Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Uneven mobilities, uneven opportunities: Social distribution of public

transport accessibility to jobs and education in Montevideo
Diego Hernandez
Political and Social Science Department, Universidad Catolica del Uruguay, 4th floor, Office 425. Av. 8 de octubre 2738, CP 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Even though mobility is a requirement for participation in “modern life”, the truth is that mobility is unevenly
Latin America distributed and it constitutes a field of contestation and dispute among social classes. Mobility does not derive
Public transport from individual decisions or free choices. On the contrary, it is the result of the interaction between individual
Accessibility attributes and social structure. To grasp this interaction, it is necessary to go well beyond observed mobility. This
Contestation
paper explores the unequal access to urban opportunities among different social classes in Montevideo. It does so
by computing potential public transport accessibility to two types of crucial opportunities: jobs and education.
The paper findings show an unequal distribution of potential mobility, especially for jobs and upper level public
education. Primary public schools are an exception, revealing the spatial footprint of the mature Uruguayan
social protection network at this level. This paper's approach allows to identify and describe various fields of
contestation such as urban form, transit network, the state provision of public goods (in the case of education),
through examining the effects of uneven mobility on social goods access and, as a result, on social equity.

1. Introduction
Even though mobility is a requirement for participation in “modern
life” (e.g. to commute to work, to access to services, etc.), the truth is
that mobility is unevenly distributed (see Urry, 2007; Kaufmann, 2002,
2011; Manderscheid, 2009). Unfortunately, this statement is a very
accurate description of Latin American cities (Vasconcellos, 2012). In
the region, there are clear indications of a mobility divide between
social classes (for a discussion on transport related social inequality in
Latin America see, among others, Avellaneda García, 2007; Jiron and
Mansilla, 2013; Gutierrez, 2009; Falavigna and Hernandez, 2016;
Vasconcellos, 2010; Oviedo Hernandez and Titheridge 2016; Davila,
2013).
Indeed, the urban poor have to struggle to reach the locations of
urban resources and opportunities because of mobility obstacles. Cities
in Latin American experience clear cuts between wealthy social sectors
with access to diverse and adequate goods and services to fulfil their
needs and a vast portion of the population that still has insufficient
provision of them. Transport services and accessibility is not an ex-
ception. Daily mobility constitutes a very good sample of this unequal
access to primary services. In addition, unfulfilled needs in this field
prompt inequalities in people's abilities to fulfil third basic needs such
as, among others, jobs or education. This is directly related to poverty
and social exclusion and constitutes a field of contestation and dispute
among social classes.
This paper aims to illustrate that field through the analysis of the
consequences of transport and mobility inequality on different social
classes. It identifies the field of contestation from a mobility point of
view that entails issues such as the relation between spatial mobility
(physical space) and social mobility (social structure) (Kaufmann et al.,
2004; Gutierrez, 2012).
To do so, this paper explores the unequal access to urban opportu-
nities among different social classes in Montevideo, capital of Uruguay.
It does so by computing potential public transport accessibility to two
types of crucial opportunities: jobs and education. These two opportu-
nities are relevant for social inclusion as they provide required elements
to participate in social life (e.g. income or social capital). For this
reason one could argue that they constitute obliged mobility for a vast
sector of the population. Moreover, urban form in Latin American cities
defines a very unequal geography of opportunities that concentrates the
urban poor far from key opportunities. As a result, specially for jobs and
upper education services, motorized mobility is a requirement. The
combination of being a key element for social inclusion, the mandatory
nature of these trips and the demand for motorized mobility is espe-
cially suitable to explore accessibility inequality in the Latin American
context. This is a still infrequent approach for this region to mobility
and transport. To some extent, apart from making visible a potential
contestation scenario, it is also an attempt to “contest” scientific para-
digms regarding urban mobility and transport in the region.
The paper is structured as follows. First, it discusses the conceptual

