Urban mobility has become a pressing political issue in many cities around the world. With rapid urbanization, increasing congestion, and concerns about air pollution and climate change, the way people move around cities has become a critical component of urban policy.
However, addressing these issues requires more than just technical solutions; it also involves navigating complex political dynamics and competing interests. This is why it was of great interest to talk with our new guest.
Laura Ballesteros is a prominent figure in the world of sustainable urban mobility, with extensive experience in public policy, civil society, and academia. She is an advocate for creating sustainable cities that prioritize people over cars and is deeply committed to improving the quality of life for all city dwellers. As a former Deputy Minister of Mobility in Mexico City, she was instrumental in implementing innovative mobility policies that have become models for other cities around the country. In this written interview, we will delve into her insights on sustainable urban mobility, the challenges faced by cities in implementing sustainable transport systems, and the importance of collaboration between different stakeholders to achieve more sustainable and equitable urban environments.
Jesús Enrique Torres López: Laura, what is urban planning?
Laura Ballesteros: It is the art of making cities. It is the way we imagine and dream our cities, and at the same time, create them. I think the love we feel for the city is reflected in urban planning.
JT: Now tell me, what is democracy?
LB: It is the art of everyone. It is the science of everyone. For me, and speaking about urban planning, the way I connect with the agenda, coming from the world of politics, is to understand that from a street, you can guarantee and express everyone's rights.
The streets in the city should become a place where the right to mobility, free expression, work, education, or health can be clearly exercised from public space. That is why I believe that in practical terms, urban planning and democracy go hand in hand.
JT:: Do you think it is possible to achieve the democratization of spaces in the city for mobility and recreation?
LB: Yes, it is. It is the vision that we all have to achieve. I do not see a future or a vision of it if we are not thinking that collective space must be exercised through the exercise of rights, and a city that does not take care of the happiness of its inhabitants, is a city condemned to perish.
JT:: Do you think there are limitations for this to happen?
LB: There are barriers. The design of government and city that has been privileged during the last decades has led us to an individualistic perspective. From non-democratic decision-making to the construction of non-democratic public space, it has led us to think that this is normal. We have abandoned common sense. It is more common to have a car parked in a public space than to have a bike lane. I believe that the model is what is imposed on us, and what is more challenging. Political will is often discussed as one of the keys to making a different city, but I think it should go beyond the exercise of a single person. If we think of politics as something collective, these decisions have to come from both the governor or the governing body and the community.
JT:: What do professionals need to do to ensure that governance processes are known to both ourselves and the general public?
LB: Dialogue. Knowing that the construction of public policy is from the bottom up is the only way for the community to take ownership of it. We need to design for them, not for ourselves. This awareness is key to whether a project will work or not.
For example, if we do not address the climate emergency from this perspective and do not include the citizenry in its appropriation, it will not only age poorly but also contribute to the city's failure to age. There are keywords: inclusion, dialogue, collectivity, building a future, and always approaching projects from the bottom up.
JT:: During the interview with Valeria Gómez Palacios, I asked her if she believes that governance processes can be successful in the long run even in a neoliberal socio-economic-political system. Despite her enthusiasm for her work, she told me that it is complicated, but faith in one's own work is what ultimately drives her.
With your experience in politics, what is your opinion on this question? Do you think governance processes can be successful even in a neoliberal system?
LB: It has its level of complexity. We had talked about the resistance that prevents us from generating an inclusive city, and that individualism stems from a neoliberal model. But I think community-building processes are increasingly separated from what the elites are doing.
Neighborhood decision-making processes, collectives, and grassroots movements are moving in a different direction from what the elite is doing. I believe that gives us hope because change is also happening from the streets, not only with infrastructure but also in the way we coordinate ourselves. The same resilience processes that occur in communities begin with the separation that exists between the population and the government.
In the face of the failure of bad governance, self-organization is what remains.
JT:: But as you just mentioned, we have many environmental problems. If our communities are not large in scale, it is complicated to have positive results, right?
LB: Of course. Scales matter, and that's why the government matters. The reason I work in politics and government is not because I'm a masochist (laughs). I am aware of the bad practices that need to change and that one must be resistant to not get involved in them.
At the same time, the opportunity to massively scale up, to help others, is a power that only the government has. From organized civil society, from collectives, from the neighborhood, of course things can be done and make a difference, but it is not comparable to the power of the government to reach everyone, for good and for bad.
These spaces must be occupied by those of us who are interested in doing things right, and from there, then, take over the scale.
JT:: Let's shift. Who are you?
LB: I am Emilio's mom. I am a resilient woman, built on persistence. I am a dreamer. I believe the world can improve and things can be different if we set our minds to it. I think I am a communication bridge between the diversity of the community. I greatly appreciate the differences among individuals. I fight for the right to be different. I fight for the right not to think alike. I see myself as a person who seeks a middle ground, where we can agree while respecting differences. I have believed for many years that I wanted to dedicate myself to politics, convinced that I have the talent to generate change. I believe talents should be placed where they are most powerful, and I also believe that talents should be placed at the service of others.
