Hablar el lenguaje de la ciencia en el aula

All cities are connected to other places in multiple ways, although levels of connectivity do vary. Some cities are central to global communication hubs, and others to national, regional and local hubs. The major means of linkage are road, rail, sea, inland waterways, and air. The large BRICS cities are generally well linked into national road networks, and the current focus is on the oth- er major connecting infrastructures. However, there have been some large-scale investments in roads in the fairly recent past; including, for example, the 2 275km highway linking Brasília with Belem in north-east Brazil.

According to the International Union of Railways (UIC), all BRICS countries have significant rail networks: China (121 000km), Russia (86 000km), India (67 000km), South Africa (31 000km) and Brazil (29 000km). In terms of population per kilometre of track, South Africa and Russia are the best serviced, but in terms of the actual use and importance of rail, India ranks first. Railway connections have played a key role in the development of many cities; some more than others. The City of Novosibirsk, for example, exists largely because of its strategic position along the Trans-Siberian railway line at the crossing of the Ob River. Wuhan has a strategic position at the first-ever railway crossing of the Yangtze River, and it is here that the railway networks of north and south China were connected.

China’s extensive network of high-speed rail may be the most significant recent innovation in major inter-city transport infrastructure. The first major inter-city high-speed railway service in China was introduced in 2007; since then there has been rapid development, with China now dominating globally in terms of high-speed rail2_{. By the end of 2014, China had nearly 20 000km} of high-speed rail track, including the world’s longest high-speed rail line, the 2 300-kilometre connection between Beijing and Guangzhou. The expansion of the network continues, with the massive Beijing-Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong high-speed network, for example, scheduled for completion in 2018.

The other major new development in rail was the opening in 2013 of the 11 000-kilometre ex- press railway line between Chengdu in central China, and Rotterdam in Europe. While use of this line has not reached its full potential, it will potentially reinforce cities such as Chengdu and Xi’an as international logistics hubs, and as gateways in China to Central Asia and Europe.

While the focus is clearly China, there have been developments elsewhere in the BRICS, including the high-speed rail link between Moscow and St. Petersburg opened in 2009. There is a planned high-speed rail service between Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, but there have been delays in im- plementation, complicated by the current political and economic circumstances of Brazil. More ambitious is the plan for the Bi-Oceanic Railway, which would join the Port of Santos with the Port of Ilo in Peru, but there are also uncertainties around this. A high-speed rail service between eThekwini (Durban) and Johannesburg-Ekurhuleni has been mooted, but projected cost remains a major obstacle.

Sea trade has a long history among BRICS countries, with many cities developing initially as ports. 2. High-speed rail was first introduced by Japan in the 1960s, and then introduced to Europe, but China has now surpassed

THEMA

TIC ANAL

YSIS: TRANSPOR

TA

TION, GREEN ENERGY AND INNOV

A

TION ECONOMIES

Although TomTom does not provide data for India, any visitor to India will attest to the conges- tion of its roads. The congestion comes from both the large number of different forms of vehicles (travelling at very different speeds) and from poor traffic management. India’s population is far poorer than in the other BRICS, so private-car ownership is low; but there is growing ownership of two-wheelers (motorcycles). The UNEP nevertheless reports that between 2001 and 2011, own- ership of private motor cars in urban areas roughly doubled, from around 5% to 10%, with an increase from about 25% to 35% in two-wheeler ownership. Car ownership currently stands at a very modest 30 per 1 000 for urban areas (18 for the country as a whole); but there is of course the danger of a dramatic increase in this number, with dire consequences for India’s cities.

Figure 2.2 below indicates the still-considerable variance in private-car ownership across the BRICS. Figure 2.2: Levels of car ownership across BRICS countries

Source: National census reports

Private vehicle ownership and use may indeed be the most severe challenge for managing con- gestion in BRICS cities. The private car is a potential symbol of status for many, with levels of car ownership commonly associated with modernisation and progress; but there are other challenges – including, for example, urban form.