E-mail address: dhernandez@ucu.edu.uy.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.017
Received 28 June 2016; Received in revised form 15 August 2017; Accepted 24 August 2017
0966-6923/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hernandez, D., Journal of Transport Geography (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.017
D. Hernandez Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

references to address the research problem. In the next section it un- answer this question, it is important to move forward and think of ac-
folds the methodological approach and describes data sources used. In cessibility as a resource required to obtain new resources. In this sense,
the third section it depicts the results on potential accessibility between the definition of accessibility gives a prominent role to notions such as
social stratums. Finally, the last section discusses the results in light of rights, citizenship, and inclusion. Ultimately, what stands out is the
the empirical evidence. public nature of mobility and accessibility, recognising the fact that it is
an asset that should be protected for all the citizens. Mobility cannot be
conceived as a regular good, but a social good, a good to which a so-
2. Accessibility, public transport, welfare, and equity
ciety grants a distinct social meaning out of the market sphere
(Martens, 2012). In that sense, one of the objectives of mobility public
The conceptual discussion in this paper addresses the relationship
policies should be its decommodification. Esping-Andersen (1990) de-
between spatial and social mobilitiy that entails the relationship be-
fines decommodification as the individual's ability to access well-being
tween transport, mobility, access, poverty, and inequality. It assumes
regardless of their performance in the market. To discuss transport-re-
thus that these elements' interaction is closely linked to the participa-
lated inequality has to do with how free is the individual from market
tion in society as they preclude or facilitate access to basic goods, ser-
forces when reaching to places. If, for instance, transit network is de-
vices and relationships (Lucas, 2012; Ohnmacht et al., 2009; Lucas
ficient and households have to use private means, then their capacity to
et al., 2016).
reach places will depend on their performance in the market and their
In that vein, the concept of accessibility is helpful to raise this issue.
capacity to pay, for instance, for cars. That is why it is so important to
Miralles and Cebollada claim that accessibility “refers to the ease with
analyse how well public transport performs for different social groups,
which each person can overcome the distance between two places and
especially the urban poor.
thus exercise their right as a citizen (…) accessibility along with a
According to Ascher, “…mobility is a key condition of access to
territorial dimension, is also an individual characteristic in relation to
employment, housing, education, culture and leisure, family. The right
the number of options available to citizens to access different places and
to work, to have a home, to training involves the right to mobility. ... in
activities” (Miralles-Guasch and Cebollada, 2003 pp. 14). The relevant
a sense this right to mobility is a precondition of the other rights”
question behind this definition is how people can access to key desti-
(Ascher, 2005 pp. 19). Of course, this apparent political statement has a
nations.
very strong conceptual side. It implies the existence of a causal re-
It is noteworthy that an individual may have very little ability to
lationship between mobility and access to other goods and opportu-
move long distances in space and yet have very good accessibility by
nities with direct impact on one's quality of life.
proximity. Conversely, it can be very easy to move to many parts of the
This perspective brings up questions about how the way ability to
city, but not to the one a person needs to access, so that, despite their
overcome geographical distances between one point and another im-
high level of mobility, accessibility remains low. A person may show
pacts on people's odds to participate in city life and to benefit from the
many displacements during a day to be very “mobile”, but only because
opportunities offered in the urban space. It builds from conceptual
he must travel long distances so, in the end, his accessibility is very low.
grounds assuming that mobility and accessibility are not a matter of
In this regard, the location of urban opportunities plays a significant
