Urban Transport in the OIC Megacities
165
A key complementary action was the municipal government’s acquisition of land along or close to the
new transport axes prior to their construction. This permitted the local government to organize high
density housing programmes close to the BRT corridors (Rabinovitch, 1992).
Social innovation
Although Curitiba is known for its innovative public transport system, this is only one of the series of
policies implemented in order to improve the quality of life and social responsibility in the city.
According to Jaime Lerner, who was the mayor of Curitiba three times between 1971 and 1992 and
had a leading role in the city’s transformation, “if the inhabitants feel respected, they will respect the
environmental issues presented to them” (Lerner, 1996, no page).
The municipal authorities implemented a series of policies aiming to improve the urban quality of life.
For example, the purchase of garbage programme was aimed at alleviating the hygiene and poverty
issues of the Favela (slums) residents by encouraging them to “sell” their bags of garbage in return for
bus tickets and dairy products. In addition, the city launched environmental education programmes
for all citizens in low-income districts in order to raise awareness around the issues of urban
sustainability (Rabinovitch, 1992).
In addition, the integrated planning approach allowed the expansion of green spaces and parks and
the preservation of architectural and cultural heritage in the city centre. During the 1970s, many
streets became pedestrian areas while old buildings and squares were upgraded (Rabinovitch, 1992).
Lessons learned
Strong political leadership: Curitiba followed a long-term vision for regional growth which was
coordinated by a politically insulated regional planning organization, the Institute for Research and
Urban Planning (IPPUC).
Sustained political commitment has been pivotal to Curitiba’s success. The harmonisation of transit
and land-use development took place over 40 years of political continuity, and was supported by
determined mayors who built on the work of their predecessors.
Housing: An area inwhich Curitiba did not performwell was the provision of public housing. Although
both public transport and public housing programmes are planned by municipal agencies, almost all
public housing built in Curitiba in the last 40 years (with the exception of that built on land that bought
along the transport corridors in the central areas) was built far from the main transport axes. The
integration of public transport and housing policies was made impossible by the fact that, on a
pragmatic basis, housing improvements were focused on areas where Favelas already existed rather
than on building new housing in different areas. However, the Favelas were generally located in areas
where planning guidelines did not recommend building, eg floodplains, due to the low cost of land.
Although improving existing conditions of irregular settlements can have an instant positive result by
providing better shelter for those in need of it, it can jeopardise long-term urban planning and
eventually reinforce the social exclusion of low income families (Cervero, 2013; Duarte and Ultramari,
2012).
Multimodality: There is still potential for Curitiba to enhance the interaction between public
transport and other modes. Integration with non-motorized modes is particularly important, as they
often are the only option for lower income groups. In Curitiba, most terminals have taxi stands, half of
the terminals have poor pedestrian access, only 6 out of 22 can be easily and safely accessed by bicycle,
and only two have bicycle parking.
By providing taxi stands and car parks, park-and-ride schemes can be stimulated. In addition, as the
number of cars increases in the city centres and the shortage of parking spaces becomes more intense,