Mobility in developing world cities is a very peculiar challenge, because different from health or education or housing, it tends to get worse as societies become richer. Clearly, a unsustainable model. Mobility, as most other developing country problems, more than a matter of money or technology, is a matter of equality, equity. The great inequality in developing countries makes it difficult to see, for example, that in terms of transport, an advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport. Or bicycles: For example, in Amsterdam, more than 30 percent of the population uses bicycles, despite the fact that the Netherlands has a higher income per capita than the United States. There is a conflict in developing world cities for money, for government investment. If more money is invested in highways, of course there is less money for housing, for schools, for hospitals, and also there is a conflict for space. There is a conflict for space between those with cars and those without them. Most of us accept today that private property and a market economy is the best way to manage most of society's resources. However, there is a problem with that, that market economy needs inequality of income in order to work. Some people must make more money, some others less. Some companies succeed. Others fail. Then what kind of equality can we hope for today with a market economy?
在世界上發展中國家城市裡 移動力是一個非常嚴峻的挑戰, 因為它與健康、 教育或住宅不同, 當社會越富有時,它反而變得更糟。 顯然,這是一個不可持續的發展模式。 移動力,如同其他大多數 發展中國家所遇到的問題, 除了事關財富或科技, 尤其與平等和公正更是相關。 開發中國家不平等的程度大到 讓我們很難看到,例如 在交通上, 一個先進的城市與其說是 連窮人都開車的地方, 不如說是連富人 都搭乘大眾運輸,或是騎自行車的地方。 例如在阿姆斯特丹, 超過 30% 的人口 騎自行車, 儘管荷蘭的人均所得 比美國還高。 發展中國家城市內部也有矛盾, 為了錢,為了政府投資。 如果投資較多錢在公路上, 當然就會投資較少在住宅、 學校、醫院上, 同樣地,空間使用上也有矛盾。 矛盾出現在 那些有汽車和那些沒有汽車的人之間。 今天大多數的人都接受 私有財產與市場經濟 是管理大多數社會資源的最好方式。 然而,還有一個問題是 市場經濟需要通過 收入不平等來鼓勵人們工作。 有些人必然會賺較多錢, 有些人則較少。 有些公司興盛,有公司經營不善。 那麼什麼樣的平等, 是我們今天在市場經濟條件下 所期待的?
I would propose two kinds which both have much to do with cities. The first one is equality of quality of life, especially for children, that all children should have, beyond the obvious health and education, access to green spaces, to sports facilities, to swimming pools, to music lessons. And the second kind of equality is one which we could call "democratic equality." The first article in every constitution states that all citizens are equal before the law. That is not just poetry. It's a very powerful principle. For example, if that is true, a bus with 80 passengers has a right to 80 times more road space than a car with one.
我在此提出兩種, 這兩種都與城市有關。 第一點是生活品質的平等, 特別是針對孩童, 所有的孩子都應該擁有 除了顯而易見的健康和教育, 還能接觸自然環境、運動設施、 游泳池和音樂課程。 我所說的第二種平等, 我們稱為「民主的平等」。 每個國家憲法的第一條規定都是 在法律之前人人平等。 那不只是首詩歌, 那是效力非常強大的準則。 舉例來說,如果那是真的, 載有 80 名乘客的公車 有權獲得比單人駕駛的小汽車 多 80 倍的道路空間。
We have been so used to inequality, sometimes, that it's before our noses and we do not see it. Less than 100 years ago, women could not vote, and it seemed normal, in the same way that it seems normal today to see a bus in traffic. In fact, when I became mayor, applying that democratic principle that public good prevails over private interest, that a bus with 100 people has a right to 100 times more road space than a car, we implemented a mass transit system based on buses in exclusive lanes. We called it TransMilenio, in order to make buses sexier. And one thing is that it is also a very beautiful democratic symbol, because as buses zoom by, expensive cars stuck in traffic, it clearly is almost a picture of democracy at work. In fact, it's not just a matter of equity. It doesn't take Ph.D.'s. A committee of 12-year-old children would find out in 20 minutes that the most efficient way to use scarce road space is with exclusive lanes for buses. In fact, buses are not sexy, but they are the only possible means to bring mass transit to all areas of fast growing developing cities. They also have great capacity. For example, this system in Guangzhou is moving more passengers our direction than all subway lines in China, except for one line in Beijing, at a fraction of the cost.
