Just a correction Benjie. I actually coined the term "popular transport" in an article for LSE :) Like you, I was not satisfied with existing terminology. These modes are transit not para-transit. As you know, many of these systems have licenses and pay fees and are highly routinized in society. I wanted to use the term popular transport to confront the marginalization of these systems in formal planning and the inequities of not investing and supporting them when they matter a lot to people and, in fact, most people in many places. When a system is so fundamental to your transportation system and the often the one used by most people (of and for the people) it deserves to be the central focus of attention. Great to see it works in Arabic nicely. There is a vibrant conversation about this in Amman (Maan Naser), Beirut (Bus Map project and Yalla Bus) and Cairo (Transport for Cairo)...
My sincerest apologies! I will give credit where credit is due in the next issue.
"When a system is so fundamental to your transportation system and the often the one used by most people (of and for the people) it deserves to be the central focus of attention. "
I like 'makeshift mobility', this is the first I'm hearing the term, it makes me think of bricolage.
But I will stick up for 'informal transit', with the understanding that informality isn't worse or less than formality. It's not all about central control - it's about clear information, regulation, legal recognition. Informal transit isn't worse, it's just less formalized. We all know how important the informal economy is in other sectors, after all. 'Informal' also creates space for 'semi-formal' transit, as in cities where lines are authorized and fares are set by the gov't but schedules are left to the operators.
Also, re: 'popular transit', this one happens to work really well in Arabic. The adjective 'شعبي' doesn't so much mean 'people like it', rather, 'it is of/for the people'. It's used for lots of informal and semi-formal shopping markets, cultural products, and practices.
Informal transportation vehicles are very much "bricolaged" (yes, I am verbing the noun.)
I get what you're saying about "with the understanding that informality isn't worse or less than formality" - the rub, of course, is "with the understanding." The way we've treated informal transportation in planning, policy, and investments is very much about treating them as being less than.
TIL 'شعبي' ! (Google translate romanizes that into "sheabi" - is that right?) Informal transportation is "of/for the people" (I daresay it's democratic.)
It's also partly a myth that informal transportation deals with less regulation. They actually need permits, franchises, route assignments, etc. The problem is, the thicket of regulations is about traffic control, or fares, or vehicle registration --very little about making transportation work better for users and operators.
I certainly agree on the difficulty "with the understanding"! But maybe our efforts are better placed trying to provide that understanding rather than trying to popularize a new term?
(that's a pretty close romanization, I might go with "sha'abi"; it has an ayin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin which definitely isn't a glottal stop but is maybe best approximated by one)
Benjie, have you ever read Understanding Cairo, by David Sims? It's my favorite book about urban informality, though it's not particularly focused on mobility.
I have not read that David Sims book! (For a while, I thought it was the same David Sim who wrote Soft City.)
Thanks for the lead. Getting a copy ASAP.
As to providing understanding, this is hot off the press and am reading it now.
The state and the production of informalities in urban transport: Vikrams in Dehradun, India
Gaurav Mittal, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore
"In transport studies, informal transport has been at the center of deliberation for decades. The active role of informal transport in en- abling urban mobilities in the Global South has been discussed by many scholars (Cervero, 1991; Cervero and Golub, 2007; de Soto, 1989; A. Kumar et al., 2008; Thomson, 1977). In most of these studies, the dis- tinction between formal and informal transport appears simply as a descriptor: a way of expressing the broad arrangements within the transport landscape, or a tool to highlight particular forms of transport provisions, or a short-hand device to differentiate between various means of transport. Informal transport is generally described as an example of a self-regulating market which emerges in the absence or violation of state regulations and serves an important purpose of meeting mobility needs in many cities (Cervero, 1991; Cervero and Golub, 2007; M. Kumar et al., 2016; Shimazaki and Rahman, 1996). However, in practice the binary between informal and formal transport has far-reaching implications. This binary often obscures the roles of political and economic forces in the production of informalities in transport and crowds out a nuanced understanding of the socially and culturally embedded realities of transport provisions in different cities (Agbiboa, 2016; Attoh, 2017; Rekhviashvili and Sgibnev, 2018, 2019; Rizzo, 2017)."
Having lived in Brooklyn, "artisanal" makes me think of dudes with ironic handlebar mustaches making beer, or cheese, or small batch chocolate in their kitchens.
I think what bothers me about the term is that it implies some sort of rarity, like its an unusual occurrence.
Pop-transport is global. Nearly ubiquitous in the cities that have them. The rule, not the exception.
"Mobility"is a key part of the term, but "makeshift" points toward something temporary rather than as transportation that is part of the landscape. "Informal transport" captures the concept without so much of a hierarchy.
I guess I was going for showing the self-organizing dynamics of informal transportation. (and stealing the term from Witold Rybsczynski's Makeshift Metropolis).
I don't agree that "informal transportation" doesn't carry a hierarchy. It certainly sets up a dichotomy of "formal vs. not-formal."
I like Makeshift Mobility. I've been working on it from an even broader perspective: the giving of rides, sharing of vehicles, and even informal freight/deliveries, that happen within communities. This type of makeshift mobility is common in rural areas, religious communities, ethnic networks, tight-knit neighborhoods. There is a lot of makeshift mobility in the United States that takes place outside the marketplace or in the very informal economy.
I agree, Sarah Jo. It's not like hailing and paying for a ride was a 20th century invention. People have to get around and people with space in their vehicles (be it a horse drawn cart or a bicycle) figure out a way to get paid.
You also point to how these informal transportation systems aren't just about moving people, they are also about moving goods.
