We reject these terms because they are vague and inadequate:

-“informal transportation” or “semi-formal transportation”

-“paratransit”

-“intermediate public transit;” and,

-“artisanal public transportation.”

The more we use these terms, the more we realize that they contribute to a distorted understanding. They define popular transportation in a subservient relationship to some assumed, idealized “thing.” 

As opposed to real transportation, these terms portray popular transportation as a not-the-thing or a semi-thing, or a para-thing. They imply that somehow popular transportation systems are sub-standard, a lower class of a platonic ideal. 

Informal and semi-formal connote that there is “formal” transportation. It assumes that there is a standard version of transportation and that these systems are but a subclass. It implies that trains and municipal buses are formal; keke napep, dala dalas, and trotros are not. 

The prefix “para” is from the Ancient Greek παρά (pará, “beside; next to, near, from; against, contrary to”). Para+transit implies that these systems are similar to but are not quite transit. Bus rapid transit is actual transit; minibus taxis and trufis are not. 

Intermediate implies that these are “halfway” or “in-between” or a temporary stage on the way to something fully developed. Metros are permanent; auto and cycle rickshaws are fleeting and temporary.

Artisanal implies that popular transportation modes are “precious, handmade services produced in limited quantities,” like baubles made for tourists or the rich. We could not call the 75,000 danfos that serve the 20 million residents of Lagos “limited quantities.”

The terms we use either challenge or reinforce our biases. These terms reinforce the status quo, the imbalance of power between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the rest. 

Formal implies authority and power. Informal, semi, para, intermediate, and artisanal are subordinate—are to be subjugated. 

We’ve realized these vague terms are neocolonial. They ignore the history and the forces that drove the emergence of these systems. They devalue what currently exists and promote a preformed idea of how “modern, formal transportation systems” are supposed to function and appear. They imply that “real” transit looks uniform, has the same livery, and is run by large institutions. They imply that informal, semi-, para-, intermediate, and artisanal transit are chaotic, uncontrollable systems.

Furthermore, these vague terms make it easier to dismiss and invalidate these ubiquitous, resilient systems. They allow us to portray popular transportation as local problems rather than global assets. 

We’ve learned that words matter. Names matter. Popular transportation matters.