International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

Mapping Equality in Access: The Case of Bogotá's

Sustainable Transportation Initiatives

Thijs Teunissen, Olga Sarmiento, Mark Zuidgeest & Mark Brussel

To cite this article: Thijs Teunissen, Olga Sarmiento, Mark Zuidgeest & Mark Brussel
(2015) Mapping Equality in Access: The Case of Bogotá's Sustainable Transportation
Initiatives, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9:7, 457-467, DOI:
10.1080/15568318.2013.808388

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2013.808388

Accepted author version posted online: 11

Jul 2014.
Published online: 10 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 700

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9: 457–467
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-8318 print/1556-8334 online
DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2013.808388

Mapping Equality in Access: The Case of Bogotá’s Sustainable

Transportation Initiatives
THIJS TEUNISSEN1, OLGA SARMIENTO2, MARK ZUIDGEEST3, and MARK BRUSSEL4
1
Centre for Transport Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
2
Faculty of Medicine, University of Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
3
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town, South Africa
4
Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-Information Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

Received 25 July 2012, Revised 11 May 2013, Accepted 20 May 2013

To enhance social equity, three important sustainable transportation initiatives have been introduced in Bogotá. Spatial information and
GIS have been used to analyze levels of inequality in access to these initiatives. The results show that the TransMilenio BRT offers
equal access for all socio-economic strata (SES). Nonetheless, its modal share is low for the poor due to affordability issues. The
Cicloruta bicycle network and Ciclovía recreational program do not offer equal access for all SES, especially for the lower SES. Their
users, however, mainly come from low and middle income SES. Marginal network extensions can improve equality in access.
Keywords: Access, Bogotá, Colombia, equality, GIS, spatial analysis, sustainable transport

