Negligence meets social inequality: the disaster of Mexico City’s metro failure
On May 3rd of 2021, one of the most appalling incidents in the history of the Mexico City Metro System took place: a train collapsed, killing 25 people and injuring over 80[1]. The event occurred in the Olivos station, part of the newest line of the metro system, line 12. This line was constructed amidst multiple legal, political and financial irregularities, being inaugurated in 2011. Only one year and a half after the line started working, the trains already presented attrition and excessive vibration, and 11 (out of 20) stations had to stop operating for 6 months[2]. Shortly after, investigations suggested money laundry implicating the contractors as well as public servants. In 2017, the line suffered severe damages due to the earthquake that took place on September 19th of that year. The damages were evident and neighbours constantly denounced the visible deterioration of the stations.
The concerns were hardly addressed, with few security measures taking place and almost no serious evaluation of structural damages. Unfortunately, the accumulation of the mentioned events led to last Monday’s disaster, taking the lives of 25 people. This is, needless to say, the result of the worst policy practices, negligence and entire disregard for the security and welfare of the citizens. It is definitely a catastrophe that could and should have been avoided. It started with the governments that did not demand the highest standards to contractors, it was perpetrated by numerous corrupted actors and neglected by the more recent governments who pushed for austerity and oversaw alarming situations like this one and decided to just act on palliatives.
This event, however, entails a more profound social problem. Mobility infrastructure is just one of the many manifestations of the city’s inequality. The subway is mainly (almost exclusively) used by the lower social classes, avoided by upper-class members, who typically use cars as their main means of transportation. For decades, what has been prioritized in the city’s mobility is car infrastructure. 22% of the city’s population uses the car, while 46% depends on public transportation. Nonetheless, 66.8% of the federal transport budget was destined to projects that benefit mostly car users[3]. In particular, during the last 2 years of government, the budget for the Metro System was reduced 18% despite the recent catastrophe of 2017 that severely damaged part of the stations[4]. This active policy decision directly impacted the safety and wellbeing of those who use the system.
The percentage of the population that uses the car as a main means of transportation, has remained the same since the late 1970s, where 21% of the trips were made by private units but represented 97% of the total units in the city[5]. The city has embraced a car-oriented approach for the past decades, with huge mobility infrastructures being constructed ever since. Over the years, infrastructure that favours car mobility has largely outweighed public mobility facilities. The more recent data point out that nowadays, the city invests 36% of its mobility budget in public transportation. This is a considerable, but insufficient improvement, if we take into consideration the percentage of beneficiaries, plus the years of budgetary negligence that they were subject to. It is interesting to note in this regard that Mexico City is the best possible scenario of public transport in Mexico, as every Mexican city invests less than 36% of their mobility budget in public transportation[6]. This is regrettable for the more than 50 million people in Mexico that rely on public transportation as their main means of commuting[7]. There is a clear discrepancy in the budget allocation that has often been questioned by an important sector of the population, but that has ultimately, little power to influence the decision making processes.
Moreover, the economic activities and sources of employment tend to be located towards the city’s centre, expanding towards the west and south-west of the metropole. Commuting is part of the everyday life of people from the so-called “peripheries”, who can spend up to 6 hours in the public transportation every day. For these people, it is unviable and unaffordable to live closer to the economic centre. The urbanization trends have slowly displaced people towards the periphery, marginalizing the least economically empowered sector of the population. Thus, people living in the peripheries rely on public transportation in order to make a living. That this system not only fails to provide an efficient means of transportation but that it in fact threatens their lives, is the epitome of social injustice.
The deliberate allocation of budget is a clear manifestation of the government’s inaction to a more egalitarian society. It is also a manifestation of little involvement of the society in decision-making processes that concern them, their wellbeing and their integrity. After this tragedy, today, more than 4 million people will still use this unsafe means of transportation. Because there is no choice. Added to the insecurity, public transportation poses many other problems that downgrade people’s welfare. Clear, more inclusive policy actions towards a more egalitarian city should be taking place after this tragedy. Or are we waiting for more tragedies to unwind?
Inequality conversations must transcend the meritocracy discussions, addressing matters such as budget allocation and policy decisions. Inequality is not only unjust because of the uneven distribution of resources. In the case of Mexico City, painful cases like the collapse of the metro, demonstrate how inequality is a prelude to the deprivation of lives of a specific sector of the population. Ultimately, uneven budget allocation is negligence that will, unfortunately, but unavoidably, end with citizens’ integrity. The importance of combating inequality is not only a matter of economy. It is a matter of human rights. An active decision of prioritizing a specific sector of the society’s means of transportation at the expense of another sector is actively disregarding their fundamental human rights.
Sources:
[1] Updated from https://hospitalizadosmetro.cdmx.gob.mx/public/hospitalizados_metro.xhtml
[2] Las fallas técnicas de la Línea 12 … desde su apertura según la ASF, Proceso. https://www.proceso.com.mx/reportajes/2021/5/4/las-fallas-tecnicas-de-la-linea-12-desde-su-apertura-segun-la-asf-263250.html
[3] Índice de Movilidad Urbana, IMCO 2019. https://imco.org.mx/indices/indice-de-movilidad-urbana/
[4] According to Leonardo Núñez González, with data from the Ministry of Finances of Mexico City: https://twitter.com/rojo_neon/status/1389429944405594116/photo/1
[5] El Metro de la Ciudad de México, Bernardo Navarro Benítez, 1984. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3540347
[6] Índice de Movilidad Urbana, IMCO 2019. https://imco.org.mx/indices/indice-de-movilidad-urbana/
[7] Por un transporte público digno para 50 millones de mexicanos: Propuestas de política pública para el siguiente gobierno federal, WRI, 2018. http://wrimexico.org/sites/default/files/AMAM_AgendaVF%20%281%29.PDF