有時候我們太習慣不平等, 它就在面前,我們看不到它。 不到 100 年前, 女性沒有投票權, 在過去顯得稀鬆平常, 正如今天我們看到 一輛公共汽車處在擁擠的道路中。 事實上,當我成為市長的時候, 基於民主原則, 即公共利益凌駕於個人利益之上, 因此一台載有 100 人的公車 有權利比一台汽車 擁有 100 倍的用路空間, 我們推行的大眾運輸系統 基於公車專用車道。 為了讓公車更吸引人一點, 我們稱之為「千禧快捷」(TransMilenio)。 而且它也是種非常美麗與民主的象徵, 因為當公車從旁駛過, 而昂貴房車深陷車陣中, 很明顯,這就是民主得到實現的畫面。 事實上,那不只是公正的問題, 那不需要哲學博士學位。 一群 12 歲孩童 在 20 分鐘內就能發現 使用有限道路空間的最有效方法 就是使用公「車」專用道。 事實上,公車並不迷人, 但是公車是唯一能夠 將大眾運輸帶到快速發展城市中 各個地區的方式。 公車也有很大的載客量。 例如,這系統在廣州 比中國所有的地鐵線路 能運送更多的乘客, 除了北京的一條地鐵線, 而花費只是九牛一毛。
We fought not just for space for buses, but we fought for space for people, and that was even more difficult. Cities are human habitats, and we humans are pedestrians. Just as fish need to swim or birds need to fly or deer need to run, we need to walk. There is a really enormous conflict, when we are talking about developing country cities, between pedestrians and cars. Here, what you see is a picture that shows insufficient democracy. What this shows is that people who walk are third-class citizens while those who go in cars are first-class citizens. In terms of transport infrastructure, what really makes a difference between advanced and backward cities is not highways or subways but quality sidewalks. Here they made a flyover, probably very useless, and they forgot to make a sidewalk. This is prevailing all over the world. Not even schoolchildren are more important than cars.
我們不只是為公車的空間而戰, 我們也為人民的空間而戰, 而那更加艱難。 城市是人類的棲息地, 而人類是步行者。 就像魚需要游泳、鳥需要飛翔、 或鹿需要奔跑,我們需要行走。 這之中有一個非常大的衝突, 當我們談到發展中國家的城市時, 衝突存在於行人與車輛之間。 你看到的圖片顯示了 不夠民主。 這顯示了行人 是三等公民, 而那些開車的 則是一等公民。 就公共運輸建設來說, 真正區別 進步與落後城市之間的要素, 不是公路或地鐵, 而是品質良好的人行道。 他們在這做了一座天橋,大概沒什麼用處, 而且他們忘了做人行道。 這在世界各地都很普遍。 連學童都不比汽車重要。
In my city of Bogotá, we fought a very difficult battle in order to take space from cars, which had been parking on sidewalks for decades, in order to make space for people that should reflect dignity of human beings, and to make space for protected bikeways. First of all, I had black hair before that. (Laughter) And I was almost impeached in the process. It is a very difficult battle. However, it was possible, finally, after very difficult battles, to make a city that would reflect some respect for human dignity, that would show that those who walk are equally important to those who have cars. Indeed, a very important ideological and political issue anywhere is how to distribute that most valuable resource of a city, which is road space. A city could find oil or diamonds underground and it would not be so valuable as road space. How to distribute it between pedestrians, bicycles, public transport and cars? This is not a technological issue, and we should remember that in no constitution parking is a constitutional right when we make that distribution.
在我的城市波哥大, 我們打了艱難的一戰, 為了奪回汽車佔據的空間, 數十年來汽車都停放在人行道上, 為了替行人爭取空間,應該反應出 人類的尊嚴, 並爭取自行車道的空間。 首先,我在那之前還是一頭黑髮。 (笑聲) 過程中我幾乎要被告了。 這是場硬仗。 然而最終還是能成真, 在幾場硬仗後,能讓城市 展現出對人類尊嚴的敬意, 展現出行人 與有車的人一樣重要。 確實,在各地都非常重要的意識與政治議題 即是如何分配城市中最有價值的資源, 那就是道路的空間。 一座城市可以在地下開採石油或鑽石, 但那都不像道路空間如此珍貴。 如何將空間分配給路人、 自行車、大眾運輸和汽車? 這不是科技問題, 我們應該牢記,沒有一部憲法中明定 停車是法定權利, 在我們分配時應留意。
We also built, and this was 15 years ago, before there were bikeways in New York or in Paris or in London, it was a very difficult battle as well, more than 350 kilometers of protected bicycle ways. I don't think protected bicycle ways are a cute architectural feature. They are a right, just as sidewalks are, unless we believe that only those with access to a motor vehicle have a right to safe mobility, without the risk of getting killed. And just as busways are, protected bikeways also are a powerful symbol of democracy, because they show that a citizen on a $30 bicycle is equally important to one in a $30,000 car.