1. Introduction their social privileges, guide the distribution of opportunities for

With the majority of the global population residing in cities (United
Nations 2010), many urban issues, including transportation, mani-
fest themselves in inequity (Boschmann and Kwan 2008). In line
with the three main concepts of sustainable development (see
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987), nine
Latin American countries have recently committed to socially,
environmentally and economically sustainable transportation
objectives (Regional Forum on Sustainable Transport 2011) in
the so-called Bogotá Declaration. Similarly, the 2012 UN confer-
ence, Rioþ20, on sustainable development also highlighted trans-
portation-related sustainability issues and the alleviation of poverty.
The sustainability concept is interwoven with concepts such
as equality and equity, which strongly relate to the way in which
governments intervene in the provision of services and, thereby,
to the effect of interventions on socioeconomic and environmental
conditions. Although these concepts are often used interchange-
ably, equality typically refers to the homogeneous distribution
of resources, such as income (Garcia-Valinas, Llera, and Torgler
2005). Therefore, achieving equality refers to all groups achieving
the same level of opportunity or service. Equity, however, can be
viewed as a less radical notion that addresses the distribution of
a minimum required level of resources based on principles of
social justice and fairness such that “people’s needs, rather than
Address correspondence to Mark Brussel, Department of Urban and
Regional Planning and Geo-Information Management, University
of Twente, P.O. Box 217, Enschede, 7500 AE Netherlands.
E-mail: m.j.g.brussel@utwente.nl
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article can
be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujst.
well-being” (Braveman 2006, p. 173). Thus, in the current paper,
we use the concept of equality in relation to achieving equal levels
of access, whereas we use the concept of equity in relation to its
effect on social welfare and inclusion.
Provisions in nonmotorized transportation (NMT) can
improve access to income opportunities, especially for short
distances. Additionally, an efficient and affordable public trans-
portation (PT) system, especially when well connected to the
NMT infrastructure, can provide better access, particularly for
medium- and long-distance trips. Providing improved (potentially
equal) spatial access to disadvantaged groups can contribute to
the social equity of these groups and reduce social exclusion.
An interesting and internationally recognized successful
example of implementation of sustainable transportation is real-
ized in the city of Bogotá, Colombia. Here, three systems have
been implemented through a combination of interventions in
nonmotorized transportation and public transportation. The
combination of such systems at the scale at which it is imple-
mented is unprecedented in cities in developing regions.
The prime and best-known example of sustainable transpor-
tation in Bogotá is the TransMilenio—an 84-kilometer Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) system with nine lines and 115 stations—
that is considered to be the gold standard of BRT (Hook 2004).
Currently, the TransMilenio serves 1.4 million people daily
and has increased bus speeds from 12 km/h to 26 km/h
(Munoz-Raskin 2010). The aim of the construction of the
TransMilenio was to provide a more equitable transportation
system (TransMilenio S. A. 2003). However, TransMilenio tra-
vel times remain higher for the lower socioeconomic strata
(SES), which is mainly caused by relatively long access trips
to TransMilenio (Olarte Bacares 2011).
458
In addition to the TransMilenio, Bogotá has introduced two
bicycle programs. First, the Cicloruta is the most extensive
bicycle path network in Latin America with a length of
291 km. The paths connect in part to TransMilenio. After
the Cicloruta program was implemented, the bicycle modal
share increased from 0.58% to 4.4% between 1996 and 2003
(Cervero 2005) and traffic accidents and deaths were reduced
(Wright and Montezuma 2004).
Second, the Ciclovía is a recreational program introduced in
1976 in which streets are temporarily closed to motorized
vehicles to allow exclusive access by pedestrians, cyclists,
rollerbladers, and others for active recreation (Sarmiento et al.
2010). This program was developed as an initiative to overcome
inequalities and improve quality of life (Díaz del Castillo et al.
2011). For Ciclovía, 97 km of main roads are closed for motor-
ized transportation during seven daylight hours on Sundays
and holidays. As a co-benefit to promoting physical activity,
participants of the Ciclovía are more likely to use a bicycle
for commuting (Parra et al. 2007; Torres et al. 2013).
All three of Bogotá’s sustainable transportation initiatives
could contribute to reducing access inequalities in the city as
well as other goals such as reducing traffic congestion, improv-
ing quality of life, and promoting physical activity, among other
aims. Yet, the spatial distribution of these initiatives compared
to the locations of the different SES has not been assessed
(Torres et al. 2013). Hence, this paper aims to assess spatial
access to TransMilenio, Cicloruta, and Ciclovía by SES through
a spatial analysis of its infrastructure and the locations of
Bogotá’s residents. The results will be useful in bridging the
gap between transportation and social analysis and could
serve similar programs in assessing indicators of transportation-
related inequity.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we dis-
cuss the literature on social exclusion and indicators of social
inequity. In section 3, we provide information on the materials
that are used for this paper. We also introduce the methods that
are used for the determination of social inequity. Section 4
addresses the results of the study. These results are discussed
in section 5, which also compares the findings with those of
the previous literature. Section 6 concludes and presents policy
implications.
2. Transportation-Related Social Exclusion
Social exclusion is defined as the broad political and structural
barrier to opportunity. Accessibility to transportation is one such
barrier to opportunity (McDonagh 2006). Transportation-related
social exclusion centers on the premise that it is not the lack of
opportunities that hinders participation, but rather the lack of
access to these opportunities (Lucas 2004; Preston and Rajé
2007). The growing importance of transportation in enabling
access to essential goods and services is increasingly recognized
within the transportation literature, as modern societies are built
around the premise of the need for high levels of mobility.
Accordingly, the socially excluded population is prevented from
participating in the economic, political, and social life of a given
society due to a lack of accessibility, which is reflected in low
levels of mobility (Câmara et al. 2001). Transportation-related
T. Teunissen
social exclusion thus closely relates to distributional aspects of
accessibility.
Only a few studies have examined levels of social exclusion
due to spatial access to transportation, particularly in an OECD
country context. Delbosc and Currie (2011), for example, study
access distance to transit stops, demonstrating that low-income
residents and households with low car ownership in the inner
city of Melbourne, Australia, experience relatively high levels
of access to transit supply, which may be caused by residential
self-selection. Foth, Manaugh, and El-Geneidy (2013) study
employment accessibility in Toronto, Canada, and find that
socially disadvantaged groups experience higher accessibility
and lower travel times by using public transportation. In con-
trast, using GIS-based tools, Wu and Hine (2003) demonstrate
that those living in the most deprived wards in the city of Belfast
in Northern Ireland are also the most disadvantaged in terms of
public transportation access. In addition, Paget-Seekins (2012)
analyzes nonwork accessibility in seventeen U.S. cities and
shows that those with higher incomes generally experience
higher land coverage for PT and NMT.
The scale of social exclusion in Bogotá may differ greatly
from that in OECD countries. The GINI-coefficient that quanti-
fies the level of inequality suggests that income inequalities are
larger in Bogotá. Hence, social exclusion may manifest itself
more evidently. Transportation systems may thus have great
potential to function as a social equalizer in cities such as
Bogotá. Delmelle and Casas (2012), in addition, provide an
example in a non-OECD context in a GIS-based accessibility
study of the BRT system of Cali, Colombia. That study shows
that the greatest access to transit is enjoyed by middle social
classes and that in terms of destination accessibility, the lowest
social class is underserved.
The type of social indicator that is used differs greatly
between OECD and non-OECD countries. In Cali, for example,
a local stratification system based on household characteristics
is used (Delmelle and Casas 2012), whereas in many OECD
cases, a mix of social indicators, including immigration (Foth,
Manaugh, and El-Geneidy 2013), race, and ethnicity, is used
(Grengs 2013). These indicators are considered to be less of a
determining factor in a city such as Bogotá, which shows that
low-income groups in OECD countries are unlike those in non-
OECD countries.
In the present article, we map spatial access to Bogotá’s
TransMilenio system, Cicloruta, and Ciclovía for different
socioeconomic strata to assess levels of spatial equity. Delmelle
and Casas (2012) highlight the following two components of
assessing accessibility: access to the transportation system itself
and access to activities throughout the city. The former is an
important first step and is the focus of this study, but a
destination-based accessibility analysis is most certainly
recommended for further research. In this study, we adopt an
infrastructure-based measure of accessibility following Geurs
and Van Wee (2004) in which network-based travel times and
distances toward the TransMilenio, Cicloruta, and Ciclovía sys-
tems for the various SES in Bogotá are considered. In line with
the above definitions of equality and equity, we use equality in
the sense of a policy objective of achieving equal spatial access
to NMT and PT systems, whereas we use the term equity to
Bogotá’s Sustainable Transportation Initiatives 459

explain the contribution hereof to increase social inclusion and Table 1. Bogotá’s population per SES (DANE 2005)
opportunity. We consider these concepts to be dependent upon
a multitude of factors, including spatial access. SES Median income Population Percentage

