Published
2020-06-29
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Dorian Antonio Bautista-Hernández
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Commuting inequality, role of urban structure, and identification of disadvantaged groups in the Mexico City metropolitan area
Dorian Antonio Bautista-Hernández
University of Washington
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2020.1611
Keywords: Mexico City, job accessibility, Shen´s indicator, urban structure, commute
Abstract
Cities in developing countries are undergoing a vigorous urbanization process marked by deep social and economic inequalities, which are reflected in transportation. This study analyzes one-way Average Commute Time (ACT) in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area, specifically regarding its spatial pattern in relation to the urban center and the differences between cars and public transportation. It also explores the urban structure drivers as well as the social dimension. Results show that ACT is lower for car drivers than for transit users. The curve depicting the relationship between ACT and distance to the center differs between private car and public transit, being semi-flat for the former and an inverted U-shaped curve for the latter. There is a higher spatial correlation for transit ACT than for car ACT. Based on the results from Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and spatial regression models, travel times from TRANUS transport model show that job accessibility plays a significantly inverse role in determining ACT for transit users and car users alike. However, this response is not consistent according to observed travel times from the 2017 Household Origin Destination Survey (HODS17). In regard to population groups, migrants and indigenous populations display significantly longer commute times, especially when using public transit, providing evidence that these groups are disadvantaged.
Author Biography
Dorian Antonio Bautista-Hernández, University of Washington
PhD candidate
References
Aguilar, A. & Ward, P. (2003). Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America: Analyzing Mexico City’s peri-urban hinterland. Cities, 20 (1), 3–21.
Anselin, L. (2005). Exploring spatial data with GeoDaTM: a workbook, revised version. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science (http:// www.csiss.org/).
Casado I. J. M. (2012). La estructura policéntrica de los mercados laborales locales de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, UNAM. ISSN 0188-4611, Núm. 79, 2012, pp. 97-118.
Cervero, R. (1989). Jobs-Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55:2, 136-150.
Cervero, R. & Landis, J. (1992). Suburbanization of Jobs and the Journey
to work: A submarket analysis of commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of Advanced Transportation. 26(3). 275-297.
Cervero, R. (1996). Jobs-Housing Balance Revisited: Trends and Impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62:4.
Darmofal, D. (2015). Spatial Analysis for the Social Sciences. Analytical Methods for Social Research. Cambridge University Press. pp. 259.
Duhau E. (2003). División social del espacio metropolitano y movilidad residencial. Papeles de Población. 9(36), 161-210.
Giuliano, G. (1991). Is Jobs-Housing Balance a Transportation Issue? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1305. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp. 305-312.
Giuliano G. & Small, K. A. (1993). Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Studies 30: 1485–1500.
Glendening, K. S. (2012). Delimiting the postmodern urban center: an analysis of urban amenity clusters in Los Angeles. Faculty of the USC Graduate School University of Southern California. Master of Science (Geographic Information Science and Technology).
Gordon, P., Richardson H., & Jun, M. J. (1991). The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(4), 416-420.
Gordon, P. & Bumsoon L. (2015). Chapter 6: Spatial structure and travel: trends in commuting and noncommuting travels in US metropolitan areas, in Hickman, R.M., D. Givoni, Bonilla & Banister, D. (eds.) Handbook on Transport and Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Graizbord, B. & Santillán, M. (2005). Dinámica demográfica y generación de viajes al trabajo en el AMCM: 1994-2000. Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, 58, pp. 71-101.
Grengs, J. (2010). Job accessibility and the modal mismatch in Detroit. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 42–54.
Guerra, E. (2013). The New Suburbs: Evolving travel behavior, the built environment, and subway investments in Mexico City. PhD Dissertation. University of California Transportation Center. University of California, Berkeley. pp. 131.
Guerra, E. (2014). The Built Environment and Car Use in Mexico City: Is the Relationship Changing over Time?. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 394-408.
Guerra, E. (2015). The geography of car ownership in Mexico City: a joint model of households’ residential location and car ownership decisions. Journal of Transport Geography. 43. 171–180.
Guerra, E. (2017). Does where you live affect how much you spend on transit? The link between urban form and household transit expenditures in Mexico City. The Journal of Transport and Land Use. 10(1); 855-878.
INEGI (2010). Censo general de población y vivienda, Instituto Nacional de Geografía Estadística e Informática, México.
INEGI (2017). Encuesta Origen-Destino en Hogares de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática.
Instituto de Políticas para el Transporte y el Desarrollo, ITDP México. (2014). Transporte Público Masivo en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México Proyecciones de demanda y soluciones al 2024. México: Navarro, U. & Viñas, K.L. (Coords.).
Isunza, V. G. & Soriano, C. V. (2008). Mercado de Trabajo y Movilidad en la Ciudad de México. Mundo Siglo XXI. 11: 45-56.
Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing Segregation, Negro Employment, and Metropolitan Decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82,175–97.
Kawabata, M. & Shen, Q. (2006). Job accessibility as an indicator of auto-oriented urban structure: a comparison of Boston and Los Angeles with Tokyo. Environment and Planning B, 33(1), 115–130.
Kawabata, M. & Shen, Q. (2007). Commuting Inequality between Cars and Public Transit: The Case of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990–2000. Urban Studies, 44(9), 1759-1780.
Khattak, A. J., Amerlynck, V. J. & Quercia, R. G. (2000). Are Travel Times
and Distances to Work Greater for Residents of Poor Urban Neighborhoods?. Transportation Research Record, 1718, 73-82.
Lee, B. (2007). “Edge” or “edgeless” cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000”, Journal of Regional Science, 47(3), 479-515.
Mario Molina Center for Strategic Studies on Energy and the Environment (MMC) (2016). Criterios de Entorno para la Vivienda Social en México. Fase II. Executive summary available: http://centromariomolina.org/ciudades-sustentables/criterios-de-entorno-para-la-vivienda-social-en-mexico-fase-ii-2016/
Montejano, J., Caudillo, C. & Silván, J. (2016). Contesting Mexico City’s alleged polycentric condition through a centrality-mixed land-use composite index. Urban Studies, 53(11), 2380-2396.
Pradilla, C. E. (2016). Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México: neoliberalismo y contradicciones urbanas. Sociologías, 42, 54-89.
Rossetti, M. A. & Eversole, B. S. (1993). Journey to work trends in the United States and its major metropolitan areas, 1960-1990. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Shen, Q. (1998). Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 345-365.
Shen, Q. (2000). Spatial and Social Dimensions of Commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 68-82, DOI: 10.1080/01944360008976085.
Suárez, M. & Delgado, J. (2009). Is Mexico City Polycentric? A Trip Attraction Capacity Approach. Urban Studies, 46(10), 2187–2211.
Suárez, M., Murata, M. & Delgado, J. (2016). Why do the poor travel less? Urban structure, commuting and economic informality in Mexico City. Urban Studies, 53(12), 2548-2566.
US Department of Transportation. (2011, June). Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Santos, A., McGuckin, N., Nakamoto, H.Y. Gray, D. & Liss, S. (authors). Retrieved from http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
