This article investigates the factors behind the likelihood of experiencing a specific type of mobility situation. The case of commuting by public transport in Greater Mexico City is analysed. A one-way ANOVA with post-hoc procedures and three multinomial logistic regression models are used to assess the extent to which transport-, land use- or socio-economic-related variables influence the likelihood of experiencing a specific mobility situation. The results show that the mobility situations of workers are primarily influenced by the socio-economic characteristics of commuters, followed by land-use patterns and the availability of transport systems, respectively. This means that in addition to transport-related policies, reducing commuting disparities in urban regions will require policies able to reduce socio-economic inequalities and influence the urban structure.
AguilarAHernándezJ (2012) Transformación metropolitana y estructura policéntrica en la ciudad de méxico. Identificación de subcentros urbanos, 1990-2005. In: ZiccardiA (ed.) Ciudades Del 2010: Entre La Sociedad Del Conocimiento y La desigualdad Social. Ciudad de México: UNAM, pp.199–237.
2.
BarbaCValenciaE (2013) La transición del régimen de bienestar mexicano: Entre el dualismo y las reformas liberales. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política22(2): 47–76.
3.
BlumenbergEPierceGSmartM (2015) Transportation access, residential location, and economic opportunity: Evidence from two housing voucher experiments. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research17(2): 89–111.
4.
BocarejoS JPOviedoH DR (2012) Transport accessibility and social inequities: A tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments. Journal of Transport Geography24: 142–154.
5.
CerveroRB (2013) Linking urban transport and land use in developing countries. Journal of Transport and Land Use6(1): 7–24.
6.
ConnollyP (2018) ¿Qué se gobierno en materia de transporte y movilidad? El caso de la Ciudad de México. In: UgaldeVLe GalèsP (eds) Gobernando la Ciudad de México: Lo que se Gobierna y lo que no se Gobierna en una gran metrópoli. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México, pp.371–428.
7.
CresswellT (2006) The right to mobility: The production of mobility in the courtroom. Antipode38(4): 735–754.
8.
CruzFGarzaG (2014) Configuración microespacial de la industria en la Ciudad de México a inicios del siglo XXI. Estudios Demograficos Y Urbanos29(1): 9–52.
9.
CuiBBoisjolyGEl-GeneidyA, et al. (2019) Accessibility and the journey to work through the lens of equity. Journal of Transport Geography74: 269–277.
10.
Delgado RamosG (2019) Real estate industry as an urban growth machine: A review of the political economy and political ecology of urban space production in Mexico City. Sustainability11(7): 1980.
11.
DuHMulleyC (2012) Understanding spatial variations in the impact of accessibility on land value using geographically weighted regression. Journal of Transport and Land Use5(2): 46–59.
12.
GarzaG (2020) Dinámica y configuración macroeconómica de la Ciudad de México, 1960-2013: Estrategia económico-espacial para la planeación multidimensional de la Ciudad de México, 2020-2040. Ciudad de México: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Gobierno de la Ciudad de México.
13.
GraizbordB (2008) Geografía del transporte público en el área metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México.
14.
HandySLNiemeierDA (1997) Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A29(7): 1175–1194.
15.
HuY (2022) The unequal commute: Comparing commuting patterns across income and racial worker subgroups. Environment and Planning A54(3): 437–440.
16.
IbarraVNegreteMEGraizbordB (2016) Tres aristas de un mismo problema: Movilidad diferencial en la ciudad de México. In: NegreteME (ed.) Urbanización y política urbana en Iberoamérica: Experiencias, análisis y reflexiones. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México, pp.145–192.
17.
JacquinC (2012) Producir y habitar la periferia. Los nuevos conjuntos de vivienda de bajo costo en México (ZMVM). Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines41(3): 389–415.
18.
KowaldMKieserBMathysN, et al. (2017) Determinants of mobility resource ownership in Switzerland: Changes between 2000 and 2010. Transportation44(5): 1043–1065.
19.