0 N=A 130,768 1.9%

3. Materials and Methods 1 N=A 876,794 12.5%
2 N=A 2,504,441 35.8%
3.1. Location and Materials 3 N=A 2,701,466 38.6%
4 N=A 441,968 6.3%
Bogotá is the capital of Colombia, a country classified as an
5 N=A 202,151 2.9%
emerging economy (Standard & Poor’s 2012) and is situated 6 N=A 145,886 2.1%
at 2,600 meters above sea level in the Andean mountain range. Total 7,003,474 100%
The city’s proximity to the equator and high altitude provide a
year-round temperate climate. Bogotá comprises over one-fifth Low (1 þ 2) 122 US$ 3,381,235 49.2%
of the national population and contributes approximately 30% Middle (3 þ 4) 244 US$ 3,143,434 45.7%
to the GNP. Bogotá is facing rapid growth—the urban popu- High (5 þ 6) 974 US$ 348,037 5.1%
lation more than doubled between 1964 and 1985 from 2.2 N=A ¼ not available.
million to 5.3 million (Rueda-García 2003) and reached 7.0
million in 2005 (DANE 2005). Consequently, slums are forming GIS data are used on the infrastructure that comprises the 291 km
at the city’s outskirts, which are quite mountainous and less of bicycle paths in the city. Likewise, for the Ciclovía program,
accessible. Currently, 13.8% of the population is living in these GIS network data are used. For the SES, spatial information on
slums (Rueda-García 2003). For all of South America, income the population per block and corresponding SES classification
inequalities are the highest in Colombia, with a GINI-coefficient from the year 2005 are used as inputs derived om the 2005
of 0.578 (ECLAC 2011). Furthermore, social segregation is national census executed by the National Administrative
widespread in Bogotá, with the poorest areas located in the
mountainous extreme east of the city and in the south of the city,
whereas the richest areas are north of the colonial city center
(Skinner 2004). Poverty indicators that measure unsatisfied
basic needs classify 35% of the Bogotá population as poor
(Rueda-García 2003). Average travel times and percentage of
income spent on transportation are significantly higher for the
lower SES (Bocarejo and Oviedo 2012). The lowest income
levels, for example, spend an average of 18% of their income
on transportation (Munoz-Raskin 2010). To overcome these
issues, Bogotá has introduced several sustainable transportation
initiatives that specifically—but not exclusively—target the
lower SES.
Bogotá is classified into six SES. Each block of the city is
attributed to a certain class. SES one and two are low income,
SES three and four are middle income, and SES five and six
are high income. The SES level is determined using the classi-
fication of the Bogotá Planning Department based on physical
characteristics of the household and surrounding areas (i.e., con-
ditions and accessibility of the roads, presence of sidewalks, and
construction materials of the house). The population per SES,
based on the 2005 DANE national census, is shown in Table 1.
Households that are located on blocks that are predominantly
used for nonresidential purposes are not allocated a SES (zero)
and can socioeconomically belong to any of the six SES. These
households were thus excluded from the analysis, thereby
excluding approximately 1.9% of all households from this study.
A mapping of Bogotá’s SES distribution shows that low-income
households are located in the south of the city and that high-
income households are located in the northeast (Figure 1).
This study uses spatial information on the TransMilenio,
Cicloruta infrastructure, and Ciclovía recreational program for
the year 2009. For TransMilenio, the data used consist of GIS
data on bus lines and bus stations as well as feeder lines
(Alimentadores). Feeder lines provide access to the main term- Fig. 1. Distribution of socioeconomic strata. Source: Universidad
inals of TransMilenio lines at no additional charge. For Cicloruta, de los Andes. Authors’ elaboration.
460 T. Teunissen

Fig. 2. (a) TransMilenio lines, stations, feeder lines, and expansion in Bogotá; (b) bicycle infrastructure—Cicloruta and Ciclovía—in
Bogotá. Source: Universidad de los Andes. Authors’ elaboration.

Department of Statistics (Departamento Administrativo Nacional
de Estadística DANE).
The TransMilenio lines, stations, and feeder lines are dis-
played in Figure 2a. The bicycle infrastructure Cicloruta and
Ciclovía circuit are shown in Figure 2b. The blocks provide
an indication of the city’s density and, therefore, of the number
of people residing in a particular location.
In terms of spatial extent, TransMilenio serves most areas of
the city, albeit with different densities, showing lines traversing
through the city and with feeder lines providing access to the
city’s outskirts (see Figure 2a). Currently, two new lines have
been constructed, providing access to the east of the city and
to the northwest of the city center. These lines are indicated
in Figure 2 and Figure 3, but were not part of the analysis.
Table 2 shows the TransMilenio modal share per SES.
The Cicloruta network provides access to most parts of
the city, except the south, where many of the poor reside
(Figure 2b). The Ciclovía program appears relatively evenly
distributed and, unlike Cicloruta, provides some infrastructure
in the south of Bogotá (Figure 2b).
In terms of use of the various systems and modes in the city,
Table 2 shows the trip-based modal split over eight modes for
the different SES. The table shows that TransMilenio and
cycling have a relatively low modal share (6.8% and 3.3%,
respectively). Regular buses, or paratransit, comprise the
majority of trips, especially for low and middle SES, because

Table 2. Trip-based modal split per SES

SES Walking Cycling 2 W=3W Car Taxi Bus TransMilenio Other

Low 8.9% 5.8% 1.3% 4.3% 1.6% 72.5% 5.1% 0.5%

Middle 8.6% 1.9% 0.9% 22.8% 5.7% 51.5% 8.4% 0.1%
High 4.5% 0.4% 0.0% 67.8% 10.9% 12.1% 4.3% 0.0%
All 8.4% 3.3% 1.0% 18.6% 4.4% 57.1% 6.8% 0.3%
Source: Secretaría Distrital de Movilidad (2005).
Bogotá’s Sustainable Transportation Initiatives 461