Just a correction Benjie. I actually coined the term "popular transport" in an article for LSE :) Like you, I was not satisfied with existing terminology. These modes are transit not para-transit. As you know, many of these systems have licenses and pay fees and are highly routinized in society. I wanted to use the term popular transport to confront the marginalization of these systems in formal planning and the inequities of not investing and supporting them when they matter a lot to people and, in fact, most people in many places. When a system is so fundamental to your transportation system and the often the one used by most people (of and for the people) it deserves to be the central focus of attention. Great to see it works in Arabic nicely. There is a vibrant conversation about this in Amman (Maan Naser), Beirut (Bus Map project and Yalla Bus) and Cairo (Transport for Cairo)...
My sincerest apologies! I will give credit where credit is due in the next issue.
"When a system is so fundamental to your transportation system and the often the one used by most people (of and for the people) it deserves to be the central focus of attention. "
AMEN.
Not a worry. Here is the piece I wrote for them and which triggered a discussion of what term to use: https://urbanage.lsecities.net/essays/visualising-popular-transport We had great discussions in Addis around the Urban Age conference LSE organized.
I like 'makeshift mobility', this is the first I'm hearing the term, it makes me think of bricolage.
But I will stick up for 'informal transit', with the understanding that informality isn't worse or less than formality. It's not all about central control - it's about clear information, regulation, legal recognition. Informal transit isn't worse, it's just less formalized. We all know how important the informal economy is in other sectors, after all. 'Informal' also creates space for 'semi-formal' transit, as in cities where lines are authorized and fares are set by the gov't but schedules are left to the operators.
Also, re: 'popular transit', this one happens to work really well in Arabic. The adjective 'شعبي' doesn't so much mean 'people like it', rather, 'it is of/for the people'. It's used for lots of informal and semi-formal shopping markets, cultural products, and practices.
Informal transportation vehicles are very much "bricolaged" (yes, I am verbing the noun.)
I get what you're saying about "with the understanding that informality isn't worse or less than formality" - the rub, of course, is "with the understanding." The way we've treated informal transportation in planning, policy, and investments is very much about treating them as being less than.
TIL 'شعبي' ! (Google translate romanizes that into "sheabi" - is that right?) Informal transportation is "of/for the people" (I daresay it's democratic.)
It's also partly a myth that informal transportation deals with less regulation. They actually need permits, franchises, route assignments, etc. The problem is, the thicket of regulations is about traffic control, or fares, or vehicle registration --very little about making transportation work better for users and operators.
I certainly agree on the difficulty "with the understanding"! But maybe our efforts are better placed trying to provide that understanding rather than trying to popularize a new term?
(that's a pretty close romanization, I might go with "sha'abi"; it has an ayin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin which definitely isn't a glottal stop but is maybe best approximated by one)
Benjie, have you ever read Understanding Cairo, by David Sims? It's my favorite book about urban informality, though it's not particularly focused on mobility.
I have not read that David Sims book! (For a while, I thought it was the same David Sim who wrote Soft City.)
Thanks for the lead. Getting a copy ASAP.
As to providing understanding, this is hot off the press and am reading it now.
The state and the production of informalities in urban transport: Vikrams in Dehradun, India
Gaurav Mittal, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore
"In transport studies, informal transport has been at the center of deliberation for decades. The active role of informal transport in en- abling urban mobilities in the Global South has been discussed by many scholars (Cervero, 1991; Cervero and Golub, 2007; de Soto, 1989; A. Kumar et al., 2008; Thomson, 1977). In most of these studies, the dis- tinction between formal and informal transport appears simply as a descriptor: a way of expressing the broad arrangements within the transport landscape, or a tool to highlight particular forms of transport provisions, or a short-hand device to differentiate between various means of transport. Informal transport is generally described as an example of a self-regulating market which emerges in the absence or violation of state regulations and serves an important purpose of meeting mobility needs in many cities (Cervero, 1991; Cervero and Golub, 2007; M. Kumar et al., 2016; Shimazaki and Rahman, 1996). However, in practice the binary between informal and formal transport has far-reaching implications. This binary often obscures the roles of political and economic forces in the production of informalities in transport and crowds out a nuanced understanding of the socially and culturally embedded realities of transport provisions in different cities (Agbiboa, 2016; Attoh, 2017; Rekhviashvili and Sgibnev, 2018, 2019; Rizzo, 2017)."
Some french academics have termed it "artisanal transport" - not sure how I feel about it!
I've heard that, too.
Having lived in Brooklyn, "artisanal" makes me think of dudes with ironic handlebar mustaches making beer, or cheese, or small batch chocolate in their kitchens.
I think what bothers me about the term is that it implies some sort of rarity, like its an unusual occurrence.
Pop-transport is global. Nearly ubiquitous in the cities that have them. The rule, not the exception.
My vote is for pop transport.
I've got three votes for pop-transport now!
"Mobility"is a key part of the term, but "makeshift" points toward something temporary rather than as transportation that is part of the landscape. "Informal transport" captures the concept without so much of a hierarchy.
I guess I was going for showing the self-organizing dynamics of informal transportation. (and stealing the term from Witold Rybsczynski's Makeshift Metropolis).
I don't agree that "informal transportation" doesn't carry a hierarchy. It certainly sets up a dichotomy of "formal vs. not-formal."
I like Makeshift Mobility. I've been working on it from an even broader perspective: the giving of rides, sharing of vehicles, and even informal freight/deliveries, that happen within communities. This type of makeshift mobility is common in rural areas, religious communities, ethnic networks, tight-knit neighborhoods. There is a lot of makeshift mobility in the United States that takes place outside the marketplace or in the very informal economy.
I agree, Sarah Jo. It's not like hailing and paying for a ride was a 20th century invention. People have to get around and people with space in their vehicles (be it a horse drawn cart or a bicycle) figure out a way to get paid.
You also point to how these informal transportation systems aren't just about moving people, they are also about moving goods.