The dysfunctional urban form in South Africa, a legacy of colonial and apartheid rule, is well-known. It forces many poor people into long and costly commutes to jobs. In Brazil, urban agglomerations have sprawled far beyond the boundaries of the core municipalities, also leading to long com- mutes8_{. Russia’s cities remain largely monocentric, with jobs concentrated in the core but with large} numbers of people still living in the Soviet-era apartments on the urban edge. The result is massive commuting flows during peak hours. China’s cities had a stronger link, historically, between places of work and residence; but this has changed with the dramatic expansion of the cities. A number of new towns, for example, have been built without adequate employment, resulting in long-distance commuting to core cities.

Of course, there are multiple other challenges facing BRICS cities. These range from the physi- 8. The ‘planned new city’, Brasília, is one of the worst in this regard. It was designed for the automobile, with large non-pe- destrian-friendly spaces – a problem now compounded by the emergence of satellite settlements spatially separated from the core city.

Figure 2.1: Levels of congestion in BRICS cities (excluding India) as rated in the TomTom Traffic Index 2016.

Source: TomTom, 2016

With their monocentric spatial forms and extremely rapidly increase in private-vehicle ownership, Russia’s cities are highly congested. Under the Soviet Union, car ownership was very limited. In 1985 it was 45 per 1 000 people (up from 27 per 1 000 in 1977), but car ownership is now around 290 per 1 0007_{. In Moscow, car ownership is around 380 per 1 000, and growing at around 8-10% per annum.} Brazil’s cities also face congestion problems; but Rio de Janeiro, Salvador and Recife have especially severe congestion challenges, because of their extreme topographical conditions. In Brazil, urban mobility has become a major political issue, with street protests in cities across the country in 2013 and 2016 directed at concerns with transport. Curitiba, which has pursued public transport-friendly policies since the 1970s, is relatively less congested.

China’s cities are also congested, in international terms. These cities had grown up around non-mo- torised transport. For example, as late as 1986, 86% of trips in Beijing were by bicycle, with only 5% by private motor vehicle. In the 1990s there was massive and rapid investment in road infrastructure, with the construction of a huge network of roads, highways, tunnels and bridges. China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation in 2001 supported the rise in car ownership, allowing for the easy im- port of popular international vehicle makes. This motorisation process led to congestion and severe air pollution, affecting the quality of life in cities. Finally, in the early 2000s, China began the shift towards active investment in and promotion of public transport, but severe damage had already been done.

South Africa’s cities are the least congested, because of their modest size in relation to the other cities measured. However, the TomTom measurement may not reflect the actual experience of com- muting in South Africa. Instead of relying on travel-time measurement, the IBM Global Commuter Pain Index uses a survey method, asking commuters for their perceptions of ‘travel pain’. The 2011 survey included 20 large cities globally, with Johannesburg rated the fifth-worst in terms of travel pain – higher than Moscow and cities in India.

7. See Siegelbaum (2006) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

BRAZIL RUSSIA INDIA CHINA _AFRICASOUTH

VEHICLES PER 1 000 RESIDENTS, 2010/11

50 DURBAN CURITIBA BRASILIA PRETORIA SUZHOU JOHANNESBURG CAPE TOWN SAO PAULO HANGZHOU SHENZHEN SHENYANG SHANGHAI CHENGDU BEIJING GUANGZHOU TIANJIN CHONGQING ST PETERSBURG SALVADOR MOSCOW RIO DE JANEIRO 19 19 21 25 26 29 33 34 34 34 35 36 38 44 46 0 10 20 30 40 60 24 37 37 38 50 51 249 293 18 128 165

THEMA

TIC ANAL

YSIS: TRANSPOR

TA

TION, GREEN ENERGY AND INNOV

A

TION ECONOMIES

There are massive differences across the BRICS in terms of private-car use. In general, cities in South Africa and Brazil have the highest levels of car usage. The lowest modal shares are for cities in India, with the notable exception of India’s ‘Silicon Valley’ city, Bengaluru. But the figures above do not reflect the ownership of two-wheelers, which are common in India. In Mumbai, for example, 8% of trips are in a private automobile, but a further 7% are on a two-wheeler. There are only a few Chinese cities for which there is data on paratransit and public transport, but this gives an indication of the range. For China, taxis are regarded as a form of paratransit. There is no data on paratransit for Brazil’s cities.