they provide a cheaper alternative and service every part of for accessibility differences per trip purpose. This analysis
Bogotá. With respect to Ciclovía, Diaz del Castillo et al. would also allow for more targeted interventions in both the
(2011) report approximately 600,000 to 1,400,000 users per transportation infrastructure and land use development.
event or 8.6% to 20% of the total population.
4. Results
3.2. Mapping Spatial Access
Walking access levels to the TransMilenio stations and feeder
In this study, we consider spatial access to TransMilenio stations lines are shown in Figure 3. These data are used to derive the
and the networks of Ciclovía and Cicloruta by SES category shares of spatial access to TransMilenio per SES group and
(low, middle, high; see Table 1). Average travel time to reach per catchment area as depicted in Table 3. The table shows that
these systems from the dwelling locations is used because levels of access are nearly equal for all SES for the longer
access to a transportation system, or temporary circuit in the distances, whereas the low SES have the highest access for all
case of Ciclovía, is considered to be associated with using these walking times except for travel time bins above 20 minutes
systems (Cervero et al. 2009). We, therefore, use the SES of walking. The high SES are relatively worse off given the low
residential locations as a base. Nonetheless, future studies levels of access for all walking times. These differences in access
should include an accessibility analysis that links dwellings to show that TransMilenio benefits the lower social classes. The
specific destinations (by SES category). TransMilenio modal share, based on the SDM 2005 mobility
We use ArcGIS to determine the population per SES within survey, is also shown in Table 3. The TransMilenio modal share
the catchment area of the different sustainable transportation is highest for the middle SES. Notably, the lower average modal
systems. Population numbers by SES are obtained by selecting share for the high SES is a result of the 0% modal share for SES
all of the block centers that are within the transportation class six (not shown here); otherwise, this modal share would
system’s (travel-time and distance-based) contours or catchment have been approximately equal to the modal share of middle
areas. Different contours are used to illustrate the growth in the SES. Even though the level of access is relatively similar, differ-
level of spatial access if the catchment area is enlarged. ences in TransMilenio modal share are evident.
Following the methodology of Delmelle and Casas (2012),
the catchment areas are derived by constructing buffers for each
of the transportation systems. These buffers are network-based
because transportation systems can only be accessed using
the general road network. First, buffers around TransMilenio
stations are constructed. The catchment areas are based on
walking times of multiples of five minutes, with a maximum
of 30 minutes. The radius of the buffer is based on an average
walking speed of 4.4 km per hour following Knoblauch,
Pietrucha, and Nitzburg (1996). Hence, buffers with a radius of
411 meters or a multiple are used. Additionally, for the feeder
lines of the TransMilenio, similar buffers are constructed.
Because these buses provide free access to the main TransMilenio
lines, inclusion is required to provide a complete view.
For Cicloruta and Ciclovía, a similar approach is used to
establish the catchment areas. However, the buffers are applied
to every intersection, as Cicloruta and Ciclovía can be accessed
at any point along the route. The 2005 mobility survey of
Bogotá (Secretaría Distrital de Movilidad 2005) shows that
the average bicycle trip distance is 7.1 km. Furthermore, the
SDM survey shows that 30.5% of all bicycle trips are over
10 km in length. Taking into account that bicyclists primarily
desire direct trips (Pettinga et al. 2009), the access trip to bicycle
infrastructure is only a small fraction of the total trip distance.
The Cicloruta and Ciclovía radius is set at multiples of 500
meters, with a maximum of 3,000 meters. All of the catchment
areas, including the TransMilenio, have been established after
consultation with transportation experts in Bogotá.
Only access to the transportation systems is analyzed,
excluding destinations accessible by such systems. However,
an accessibility analysis that focuses on destinations is recom-
mended for a next study because this approach would allow a
more complete evaluation of the land use–transportation system
and the role of the various sustainable transportation modes.
Following Grengs (2013), such a study should also account Fig. 3. Access to TransMilenio per walking time.
462 T. Teunissen

Table 3. Access to TransMilenio (TM) per walking time and SES and trip-based TM modal share

SES Within 5 min Within 10 min Within 15 min Within 20 min Within 25 min Within 30 min TM modal share1

Low 48.3% 68.2% 74.4% 81.1% 84.4% 88.5% 5.1%

Middle 34.7% 57.6% 72.0% 77.9% 86.7% 90.0% 8.4%
High 4.4% 16.7% 33.2% 48.8% 68.4% 81.2% 4.3%
All 39.8% 60.7% 71.2% 78.0% 84.6% 88.8% 6.8%
1
Source: Secretaría Distrital de Movilidad (2005).

For Ciclorutas, the access to the transportation system per
distance class is shown in Figure 4. This figure clearly shows
that the south of Bogotá, where low SES households are located,
Fig. 4. Access to Cicloruta per access distance.
has particularly limited access to Ciclorutas. The results shown
in Table 4, which represent the access in percentages per access
distance, confirm this finding. The access to Cicloruta is highest
for middle and high socioeconomic strata. Low SES have less
access to all distance classes. Thus, there is an unequal access
to Ciclorutas. Table 4 also shows the bicycle modal share based
on the 2005 SDM mobility survey. The bicycle modal share
decreases for higher SES and the bicycle modal share of low
SES is evidently highest; these results are also confirmed in
the recent study by Torres et al. (2013). However, the SES with
higher access to Ciclorutas do not show a higher bicycle modal
share, but rather a lower modal share. Thus, it appears that the
provision of bicycle infrastructure and bicycle use are unrelated
for the low SES population.
The access to Ciclovía per catchment area radius is shown
in Figure 5. The central and eastern parts of Bogotá, in parti-
cular, have good access to Ciclovía. Access to Ciclovía is also
expressed in percentages for each SES and access distance (see
Table 5). The Ciclovía manual states that the maximum dis-
tance traveled to Ciclovía should be two km (PAHO et al.
2009); thus, the first four access distances are particularly
important. This finding clearly shows that access to Ciclovía
is greatest for high SES and lowest for low SES. Table 5 also
shows the percentage of Ciclovía participants per SES class
(National University of Colombia and District Institute of
Recreation and Sport 2005). This result shows that the majority
of Ciclovía participants, 67.6%, are from middle socioeco-
nomic strata and that a significant portion of participants,
24.2%, are from the low SES, which is again in line with
the recent study by Torres et al. (2013). Only a small portion
of Ciclovía participants are from high SES. It is noteworthy
that within a country with marked social inequity, over 90%
of the participants are from low and middle socioeconomic
strata, even though access to Ciclovía is lower in low SES
areas. The lower access in low SES areas is also partially
explained by the fact that the streets that are closed for this
program are recommended as main avenues for touristic attrac-
tions (PAHO et al. 2009).

