BICYCLE POLICY IN MEXICO CITY: Urban Experiments and Differentiated Citizenship

This article examines the effect of the development of bicycle policy in Mexico City on existing landscapes of urban citizenship. In Mexico City, NGOs, activists and progressive city officials used Ecobici, the city's bike share system, to promote the bicycle as an innovative, sustainable and s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of urban and regional research Vol. 45; no. 3; pp. 477 - 497
Main Author Sosa López, Oscar
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.05.2021
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Subjects
Activism
bicycle policy
Bicycles
Building design
Capacity building approach
Cities
Citizenship
Cycling
Development policy
Experiments
Inequality
Infrastructure
Institution building
Landscape
low carbon transitions
Low income groups
Mexico City
NGOs
Nongovernmental organizations
Residents
sustainable transportation
Transportation
Urban areas
urban citizenship
urban experiments
Urban policy
Urban poverty
Mexico
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This article examines the effect of the development of bicycle policy in Mexico City on existing landscapes of urban citizenship. In Mexico City, NGOs, activists and progressive city officials used Ecobici, the city's bike share system, to promote the bicycle as an innovative, sustainable and socially inclusive mode of transportation in central areas of the city. At the same time, bicycle infrastructure has not yet reached peripheral, low‐income and underfunded districts, where residents rely on bicycles for transportation. I draw on the Cities and Low Carbon Transitions framework to examine bicycle policy as a project aimed at transforming Mexico City's socio‐technical systems for transportation, and I draw on notions of urban citizenship to examine how green urban infrastructures materialize and transform regimes of inequality. The article shows how the bicycle experiment was limited by a consensus that maintained existing power inequalities, favored expert‐driven design targeting middle‐class users, and opted for rapid project implementation over long‐term institutional re‐design and capacity‐building. These dynamics excluded citizens from the planning of bicycle policy and the urban poor from enjoying the benefits of the investments.
Bibliography:I would like to thank the anonymous IJURR reviewers for all their comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the arguments presented in this article. In addition, the article also benefited from the critical eye of Diana Graizbord, Anna Goodman, Julie Gamble and the 2020 dissertation writing student group at the New School's Milano School of Policy, Management, and Environment. All errors and shortcomings remain my own.
ISSN:0309-1317
1468-2427
DOI:10.1111/1468-2427.12992