我們也會建設,這是在 15 年前, 在自行車道出現在紐約、 巴黎或倫敦之前, 那也是場硬仗, 超過 350 公里的自行車專用道。 我不認為自行車專用道 是可愛的建築特色。 那是一種權利,就像人行道, 除非我們相信只有那些 汽機車駕駛 才擁有行車安全的權利, 沒有致命的風險。 就像公車道一樣, 自行車專用道 也是一種強而有力的民主象徵, 因為那展現了騎 30 元自行車的市民 重要性等同於 開三萬元汽車的市民。
And we are living in a unique moment in history. In the next 50 years, more than half of those cities which will exist in the year 2060 will be built. In many developing country cities, more than 80 and 90 percent of the city which will exist in 2060 will be built over the next four or five decades.
我們生活在歷史上的獨特時刻。 接下來 50 年將會建造 2060 年時超過一半的城市。 在許多開發中國家的城市中, 2060 年時存在的城市中, 80% 到 90% 以上 將會在未來的四、五十年間建設完成。
But this is not just a matter for developing country cities. In the United States, for example, more than 70 million new homes must be built over the next 40 or 50 years. That's more than all the homes that today exist in Britain, France and Canada put together. And I believe that our cities today have severe flaws, and that different, better ones could be built.
但這不只和開發中國家的城市有關。 在美國,舉例來說, 超過七千萬戶新家 得在接下來的四、五十年間建設完成。 那些房子的數量比現在 英國、法國和加拿大的所有房子還多。 我相信我們現在的城市 有嚴重的缺陷, 因此未來能建造不同且更好的房子。
What is wrong with our cities today? Well, for example, if we tell any three-year-old child who is barely learning to speak in any city in the world today, "Watch out, a car," the child will jump in fright, and with a very good reason, because there are more than 10,000 children who are killed by cars every year in the world. We have had cities for 8,000 years, and children could walk out of home and play. In fact, only very recently, towards 1900, there were no cars. Cars have been here for really less than 100 years. They completely changed cities. In 1900, for example, nobody was killed by cars in the United States. Only 20 years later, between 1920 and 1930, almost 200,000 people were killed by cars in the United States. Only in 1925, almost 7,000 children were killed by cars in the United States. So we could make different cities, cities that will give more priority to human beings than to cars, that will give more public space to human beings than to cars, cities which show great respect for those most vulnerable citizens, such as children or the elderly.
當代的城市有什麼問題? 舉例來說,如果我們告訴任何一名三歲小孩, 還不太會說話小孩, 不管他身在世界的哪一個城市: 「小心,有車!」 那孩子會驚嚇地跳開, 他們有很合理的因素, 因為世界上每年平均 都有超過一萬名孩童因車禍喪命。 城市已存在八千年之久, 而且孩童過去能出門玩耍。 事實上,僅是在最近的 1900 年代,街上還沒有車子。 車輛存在不到 100 年。 車輛卻完全改變了城市。 舉例來說,在 1900 年時, 美國沒有人會因車禍喪命。 僅僅 20 年後, 在 1920 年和 1930 年間, 幾乎有 20 萬人 在美國因車禍喪命。 僅在 1925 年時,有將近 7,000 名孩童 在美國因車禍喪命。 因此,我們可以建造不同的城市, 城市能讓人類優先於汽車, 能讓人類比汽車擁有 更多公共空間, 城市展現了至高的敬意 給那些最珍貴的市民, 像是孩童或長者。
I will propose to you a couple of ingredients which I think would make cities much better, and it would be very simple to implement them in the new cities which are only being created. Hundreds of kilometers of greenways criss-crossing cities in all directions. Children will walk out of homes into safe spaces. They could go for dozens of kilometers safely without any risk in wonderful greenways, sort of bicycle highways, and I would invite you to imagine the following: a city in which every other street would be a street only for pedestrians and bicycles. In new cities which are going to be built, this would not be particularly difficult. When I was mayor of Bogotá, in only three years, we were able to create 70 kilometers, in one of the most dense cities in the world, of these bicycle highways. And this changes the way people live, move, enjoy the city. In this picture, you see in one of the very poor neighborhoods, we have a luxury pedestrian bicycle street, and the cars still in the mud. Of course, I would love to pave this street for cars. But what do we do first? Ninety-nine percent of the people in those neighborhoods don't have cars. But you see, when a city is only being created, it's very easy to incorporate this kind of infrastructure. Then the city grows around it. And of course this is just a glimpse of something which could be much better if we just create it, and it changes the way of life.