free personal choice and can have very strong structural constraints
role. Theoretically, there are two possible solutions to overcome dis-
(Massot and Orfeuil, 2005; Wenglenski and Orfeuil, 2006). In the same
tances: moving individuals to the activities or “moving” activities to-
vein, Kaufmann (2002) argues that higher transport speeds and
wards them (nearest location). For example, accessibility to job op-
movement as an imperative of modern societies should not be confused
portunities could be resolved in two ways: with an adequate
with adequate accessibility for the whole population (see also Urry,
transportation system that takes people to areas with a high density of
2007).
job opportunities or through the placement of opportunities closer to
In short, accessibility, wellbeing, and equity cannot be taken for
where they live. Apart from structural constraints, it is necessary to
granted. Moreover, accessibility impacts are not equally distributed
consider individual preferences, assessments and autoperception when
among individuals and households. There are people who are more
it comes to accessibility. Accessibility is not limited to individual re-
likely to move than others are, people who can do it much faster than
sources dealing to with structural constraints but also with how people
others and some who may do it into many more directions than others
perceive its own capabilities and opportunities.1 Nevertheless, it is
may.
important to point out that structural constraints are crucial aspects
Several studies reveal a number of factors hindering or fostering
when considering urban poor fate dealing with accessibility issues.
people's access to diverse geographical locations. There exists a wide
One of the key components of these definitions relates to the notion
array of operating concepts and dimensions, with slight differences, to
of ability to “reach”. It also underlies the idea of potential mobility,
name and analyse obstacles to mobility (Kaufmann et al., 2004; Cass
meaning that this capacity refers to which places the individual can
et al., 2005; Paulley et al., 2006; Social Exclusion Unit, 2003;
reach and goes beyond the known or observable movements. The fact
Titheridge, 2006; Urry, 2007). Hernández (2012) builds on this back-
that a person reaches the job place daily tells us a tale of observed
ground and points out four dimensions that should be considered: 1)
mobility. Two persons in that situation may have very different acces-
Supply: related to the good that is provided, including among others,
sibility situations though. First because of the cost they have to afford
network extension and quality (speed, comfort, information, etc); 2)
for those movements. Second, even when the cost is the same, if one of
Institutional: referring to the components that define the degree of
them is able to reach twice the number of opportunities than the other,
monetary commodification of that network, including the fee structure
the former counts on better accessibility. This translates in, among
and regulation, introduction of subsidies, and who are entitled to which
others, easiness to reach, diversity to choose and better information
type of fee; 3) Individual characteristics: income, available time, skills,
flow for some key opportunities such as jobs or higher education.
and abilities to take advantage of the system, physical capacities; and 4)
What is the link between accessibility, public policy, equity? To
Urban form: related to socio-territorial dynamics that are more re-
sponsive to structural factors and individual decisions; the location of
1
The apropiation dimension that derives from the concept of motility to some extent activities and the residential location of the different socioeconomic
refers to this issue (Kaufmann et al., 2004). It is also a very important matter considering groups (2012: pp. 123–124).
choice of services location sucha as, for example child care. Hernandez and Rossel (2015)
To sum up, one could argue that accessibility is the result of the
show that in the event of choosing a health center location, households are not always led
by utility maximization or the lowest cost. Parent's preferences regarding service provi-
interaction between individual factors, the transport system and the
sion quality (doctor performance perception, time perception, etc.) plays a key role, in urban form or land-use. For the urban poor, the transport system di-
some cases overpassing distances. mension relates directly to public transport when it comes to long-