Figure 2.4: Modal share of public transport, including paratransit (except for Brazil)

Sources: Multiple, as indicated in the Factsheets

Data must be interpreted carefully. South Africa’s cities have a high modal share of both private and public transport, but this is because non-motorised transport has a very low share. However, within the category ‘public transport’, South Africa’s cities are mainly dominated by minibus taxis, a form of paratransit, with other forms of public transport poorly developed. Brazil’s cities have a similar structure, with relatively high levels of public and private transport, and relatively low levels of non-motorised transport; although public transport is dominated by bus and rail.

The situation is very different in the much-higher-density cities in India and China. Here, both pri- vate and public transport use is comparatively lower than in South Africa and Brazil, but this is because the cities have far higher levels of non-motorised transport, including walking and cycling. In India, proportions using public transport are higher than in China because private vehicle use has such a low share.

cal or topographical challenges in cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Salvador and Chongqing, to the massive institutional challenges of coordinating mobility networks across large and complex urban agglomerations.

MODAL SPLITS

The modal share of different forms of transport is one indicator of mobility conditions in a city. As indicated, comparative data across the BRICS is impossible to produce, because of the different ways in which data is collected and compiled. What we have done below is to provide comparisons where they are possible. This is for individual modes of transport, for a select number of cities. For example, we have excluded the data from cities where walking as a mode of transport has been excluded (e.g. Beijing and Guangzhou). The major gap is Russia, for which we were unable to secure adequate data.

Data on modal share of transport by city is extremely difficult to compile because of the different methods used in compiling the statistics. To at least provide a comparative indication, we have tak- en different modes of transport – private motor cars, public transport, walking, and cycling – and provided information for the cities for which data is available. The data is only for those cities that include walking in their calculations, meaning we had to exclude cities such as Beijing, Guangzhou and eThekwini (Durban), for example.

Figure 2.3: Modal share of private cars (for calculations including walking)

Sources: Multiple, as indicated in the Factsheets

CHENNAI MUMBAI KOLKATA HYDERABAD TIANJIN HANGZHOU XI’AN DELHI CHONGQING SHENZHEN SHANGHAI RIO DE JANEIRO WUHAN CURITIBA EKURHULENI JOHANNESBURG SAO PAULO BENGALURU CAPE TOWN TSHWANE (PRETORIA) BRASILIA SHANGHAI GUANGZHOU CHONGQING XI’AN JOHANNESBURG EKURHULENI CAPE TOWN TSHWANE (PRETORIA) DELHI MUMBAI CHENNAI KOLKATA HYDERABAD SAO PAULO RIO DE JANEIRO BRASILIA CURITIBA SALVADOR 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50

Conventional public transport (bus and rail) Paratransit (including vehicle taxis and autorickshaws)

6 8 8 8 10,4 11,6 13,8 14 15,8 19,3 20 20 21,9 26 28 30 31 31 34 36 41

THEMA

TIC ANAL

YSIS: TRANSPOR

TA

TION, GREEN ENERGY AND INNOV

A

TION ECONOMIES

BUS (INCLUDING BRT)

Bus services are generally well established across most cities, but operate with varying degrees of ef- ficiency. There are three main models for delivering this service. First, there are municipally-owned bus companies that run the service. This is the case in Russia and China, for example, although there is increasing experimentation with service delivery in some of China’s cities, including the use of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). The second model is of a state-controlled regulatory body that offers operating concessions to private companies. This is common in Brazil, for example, where the model works with widely varying degrees of effectiveness9_{. The third model is the hybrid of direct} public delivery, contracting arrangements and purely private arrangements, which is generally the case for cities in India and South Africa10_.

In many places the quality and performance of bus services has declined. However, there have been recent innovations. These include the introduction of minibus services which allow for greater route flexibility (e.g. Wuhan, which has launched 42 micro circular routes that serve as the ‘last kilometre of travel’ for bus users). The second, and most significant, is the introduction of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, which provide a high-quality, high-speed service along dedicated bus lanes, and plat- form-level boarding.