Table 4. Access to Cicloruta (CR) per access distance and SES and trip-based CR modal share

SES Within 500 m Within 1000 m Within 1500 m Within 2000 m Within 2500 m Within 3000 m CR modal share2

Low 31.3% 53.2% 64.9% 77.2% 84.2% 88.3% 5.8%

Middle 62.3% 92.9% 96.6% 99.2% 99.9% 100.0% 1.9%
High 68.4% 82.2% 87.4% 91.5% 92.1% 99.9% 0.4%
All 47.4% 72.8% 80.6% 88.0% 91.8% 94.3% 3.3%
2
Source: Secretaría Distrital de Movilidad (2005).
Bogotá’s Sustainable Transportation Initiatives 463

lower average speeds, making alternatives such as paratransit

Fig. 5. Access to Ciclovía per access distance.
5. Discussion
5.1. TransMilenio
The results show that access to TransMilenio is uniformly
distributed for high-access distances. For shorter distances to
transit, access is favorable for the low and middle socioeco-
nomic strata. Hence, TransMilenio does not promote unequal
access to the transportation system; however, some inequalities
may be present for destination accessibility. Furthermore, in this
paper, as feeder lines are formally part of TransMilenio, they are
regarded in a similar way as trunk lines even though travel
speeds are lower. Primarily low SES neighborhoods are serviced
by feeder lines; therefore, the trips of low SES are often at
relatively attractive. The incorporation of different travel speeds
(Delmelle and Casas 2012) and waiting and transfer times
(Foth, Manaugh, and El-Geneidy 2013) can provide more
detailed insights in service levels per SES. Therefore, further
research that focuses on activity-based accessibility including
these factors is recommended.
The TransMilenio modal share indicates that low SES choose
TransMilenio less often as their transportation mode. A similar
negative correlation between land coverage and transit use was
also found in a study on several U.S. cities (Paget-Seekins
2012). Research on affordability of TransMilenio has shown that
for lower SES, TransMilenio tickets are not fully affordable
(Munoz-Raskin 2010). Hence, good access to TransMilenio for
low SES does not necessarily result in a high modal share. In
2012, the TransMilenio fare was COP 1,700 (US$ 0.96) com-
pared to a paratransit fare of only COP 1,200 (US$ 0.68). Hence,
the poor—who already spend 18% of their income on transpor-
tation (Munoz-Raskin 2010)—could prefer paratransit over
TransMilenio if the trip is direct. This process is referred to as
quality self-selection, because low SES prefer the lower-quality
paratransit and high SES prefer the higher-quality and faster
TransMilenio (Serebrisky et al. 2009). For those low SES,
mobility is an income burden and the cheaper paratransit is
a fierce competitor of TransMilenio, which explains the lower
TransMilenio modal share of the low SES. Mobility is especially
an issue on parallel routes because lower SES experience lower
speeds using paratransit and thus spend more of their time budget
on transportation, even more so because travel distances seem
inversely related to SES. However, paratransit on perpendicular
routes can complement TransMilenio by functioning as a feeder
system to TransMilenio. The affordability issue can be overcome
through targeted subsidies to the poorest segments of the popu-
lation. In particular, demand-side subsidies have proven to be
effective (Serebrisky et al. 2009). The TransMilenio applies a
flat-fare structure that results in subsidies for long-distance trips.
The SDM mobility survey shows that the average trip length
decreases with increasing SES; low SES have an average trip
length of 12.3 km versus an average trip length of 8.2 km for high
SES. In other words, the flat-fare structure aids the poor.
Additional subsidies could include income-based government
support to compensate rising oil and, thus, transportation, prices
or concessionary fares to alleviate the transportation burden
of specific passenger categories (e.g., students or low SES)
(Serebrisky et al. 2009). These additional subsidies could
decrease the TransMilenio’s affordability issue and utilize the
large number of potential passengers in the low SES, as spatial
access is favorable for low and middle incomes.

Table 5. Access to Ciclovía per access distance and SES and Ciclovía users

SES Within 500 m Within 1000 m Within 1500 m Within 2000 m Within 2500 m Within 3000 m Ciclovía users3

Low 9.5% 20.1% 28.7% 38.9% 48.7% 59.7% 24.2%

Middle 26.8% 51.1% 61.8% 73.4% 81.5% 85.8% 67.6%
High 54.9% 80.2% 94.2% 98.7% 99.0% 99.0% 8.2%
All 19.7% 37.3% 47.2% 57.7% 66.3% 73.6% 100%
3
Source: Universidad Nacional and Instituto Distrital de Recreación y Deporte (2005).
464 T. Teunissen