2
D. Hernandez Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

distance trips. Thence, public transport is a crucial public policy that where the smallest time cost opportunity for people residing in area i
could either enable or deter access and as a product, social inclusion. In (COi) is equal to the smallest travel time in minutes between the area i
this paper, the adopted measures allow to combine individual factors and the area j in which there is a school or the area j that belongs to the
(income), transport network (transit basic coverage and network speed) highest jobs opportunity concentration category. If the school is in the
and urban form (job opportunities and schools). This way, the paper same area or area i already belongs to the high concentration of jobs
addresses the key linkage between accessibility and the discussion on opportunities groups, the closest opportunity time is set to 10.
equity from a contestation framework. Indeed, it asks questions about
the cost that the most affordable device –so the most inclusive- for the 4. Results
urban poor is imposing to urban citizens from different social classes.
This cost represent how equitable the system is under transit provision. 4.1. Study case and opportunities location
While not exhausting the relevant questions about equity and exclusion
as a contestation field, it will cast light on some dynamics of inequality Montevideo has 1.3 million inhabitants living in aproxmitaley 450
in access to this right and general wellbeing, as well as possible me- thousand households. It is the capital and largest city in Uruguay, in
chanisms that attempt to reverse these dynamics where inequity exists. terms of population and concentration of political and strategic centers.
Spatially, Montevideo is the smallest jurisdiction in the country (526
[km2]), but comprises > 40% of total Uruguayan population. Its de-
3. Methods and data
mographic growth was moderate in the 1990s, with a slight decrease in
the first decade of the 2000s. In recent decades, Montevideo has de-
The paper poses an empirical question related to geographical ac-
veloped new secondary centralities in the periphery but mainly com-
cessibility through transit network for different social groups in two
posed by commercial areas. The central business district (the historic
types of urban opportunities: public education (state-led) and jobs
central area) remains the largest and the only area with metropolitan
(market-led).
and national influence. Fig. 1 portraits this urban centrality which also
To measure accessibility, the paper will use a cumulative opportu-
concentrates the highest job opportunities density (see Fig. 3). In par-
nity indicator (see Geurs and Wee, 2004; Silva and Pinho, 2010) ac-
ticular, the most important centrality is located on the southern portion
cording to the equation:
of the city. Regarding population density, the areas with highest po-
n pulation densities are located on the coastal line of the city, towards the
∑ j = 1 Oppj f (Cij )
Ai = n central area. The further from the cost, the lower the population den-
∑ j = 1 Oppj (1) sities (see Fig. 1).
The land use dimension of this paper is captured by observing the
where Ai is the accessibility of people residing in area i to all oppor-
territorial deployment of urban resources and opportunities. Thus, be-
tunities (expressed as a percentage) in area j that can be reached using
fore computing accessibility measures, it is necessary to study the dis-
public transport under 29 min (the average trip time using any mode in
tribution of these resources. The map in Fig. 2 shows education op-
Montevideo).2 ∑j = 1nOppj is the total number of opportunities in the
portunities in the city of Montevideo. Each point represents a public
city and f (Cij) a weighting function (equal to 0 when time cost tra-
school location offering different levels of education. The spatial centre
velling by public transport > 29 and equal to 1 when < 30 min).
for each educational level (primary, secondary and vocational) is also
The study areas correspond to the traffic zones used for the 2009
shown. It is clear that the primary educational level has a wider cov-
Montevideo's mobility survey weighted by its population. To compute
erage than other levels. This coverage has a thicker density and a wider
the socioeconomic status of each area, the study used the percentage of
penetration on the outskirts of the city. While secondary-level schools
households belonging to the two poorest quintiles.3
have a more limited coverage than primary schools, the vocational
After dividing the city, the number of opportunities located within
education system has an even smaller spatial presence. Indeed, this
each area is computed. For education opportunities, the number of
system has a very low number of buildings and most of them are located
students attending each school is used as a proxy of the offer in that
in the central area of the city. One of the explanations for this spatial
zone for each educational level (primary, basic secondary, upper sec-
pattern has to do with the different historical trajectories of each
ondary, and vocational). To compute the number of job opportunities,
system. The primary level has universal coverage beginning in the first
then I built a proxy encompassing non-residential clients of the power
half of the past century. The other two systems, on the contrary, began
and water companies and the number of work trips in each zone. The
this maturation in the 1970s. This translates in different types of de-
standardised composite index works as a consistent proxy of actual job
ployment in the territory.
opportunities that can be computed as cumulative opportunities.
Regardless of the different coverage levels, the public education
Time cost travel by public transport is the result of an origin des-
system has a centennial state blueprint that ends up in the important
tination (OD) time matrix between traffic zones centroids. The time for
spatial coverage just shown. As expected, when analysing market-
each OD pair is the best solution reached by an algorithm of the trip-
driven opportunities such as the job market, the situation is completely
planning tool provided by the local authority, “Como ir” (“How to get
different. In this case, the spatial concentration is higher within central
there”). The time for a trip within the traffic zone borders is, by default,
areas, the “valued” land preferred by urban capitalism. The map in
ten minutes.
Fig. 3 shows the value of the job opportunities composite index for each
As a complement of the cumulative opportunities measure, the
Montevideo traffic zone. As mentioned earlier, there is a clear pattern of
paper presents data on the smallest time cost travelling by public
concentration of high-index zones in the coastal area of Montevideo.
transport to the closest opportunity, according to the equation:
Those areas further from the city centre present a significantly lower
COi = tijO min (2) value of the index. The highest intensity of job opportunities exists in
the central business district that is also part of the historical urban
centrality (the Cordon, Centro, and Ciudad Vieja neighbourhoods). In
2
To adopt average trip time for all modes is a way to capture variability from that actuality, these areas are almost the only ones within the highest range
average that is a proxy for equity. In other words, what are the opportunities that persons of this variable.
from different social sectors can reach by public transport travelling an average trip time.
3
In actuality, this measure is a vulnerability one, the higher the percentage of the
poorest two quintiles (poor households and households that are vulnerable to poverty),
4.2. Accessibility to education and job opportunities
the lower the socioeconomic status (low = > 50%; middle = between 20 and 49%;
high = < 20%). The combination of land use, transport networks (coverage and