The world’s first BRT system was in fact in Curitiba, Brazil. The system in Curitiba was introduced in 1974, but went largely unnoticed until 1998, when the Mayor of Bogotá in Colombia borrowed from Curitiba in developing the Transmilenio BRT, inaugurating a global revolution in public transport. In recent years the system was taken up again in Brazil, in the run-up to the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The cities of Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre and Brasília inaugurated their new BRT systems in 2013/14. São Paulo also has dedicated lanes for buses, although not yet a fully-fledged BRT. A number of smaller Brazilian cities are also now implementing BRT (or partial-BRT) systems. There was early development of BRT in China, in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics, but these were often partial systems with limited networks11_{. The major development was the launch of the} Guangzhou BRT in 2010, which now carries around a million passengers and is the second-largest BRT in the world after Bogotá. The success of the Guangzhou system lies in the extent to which it has integrated with other modes of transport, especially the Metro. Other cities have followed suit, including Chengdu and Wuhan in 2013, while a number of first-generation BRTs are being upgraded to fully-fledged systems. There have been some challenges, however. In topographical- ly-constrained Chongqing, for example, the road reservation for BRT exacerbated congestion, and the system was discontinued. There are important new innovations and developments in BRT in China, including Tianjin’s proposals for elevated expressways for buses. Xi’an is currently developing a BRT, and is linking this to the development of a local industry for bus manufacture, through a partnership between local corporations and Volvo.

In South Africa, Johannesburg and Cape Town launched the first phases of their BRT systems in time for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, in the face of opposition from some segments of the minibus taxi in- dustry. Tshwane (Pretoria) introduced a BRT in 2014, while Ekurhuleni anticipates a launch in 2016. India has also introduced BRT systems, although there have been serious challenges in terms of operational delays and local opposition. A BRT was introduced in Delhi in 2008, ahead of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, but it proved hugely controversial, as a result of its use of road space and 9. In Curitiba, for example, the regulatory agency is highly acclaimed for the way it licences, regulates and coordinates the activities of private operators, ensuring also that fares remain affordable and that buses are well maintained. In Salvador, however, there are frequent complaints about the poor coordination of the scheduling, routes and fares of the 13 private operators.

10. Arrangements across India are extremely diverse, as different states have taken different approaches. While there are municipal bus companies, and regulatory bodies, there is also a plethora of private bus companies, many of which operate effectively outside municipal regulation. In South Africa, there are municipal bus companies (e.g. Metrobus in Johannesburg), but also government-subsidised contracted operators. In the case of eThekwini (Durban), the munici- pal bus company was (controversially) privatised.

11. They included, for example, Beijing, where the BRT was launched in 2005; Hangzhou, in 2006, Shanghai, Suzhou and Chongqing, in 2008.

Figure 2.5: Modal share of non-motorised transport

Sources: Multiple, as indicated in the Factsheets

In South Africa (with the notable exception of Cape Town), levels of non-motorised transport are very low. Brazil has an intermediate position, with variation between its cities. India’s cities have roughly the same level of walking as cities in Brazil, but there is more use of cycling. It is in Chi- na’s cities that non-motorised transport remains very important. With the exception of the dense- ly-packed new city of Shenzhen, where walking accounts for 50% of all trips, the difference be- tween China and other BRICS cities remains the extent to which cycling is still practised. Cycling is especially important in Hangzhou, Tianjin and Wuhan; but in wealthier Shanghai, there is a higher share of both private and public transport.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

In almost all large BRICS cities there has been a substantial response to the challenge of congestion; with large-scale investment (and other forms of improvement) in public transport over the past decade. There are significant variations across the BRICS in terms of forms of public transport that dominate. In Brazil, bus services dominate, although large cities do have metro systems that gen- erally account of around a fifth of commuter traffic. Data for Russia’s cities are not available, but Moscow and St. Petersburg have large and well established metro systems. India has a complex mix of rail, bus and various forms of paratransit, with China’s cities increasingly characterised by a mix of transport types, with a broad balance between bus and rail (mainly metro). South Africa’s cities are an exception, with the overwhelming dominance of the minibus taxi – a form of paratransit,