Table 6. Car ownership and bicycle ownership per SES
SES Car ownership Bicycle ownership
Low 2.4% 13.6%
Middle 10.2% 19.6%
High 40.0% 16.6%
Total 8.5% 16.9%
Source: Municipality of Bogotá (2005).
In conclusion, TransMilenio infrastructure provides rela-
tively equal spatial access for all SES. However, due to afford-
ability issues, the lower SES portray a lower TransMilenio
modal share. This finding implies that lower SES cannot benefit
from the higher travel speeds that TransMilenio offers over
paratransit; thus, more time is spent traveling. Notably, this
paper only evaluates spatial access to TransMilenio and does
not analyze TransMilenio travel times. Given that the only
TransMilenio lines traversing Bogotá from north to south are
in the east of the city, TransMilenio transportation from north
to south in the west part of the city may be inefficient. Hence,
access to destinations from dwellings is not incorporated in this
analysis and may provide different insights. Furthermore,
mainly low SES neighborhoods are serviced by feeder lines.
Therefore, the trips of low SES are at lower average speeds,
making paratransit relatively attractive.
5.2. Cicloruta
The results indicate that access to Ciclorutas is highest for mid-
dle and high SES and significantly lower for low SES. This
finding suggests that the low SES population in Bogotá has less
access to bicycle infrastructure. Interestingly, the bicycle modal
share is highest for low SES and lowest for high SES. Thus, it
seems that access to bicycle infrastructure is inversely related to
bicycle use.
The bicycle use can partially be explained by other explana-
tory variables. Clear differences exist between SES in terms of
car and bicycle ownership (see Table 6). The higher bicycle use
of lower SES cannot be explained by higher bicycle ownership
because their bicycle ownership is lowest. Car ownership
slightly explains this difference because higher SES have a
much higher level of car ownership. Torres et al. (2013), for
example, found that 82.9% of the Ciclorutas users do not own
a car, which could partially explain the mix of users of
Ciclorutas. This finding shows that the alternative transportation
modes for many low SES Cicloruta users are only paratransit
and walking, which do not provide faster transportation modes,
given that the average speed of public buses is only 15 km/h
(Olarte Bacares 2011). In other words, for many poor
individuals, cycling provides the best combination of speed
and transportation costs.
Considering the increasing wealth in developing countries, it
can be expected that many of the people who are now captives
to NMT will gain additional transportation opportunities in the
future. From a sustainable development viewpoint, it is impera-
tive to maintain or possibly increase their bicycle use; otherwise,
motorization will result in major congestion problems. Further-
more, given the limited access to Ciclorutas for the lower SES,
there is potential for a higher bicycle modal share. Improved
spatial access will provide advantages for social equity and
possibly increase current bicycle use. However, in a city such
as Bogotá, social safety must be examined in parallel, as a
Cicloruta survey shows that robbery and crime contribute more
to safety perception than does road safety (Torres et al. 2013).
Access to Cicloruta can be increased through expansion of the
bicycle network. A hypothetical case in line with Wu and Hine
(2003) is analyzed to demonstrate the effects of network expan-
sion. This expansion is based on three principles. First, expansion
is suggested to increase access for the low-income groups, as our
previous analysis has shown that these groups score lowest. The
expansion of Ciclorutas in the south adds greatly to access for low
SES (Table 7), which is not at par with the other SES. New infra-
structure in the south could further increase the bicycle modal
share in the lower SES and could offer an attractive alternative
transportation mode once additional modes become available.
Second, expansion to improve spatial coverage of the network,
network connectivity, and directness of routes to stimulate
bicycle travel is proposed on key corridors. Third, a number of
small missing links are needed to reduce fragmentation and
improve local connectivity. The total expansion is 119.5 km
and will cost approximately 17.6 million U.S. dollars, based on
the construction costs of the initial Cicloruta of 147,000 U.S.
dollars per km (C40 Cities 2011). Interestingly, Massink et al.
(2011) discuss how this bicycle infrastructure expansion can
potentially be financed through carbon savings.
An overview of the current Cicloruta network, proposed
expansion per motive, and new access per distance are shown
in Figure 6. The levels of access per SES after the intervention
and access distance are shown in Table 7. The low access for
low SES in the first two distance bins is due to many dwellings
in the very mountainous east of Bogotá, where Cicloruta con-
struction will not increase bicycle use. The average increase
depicts the increase of access per SES averaged over the six
access distances. Clearly, the expansion mainly benefits low SES.
5.3. Ciclovía
The results show that spatial access to Ciclovía is higher for the
high SES in the city. The participation in the weekly Ciclovía

Table 7. Access to Cicloruta after expansion per access distance and SES

SES Within 500 m Within 1000 m Within 1500 m Within 2000 m Within 2500 m Within 3000 m Average increase

Low 86.0% 86.0% 94.3% 98.6% 99.8% 99.9% 56.8%

Middle 99.4% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.8%
High 95.9% 95.9% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 14.8%
All 92.6% 92.6% 97.2% 99.3% 99.9% 99.9% 28.5%
Bogotá’s Sustainable Transportation Initiatives 465

We conclude that the simplest improvement in access can be

made by closing additional streets in low SES neighborhoods
for the Ciclovía. To improve access to Ciclovía for low SES,
a small expansion of the program will suffice. This expansion
must be connected to the current program and be made into
attractive streets, which are major factors for participation
(PAHO et al. 2009). A hypothetical Ciclovía expansion is illu-
strated in Figure 7, which also includes the access distance to
the expanded Ciclovía. This expansion increases the total
Ciclovía length by 28.3 km. In Table 8, the new access to
Ciclovía is shown per SES and access distance. Because many
of the low SES dwellings are located in the eastern, mountain-
ous areas of Bogotá, extending the Ciclovía directly to those
areas is not viable. Hence, for short access distances, inequal-
ities continue with this hypothetical expansion, but decrease
greatly. In addition to social cohesion, the expansion of the
Ciclovía may have another beneficial effect, as participation in
Ciclovía by bicycle is primarily associated with utilitarian cyc-
ling (Gomez et al. 2005). Thus, the provision of Ciclovía access
correlates with bicycle and Cicloruta use. Therefore, to encour-
age bicycling as a daily transportation mode, Ciclovía partici-
pation is an important factor. From a social viewpoint, equal
access to Ciclovía can increase bicycle use for the low SES,

Fig. 6. Access to Cicloruta after expansion per access distance.