Le VineSLee-GosselinMSivakumarA, et al. (2013) A new concept of accessibility to personal activities: Development of theory and application to an empirical study of mobility resource holdings. Journal of Transport Geography31: 1–10.
20.
LoderAAxhausenKW (2018) Mobility tools and use: Accessibility’s role in Switzerland. Journal of Transport and Land Use11(1): 367–385.
21.
López-GarcíaD (2023) Worker Mobility and Urban Policy in Latin America: Policy Interactions and Urban Outcomes in Mexico City. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
22.
López-GarcíaDBakerDM (2023) Diverging mobility situations: Measuring relative job accessibility and differing socioeconomic conditions in New York City. Annals of the American Association of Geographers113(1): 149–168.
23.
ManaughKMiranda-MorenoLFEl-GeneidyAM (2010) The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home–work location, and demographics on commuting distances. Transportation37(4): 627–646.
24.
McLaffertySPrestonV (2019) Who has long commutes to low-wage jobs? Gender, race, and access to work in the New York region. Urban Geography40(9): 1270–1290.
25.
MontejanoJCaudilloCSilvánJ (2016) Contesting Mexico City’s alleged polycentric condition through a centrality-mixed land-use composite index. Urban Studies53(11): 2380–2396.
26.
MonteroS (2020) Leveraging Bogotá: Sustainable development, global philanthropy and the rise of urban solutionism. Urban Studies57(11): 2263–2281.
27.
MoraRMoranP (2020) Public bike sharing programs under the prism of urban planning officials: The case of Santiago de Chile. Sustainability12(14): 5720–5819.
28.
MulleyC (2014) Accessibility and residential land value uplift: Identifying spatial variations in the accessibility impacts of a bus transitway. Urban Studies51(8): 1707–1724.
29.
NegreteMPaquetteC (2011) La interacción entre transporte público y urbanización en la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México un modelo expansivo que llega a sus límites. Territorios25: 15–33.
30.
NiedzielskiMABoschmannE (2014) Travel time and distance as relative accessibility in the journey to work. Annals of the American Association of Geographers104(6): 1156–1182.
31.
OngPMMillerD (2005) Spatial and transportation mismatch in Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research25(1): 43–56.
32.
PáezAScottDMMorencyC (2012) Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography25: 141–153.
33.
PrestonVMcLaffertyS (2016) Revisiting gender, race, and commuting in New York. Annals of the American Association of Geographers106(2): 1–11.
34.
RubalcavaRMSchteingartM (2012) Ciudades Divididas: Desigualdad y Segregación Social En México. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México.
35.
ShearmurR (2006) Travel from home: An economic geography of commuting distances in Montreal. Urban Geography27(4): 330–359.
36.
ShenQ (1998) Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design25(3): 345–365.
37.
ShenQ (2000) Spatial and social dimensions of commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association66(1): 68–82.
38.
SmallKVerhoefE (2007) The Economics of Urban Transportation. New York: Routledge.
39.
SongBMcDonaldJ (2003) Determinants of commuting time and distance for Seoul residents: The impact of family status on the commuting of women. Urban Studies40(7): 1283–1302.
40.
SuárezMDelgadoJ (2009) Is Mexico City polycentric? A trip attraction capacity approach. Urban Studies46(10): 2187–2211.
41.
SuárezMMurataMDelgado CamposJ (2016) Why do the poor travel less? Urban structure, commuting and economic informality in Mexico City. Urban Studies53(12): 2548–2566.
42.
SultanaS (2005) Racial variations in males’ commuting times in Atlanta: What does the evidence suggest?The Professional Geographer57(1): 66–82.
43.
VandersmissenMHVilleneuvePThériaultM (2003) Analyzing changes in urban form and commuting time. The Professional Geographer55(4): 446–463.
44.
VerlinghieriEVenturiniF (2018) Exploring the right to mobility through the 2013 mobilizations in Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Transport Geography67: 126–136.
45.
ZiccardiA (2014) Poverty and urban inequality: The case of Mexico City metropolitan region. International Social Science Journal65(217–218): 205–219.
