural backgrounds and specific
political contexts
Non experts
Bureaucracies
Emergent groups
from civil society
� This study is largely qualitative, employing the method of
structured, focused comparison of case studies.� The idea is to trace the process of implementation of several BRT corridors,
concentrating particularly on the manner in which choices of strategy were made. The
studies will place particular emphasis on methods of public involvement in the planning
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Data collection and sources
studies will place particular emphasis on methods of public involvement in the planning
process and negotiations with bus operators.
� SOURCES: a mix of hemerographic material, official
documentation and interviews with key stakeholders.
� Exploratory research has already been conducted on Mexico
City’s Metrobus, Quito’s Trolebús (its first corridor) and
Transantiago in Chile.
� MIT team (focusing on the bus industry):
� OPTIBUS (León, Mexico) - Grandfathered existing contracts to a
consortium of traditional operators now in charge of system-wide operation.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. Case selection
consortium of traditional operators now in charge of system-wide operation.
� METROBUS (Mexico City) – Each corridor is a new negotiation.
Strategy evolved from full inclusion of incumbents as BRT operators, to
attempting to broker a partnership between operators and a large private
player.
� TROLEBUS/ECOVIA/CENTRAL NORTE (Quito, Ecuador) –Migrated from a confrontational approach and government take over of the
first corridor to full inclusion of incumbents.
� METROVIA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) – Experimented with a tiered
tendering process with advantages to incumbent operators) (tentative)
� PUC team (Transantiago: focusing on non experts and emergent actors)
Transantiago has demonstrated, the problem is never:
� Just about one conflict: the controversy was, all at once, about the financing
scheme of the system , the technological architecture of the project , the
competence of the public sector in managing large-scale projects, the fleet
3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. Case selection
competence of the public sector in managing large-scale projects, the fleet
capability of the system, the social equity externalities of the intervention, the
megalomania of politicians and the rational, top-down criteria of technocrats.
(Briones 2009, 55- 73)
� Just about one framing: in all the above conflicts, it was never possible to isolate
the technical from the political, ethical, social and political. (op.cit.)
� Just about one actor: the agents involved in the controversy ranged from President
Lagos to neighborhood associations, from banking y Sonda (the financial manager
and technological operator, respectively) to the Catholic church , from
engineering experts to local politicians, all of them playing their roles and trying to
impose their own agendas .
� An approach from the sociology of controversies provides the opportunity
to address Transantiago as a local history, thus taking into account the
diversity of actors and entities involved.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.3 Sociology of controversies
� This approach enables us to examine the tensions between different
stakeholders, and to identify the mechanisms of closure within
controversies. And perhaps more important, the examination of
controversies provides a path to the observation of:� how and when non-expert and emergent group arise in the developmental history of Transantiago.
� which were the agendas or framings mobilized by these groups.
� how these collectives organized themselves to be efficient.
� which were the effects of these groups on the technical, financial or political scheme of Transantiago.
2011 2012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
ÍtemE F M A M J JL A S O N D E F M A M J JL A S O N D
Final proposal
Hipothesis
Workshop
4. Next steps
Preparing data collection
Report 1 (paper)
Field work
Report 2
Data analysis
Report 3
Comparative analysis (Chile - Mexico?)
Draft Final report
Final Report