mainly consists of low and middle socioeconomic strata, imply-

ing that low and middle SES use the program in high SES
neighborhoods for recreation (National University of Colombia
and District Institute of Recreation and Sport 2005). Thus, social
inclusion is stimulated through the Ciclovía program. However,
another goal of the program was to provide equal access to
places of interest. This analysis shows that improvement in spa-
tial access to Ciclovía for low and middle SES is desirable.
The results presented in this paper suggest that access to
Ciclovía and participation are unrelated. However, other studies
suggest that residence in neighborhoods with Ciclovía lanes
makes participation in Ciclovía more likely. The study showed
that slope, car ownership, and bicycle ownership influence
Ciclovía use. The former two factors have a negative influence
on Ciclovía use, whereas the latter factor has a positive effect
(Cervero et al. 2009). Low SES generally reside in more moun-
tainous areas and thus face higher slopes (Skinner 2004) and car
ownership is higher for higher SES. Bicycle ownership is high-
est for middle SES, followed by high SES and low SES (see
Table 6). These geographic (access and slope) and demographic
(car and bike ownership) characteristics are unfavorable for low
SES and are most favorable for middle and high SES. Hence,
the relatively high Ciclovía use of low SES is remarkable, as
is the low participation of high SES. Fig. 7. Access to expanded Ciclovía per access distance.
466
Table 8. Access to expanded Ciclovía per access distance and SES
SES Within 500 m Within 1000 m Within 1500 m Within 2000 m
Low 23.6% 39.5% 51.6%
Middle 39.1% 60.2% 74.2%
High 54.9% 80.2% 97.8%
All 32.2% 51.1% 64.3%
who currently have less access. Hence, expanding the Ciclovía
program will not only increase lower SES’ access to Ciclovía,
but may also increase the bicycle use of those SES and aid in
maintaining or increasing the current bicycle use even if wealth
grows.
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Bogotá has introduced three excellent examples of sustainable
transportation developments in the past several decades. Trans-
Milenio offers equal access for all SES, but is somewhat favor-
able for low and middle SES and thus promotes social equity.
This finding indicates that Bogotá’s transportation system has
become more equitable. However, the modal share shows sig-
nificant differences between low, middle, and high SES, with
low SES using TransMilenio less frequently. This outcome is
expected to be partly due to quality self-selection; low SES pre-
fers low-price and low-quality paratransit over the higher-priced
and higher-quality TransMilenio. Hence, TransMilenio experi-
ences affordability issues for poor people, which can be
overcome through targeted subsidies for the poorest population
segments.
Bogotá’s utilitarian bicycle infrastructure program, Cicloruta,
is famous for its extensiveness in a Latin American city. When
the Cicloruta program was initiated, its goal was to contribute to
improvements in social equity. This paper shows that access to
Cicloruta is greater for higher SES and is quite limited for the
lowest SES. This finding indicates that as a result of providing
spatial access, Ciclorutas only have a limited contribution to
improvements in social equity. Nonetheless, the bicycle modal
share is highest for the two lowest SES.
The remarkable correlation between access to Ciclorutas and
bicycle modal share is expected to be the result of the poor hav-
ing less access to alternative transportation modes and traveling
only via paratransit and walking, which do not provide faster or
cheaper alternatives. Thus, even though access to Ciclorutas is
limited, the bicycle modal share is high, which indicates a large
potential for bicycling. Furthermore, maintaining this bicycle
modal share while wealth increases is vital to counter the effects
of rapid motorization. This paper also shows that a small invest-
ment in additional bicycle infrastructure can significantly
improve equality of access and allow Ciclorutas to contribute
to social equity.
TransMilenio and Ciclorutas have been discussed separately
in this paper, but clear correlations exist. Cycling can provide
an alternative to walking to access TransMilenio, which can
enhance the access distance to TransMilenio through higher
access speeds. Because cycling is three times as fast as walking,
within the same travel time, access distance can be tripled and
the catchment area can be increased ninefold. Thus,
T. Teunissen
Within 2500 m Within 3000 m Average increase
61.3% 73.3% 77.9% 77.3%
78.6% 82.7% 85.8% 15.4%
98.7% 99.0% 99.0% 0.6%
71.1% 78.9% 82.6% 31.9%
multimodality (cycling and TransMilenio) can improve access
opportunities and integration between Cicloruta infrastructure
and TransMilenio stations. Hence, Ciclorutas can function as a
feeder for TransMilenio.
The main goals of the Ciclovía program are recreation and the
promotion of physical activity, but the program provides an impor-
tant co-benefit through the promotion of social inclusion by pro-
viding access to places of interests during seven daylight hours
on Sundays and holidays. This paper shows that spatial access to
Ciclovía increases alongside SES. Contrarily, the Ciclovía pro-
gram is primarily used by low and middle socioeconomic strata.
Hence, spatially, Ciclovía does not offer equal access to all popu-
lation segments, but promotes social cohesion through interaction
between different SES. Nonetheless, it is recommended to allow
additional access to the system for low SES so that Ciclovía can
reach its full potential. Increased access also results in positive
effects on utilitarian cycling, because Ciclovía participation is
primarily associated with utilitarian cycling.
Unfortunately, only few accessibility studies have been con-
ducted on BRT systems, bicycle infrastructure, and Ciclovía,
although all of these are becoming increasingly popular in
non-OECD countries in general and Latin America in particular.
Given comparable equity issues in other Latin American cities,
we recommend additional accessibility studies for comparable
transportation systems in other cities, which can provide inter-
esting comparisons. In addition, further research on destination
accessibility is recommended to evaluate whether the three sys-
tems discussed in this paper allow the poor equal access to
opportunities such as employment, education, and health care.
Such research should take into account the linkage between
locations where the poor reside and where they work and would
allow a more definitive conclusion on the promotion of social
equity as a result of the sustainable transportation initiatives in
Bogotá. Such research would also provide the second step in
assessing Bogotá’s accessibility and can, in combination with
the present research, provide a more definite conclusion on
whether the transportation system’s objectives of social equity
have been met.
References
Bocarejo JP, Oviedo DR. 2012. Transport accessibility and social
inequities: A tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation
of transport investments. Journal of Transport Geography 24:142–154.
Boschmann EE, Kwan, MP. 2008. Toward socially sustainable urban trans-
portation: Progress and potentials. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation 2(3):138–157.