I am a person with a high sense of social responsibility. I come from a family of doctors, and the culture of service is rooted in my DNA. I could have been a doctor, but I am very sensitive. Dealing with delicate health issues and such complex dramas affects me deeply. But I wanted to place my service talents in this area, politics. I am a daughter, a sister, wife, and I consider myself resistant, resilient, and constant. I tend to always move forward. As the saying goes: "Those who don't pedal fall off the bike."
JT:: Where are you from?
LB: I am Mexican. I was born in Querétaro in 1982. I am the grandmother of millennials. I lived in Querétaro for 8 years, I love its people and its city. I am also a chilanga (from Mexico City). Here I have made my life and family. My son was born here. Here I started my political career and where I have promoted the biggest changes in my professional career. Here we reclaim and dignify public transport users. Here we created the new mobility model for Mexico City and the country. Mexico City is not just the city where I live, it is not a territory, Mexico City is one more person in my life.
Saying this, having lived a year and a half in Monterrey, another Mexican city, was the toughest experience of my life.
JT:: Speaking of Monterrey, you were working as the Secretary of Sustainable Urban Development there, right?
LB: Yes, and we had the divisions of mobility, urban development, and environment.
JT:: What was the biggest challenge working in this area for Monterrey?
LB: The biggest challenge was personal, my family. People think that politicians rent themselves out for this, and it's easy. It's not like that. We must take into account that family accompanies you in everything. We knew it would be difficult to live far from the family, my husband supporting me and doing a lot of work to accompany me and also be present in Mexico City for his job. It was more expensive than we thought, too. Women, as empowered as we may be, still lead the care work in a patriarchal structure.
Also, the challenge of the city of Monterrey, in technical terms, is enormous. It is the second-largest city in the country. It is where the most important industrial activity is concentrated, where the most important economic forces in the country are concentrated, and where interests seem to govern. Generating a balance between what businessmen want and what the community needs is the most urgent thing to address in the city of Monterrey, and practically in all the cities of the country. I got into this with a lot of determination to be a conciliation element, and at the same time, a guardian of the public interest. Under no circumstances have I considered that I am under the service of any type of private interest, only the collective and the community ones', and based on this, the great private interests that surround urban development have destroyed the sustainable city model that they could have had. Putting order in this is not easy.
The challenge was enormous: illegality, corruption, the failed model of a sprawled and motorized city... you can imagine how the months went by when I was working in Monterrey.
We managed to bring the order. We achieved a green agreement with the business sector of Monterrey, where they were aware that they had as much responsibility as we did to create a green and sustainable city. The problem is that they build the city, and if there is no clear and sustainable public policy directive from the government, we end up with the disaster of a city that we have today, or like any Mexican city because this model has been poorly copied in all the cities of the country.
JT:: How do you think a person with your ideals should approach a position like the one you had to achieve substantial changes? Should they be more confrontational, or should they play by the rules of the game?
LB: There should always be dialogue. Any proposal for a new public policy must start from a permanent open dialogue. The decision-making process cannot be one-sided, nor can it be behind closed doors. If we need to be more aggressive, we should be. There are many bad practices in the business-government relationship. My style has betrayed me in that respect. My learning has been that one must be more aggressive, but at the same time, dialogue should not be excluded from firmness.
We must have irreducible principles when entering public office because external pressure will always be present.
JT:: I know you are a co-creator of Women In Motion. What drove you to be part of the creators of this organization?
LB: It's one of the most beautiful projects I've ever done in my life. The other creators converge on the idea that it is the safest space in which we participate in our personal and professional lives. To have a place where you can create freely, where you can be accompanied by other women to do so. Even give yourself permission to fail because it is a space where we all support each other.
We are 7 creators of the project in Latin America. What drove us to create it was not to walk alone. This implies that they are not alone either. For this reason, we need to create a very broad network so that everyone can be included. We are not interested in whether the members are involved in mobility issues because it would be a form of exclusion, as we all move within the city.
We wanted no other woman to have to experience what we have experienced: aggression, political violence; transportation and mobility are still male-dominated areas, and if we add government and the business sector, we realize that these are hostile environments for women. Patriarchy makes you feel unwelcome, like an intruder, like you have nothing to do there, which is why we need to make groups. This is what moved us. We are a network of more than 400 women throughout Ibero-America. We are present in more than 12 countries. We have as our flagship project "Urban Leaders," where we graduate women in mobility and transportation issues.
It is the most rewarding project I have worked on.
JT:: Speaking of the patriarchal system, I would like to know your opinion on the permanent change to winter-time in Mexico. During the winter-time in Mexico, the rate of sexual harassment in public transportation increases by 100% compared to summer-time. Do you know how it was decreed? What is your opinion?
LB: This is the problem of a country that is partially governed by gimmicks. This country has the best publicist in charge. He is not a governor. What was done with the time change was to seek easy applause, without technical support. Clearly, it affects people's movements in the city. We know that public transportation is not one of the safest spaces, and this is accompanied by a lack of infrastructure.
I wouldn't go directly to the issue of time, but to the lack of infrastructure and safety conditions, but clearly, the time change measure was not a technical change, but an attempt to gain applause from a few.
JT:: Laura, our conversation went by quickly. Can you give a last message to our young audience?
LB: Change the world. You have that superpower. If there is going to be a future, it's in your hands. From my part, I promise that we will not fail you.