我會提出一些良方給各位參考, 我相信能讓城市變得更好, 而且對正在建造的城市 也簡單可行。 數百公里的綠道 在城市中交錯、四通八達。 孩童能走出家門,進入安全的空間。 他們可以安全地走上好幾公里路, 沒有任何風險地走在美麗的綠道上, 有點像是自行車公路, 請想像這幅圖像: 城市中的每一條道路 都只供行人和自行車通行。 對即將建設的新城市來說, 這件事不太難。 當我成為波哥大市長, 僅僅三年 我們就在世界上最繁忙的城市之中 建立了 70 公里的 自行車公路。 這改變了人們生活、 移動與在城市中享樂的方式。 在這幅圖像中,你在極貧困的街區中看到 我們有豪華的行人與自行車街道, 而車輛依然使用泥土路。 當然,我願意為車輛鋪路。 但是,什麼是首要之急? 那些街區之中有 99% 的居民沒有汽車。 但是當一座城市正在建設時, 要體現這種公共建設 十分容易。 那麼城市就會繞著它發展。 當然這只是讓我們窺探 能做得更好的一件事, 如果我們如此建立城市 就能改變生活方式。
And the second ingredient, which would solve mobility, that very difficult challenge in developing countries, in a very low-cost and simple way, would be to have hundreds of kilometers of streets only for buses, buses and bicycles and pedestrians. This would be, again, a very low-cost solution if implemented from the start, low cost, pleasant transit with natural sunlight.
而第二個能解決行動力的良方, 在開發中國家中難以突破, 成本很低、也容易實行, 即是有數百公里的 專用道 供公車、自行車與行人專用。 同樣地,這會是低成本的解決方式, 如果從頭就實行, 花費很少就能擁有怡人的通勤時光, 並享受自然光照。
But unfortunately, reality is not as good as my dreams. Because of private property of land and high land prices, all developing country cities have a large problem of slums. In my country of Colombia, almost half the homes in cities initially were illegal developments. And of course it's very difficult to have mass transit or to use bicycles in such environments. But even legal developments have also been located in the wrong places, very far from the city centers where it's impossible to provide low-cost, high-frequency public transport. As a Latin American, and Latin America was the most recently organized region in the world, I would recommend, respectfully, passionately, to those countries which are yet to urbanize -- Latin America went from 40 percent urban in 1950 to 80 percent urban in 2010 -- I would recommend Asian and African countries which are yet to urbanize, such as India which is only 33 percent urban now, that governments should acquire all land around cities. In this way, their cities could grow in the right places with the right spaces, with the parks, with the greenways, with the busways.
但很不幸的是,現實並非如同 我的夢想一樣美好。 因為土地是私有財產, 且地價昂貴, 所有發展中國家的城市 都有很大的貧民窟問題。 在我國哥倫比亞, 城市中幾乎有一半的住宅都是違建。 當然要在那樣的環境中 要擁有大眾運輸或騎自行車很難。 但即使是合法的開發 也都建設在錯誤的地點, 離市中心很遠, 根本不可能提供 低成本、高效能的大眾運輸。 身為一名拉丁美洲人, 拉丁美洲是世界上最近期有組織的地區, 我會滿懷敬意與熱情地推薦 那些尚未都市化的國家── 拉丁美洲的城市從 1950 年的 40% 到 2010 年時擴張到 80%── 我會建議那些尚未都市化的 亞洲和非洲國家, 例如印度目前只有 33% 的城市, 政府應該取得城市附近的所有土地。 如此一來,他們的城市就能在對的地方發展, 擁有對的空間、公園、 綠道和公車道。
The cities we are going to build over the next 50 years will determine quality of life and even happiness for billions of people towards the future. What a fantastic opportunity for leaders and many young leaders to come, especially in the developing countries. They can create a much happier life for billions towards the future. I am sure, I am optimistic, that they will make cities better than our most ambitious dreams.
我們要建設的城市 在未來的 50 年中 將會決定生活的品質, 甚至是幾十億人未來的幸福。 這對領導人以及未來的青年領袖來說 是多麼棒的機會啊, 尤其是在開發中國家更是如此。 他們可以為數十億人的未來 建立更幸福的生活。 我確信,我也樂觀相信 他們能讓城市超越 我們最有野心的夢想。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)