Braveman P. 2006. Health disparities and health equity: Concepts and
measurement. Annual Review of Public Health 27:167–194.
C40 Cities. 2011. Bogotá’s Cicloruta is one of the most comprehensive
cycling systems in the world. http://www.c40.org/case_studies/bogot
Bogotá’s Sustainable Transportation Initiatives
%C3%A1%E2%80%99s-cicloruta-is-one-of-the-most-comprehensive-
cycling-systems-in-the-world
Câmara G, Monteiro AM, Ramos FR, Sposati A, Koga D. 2001. Mapping
social exclusion/inclusion in developing countries: Social dynamics of
São Paulo in the 1990s (draft version). http://www.dpi.inpe.br/
gilberto/papers/saopaulo_csiss.pdf (accessed March 2012).
Cervero R. 2005. Progressive transport and the poor: Bogotá’s bold steps
forward. Access 27:24–30.
Cervero R, Sarmiento OL, Jacoby E, Gomez LF, Neiman A. 2009.
Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons
from Bogotá. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
3(4):203–226.
DANE (Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística). 2005.
Censo General 2005. Bogotá, Colombia. https://www.dane.gov.co/
index.php/poblacion-y-registros-vitales/censos/censo-2005.
Delbosc A, Currie G. 2011. Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport
equity. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6):1252–1259.
Delmelle EC, Casas I. 2012. Evaluating the spatial equity of bus rapid
transit-based accessibility patterns in a developing country: The case
of Cali, Colombia. Transport Policy 20:36–46.
Díaz del Castillo A, Sarmiento OL, Reis RS, Brownson RC. 2011. Trans-
lating evidence to policy: Urban interventions and physical activity
promotion in Bogotá, Colombia and Curitiba, Brazil. Translational
Behavioral Medicine 1(2):350–360.
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean).
2011. Social Panorama of Latin America. New York: United Nations.
Foth N, Manaugh K, El-Geneidy AM. 2013. Towards equitable transit:
Examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada,
1996–2006. Journal of Transport Geography 29:1–10.
Garcia-Valinas MA, Llera RF, Torgler B. 2005. More Income Equality or
Not? An Empirical Analysis of Individuals’ Preferences (CREMA
Working Paper Series). http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:cra:
wpaper:2005–23 (accessed March 2012).
Geurs KT, Van Wee B. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and
transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of
Transport Geography 12(2):127–140.
Gomez L, Sarmiento OL, Lucimi D, Espinosa G, Forero R, Bauman A.
2005. Prevalence and factors associated with walking and bicycling
for transport among young adults in two low-income localities of
Bogotá, Colombia. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2:
445–449.
Grengs J. 2015. Nonwork accessibility as a social equity indicator.
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. 9(1):1–14.
Hook W. 2004. Automobile dependency and the global cultural war:
Lessons from Bogotá. Sustainable Transport 16:1–3.
Knoblauch RL, Pietrucha MT, Nitzburg M. 1996. Field studies of
pedestrian walking speed and start-up time. Transportation Research
Record 1538(1):27–38.
Lucas, K, ed. 2004. Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and
Environmental Justice. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Massink R, Zuidgeest MHP, Rijnsburger J, Sarmiento OL, Van Maarseveen
MFAM. 2011. The climate value of cycling. Natural Resources Forum
35(2):100–111.
Mcdonagh J. 2006. Transport policy instruments and transport-related
social exclusion in rural Republic of Ireland. Journal of Transport
Geography 14(5):355–366.
Munoz-Raskin R. 2010. Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it
affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. Transport
Policy 17(2):72–84.
467
National University of Colombia and District Institute of Recreation
and Sport. 2005. Resultados del estudio de Ciclovía y Recreovía.
Convenio inter administrativo NO311 entre el IDRD y la facultad
de ciencias de la Universidad Nacional. Bogotá, Columbia.
Olarte Bacares CA. 2011. Heterogeneity of social classes and job accessi-
bility: Implications of transport policies in Bogotá. Paper presented at
the 51st Congress of the Regional Science Association International,
30 August–3 September, Barcelona, Spain.
Paget-Seekins L. 2012. Meeting multiple sustainability goals: Non-
motorized access and non-work trip usage on public transit. Inter-
national Journal of Sustainable Transportation 6(3):174–194.
PAHO (Pan American Health Organization), CDC (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention), and others. 2009. Ciclovía Recreativa
[Car-Free Sundays]: Implementation and Advocacy Manual. Bogotá,
Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
Parra D, Gomez L, Pratt M, Sarmiento OL, Mosquera J, Triche E. 2007.
Policy and built environment changes in Bogotá and their importance
in health promotion. Indoor and Built Environment 16(4):344–348.
Pettinga A, Rouwette A, Braakman B, Pardo C, Kuijper D, de Jong H,
Spapé I, Zuidgeest M, Wittink R, Kager R, Schepel S, Godefrooij
T. 2009. Cycling-Inclusive Policy Development: A Handbook.
Utrecht, the Netherlands: Interface for Cycling Expertise.
Preston J, Rajé F. 2007. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social
exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 15(3):151–160.
Regional Forum on Sustainable Transport. 2011. Bogotá Declaration:
Sustainable Transport Objectives. Bogotá, Colombia. http://sustain
abledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Bogota%20Declaration_
discussed%20_ENG.pdf
Rueda-García N. 2003. The Case of Bogotá D.C., Colombia. Bogotá,
Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
Sarmiento OL, Torres A, Jacoby E, Pratt M, Schmid TL, Stierling G. 2010.
The Ciclovía-Recreativa: A mass-recreational program with public health
potential. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7(2):163–180.
Secretaría Distrital de Movilidad. 2005. Encuesta de movilidad (Mobility
survey). Bogotá, Colombia: SDM.
Serebrisky T, Gómez‐Lobo A, Estupiñán N, Muñoz‐Raskin R. 2009.
Affordability and subsidies in public urban transport: What do we
mean, what can be done? Transport Reviews 29(6):715–739.
Skinner R. 2004. City profile: Bogotá. Cities 21(1):73–81.
Standard & Poor’s. 2012. S&P global BMI equity indices. http://www.
standardandpoors.com/ (accessed July 2012).
Torres A, Sarmiento OL, Stauber C, Zarama R. 2013. The Ciclovía and
Cicloruta programs: Promising interventions to promote physical
activity and social capital in Bogotá, Colombia. American Journal
of Public Health 103(2):23–30.
TransMilenio S. A. 2003. TransMilenio Bus Rapid Transit System of
Bogotá. Colombia: Summary of the practice. http://pub.iges.or.jp/
contents/APEIS/RISPO/inventory/db/pdf/0043.pdf.
United Nations. 2010. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision.
New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common
Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wright L, Montezuma R. 2004. Reclaiming public space: The economic,
environmental and social impacts of Bogotá’s transformation. Paper
presented at the Fifth International Conference on Walking in the
21st Century, 9–11 June, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Wu B, Hine JP. 2003. A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus
service accessibility. Transport Policy 10(4):307–320.