3
D. Hernandez Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Population density in Montevideo (inhabitants per hectare).

Fig. 2. Public education opportunities in Montevideo.

speed), and individual characteristics results in different accessibility
levels for different socioeconomic groups. As mentioned earlier, to
grasp mobility inequality it is necessary to identify different accessi-
bility patterns. For the sake of this paper, I assess accessibility for the
most inclusive device: public transport. To some extent, this is a basic
level of equity analysis because it does not include modes such as pri-
vate automobiles that enhance inequality.
Regarding public education opportunities, the data show different
levels of accessibility according to education level (Fig. 4). Primary
public schools are the opportunities for which there is barely a differ-
ence in terms of accessibility. Regardless of an area's socioeconomic
status, all the population could reach between 7% and 10% of this
educational offer. The relatively small percentage of the total offer that
could be reach by every stratum has to do with the wide coverage.
Nevertheless, inequality starts to rise since the next educational level,
the basic secondary one. The inequalities in terms for education

4
D. Hernandez
Fig. 3. Job opportunities in Montevideo.
Fig. 4. Accessibility to education opportunities using public transport (29 min or less) by
level (in percentages).
accessibility present the same pattern: a relevant difference between the
lowest stratum and the remainder two. Anyway, the differences are
higher when the level is also higher. That is the case for upper technical
education for which the percentage of the offer reached by people re-
siding in the lowest stratum areas (7%) is less than the third of the
opportunities reached by middle and high income areas' residents (27
and 29% respectively). It is noteworthy that, in contradistinction with
primary and secondary education, which has a homogenous offer, vo-
cational education buildings offer different types of courses in each one.
Thus, the cumulative opportunities are also an indication of the variety
of courses a potential student can reach. In the case of upper secondary
level, the percentages for the three stratums show a similar pattern of
inequality (4%, 24%, and 27% for the three, respectively).
The closest opportunity measure brings up additional evidence
about this inequality. Accessibility measures are clearly an indication of
uneven potential mobility regarding these opportunities. However, for
education purposes, with the exception of technical education, some-
times it is enough to have a close facility. Notwithstanding, Fig. 5 shows
an additional sign of inequality. People residing in low income areas
not only have fewer cumulative options, but accessing even the closest
option is more costly in terms of time required. Even when access to one
5
Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Time cost using public transport to closest education facility (in minutes).
school would suffice, such access requires a travel time of 1.5 or even 2
times that of those more affluent, with the exception, once again, of the
primary school system. Almost every child aged 6–12 years old would
be able to reach a primary school within ten minutes in Montevideo.
The job market tells us a tale of capitalism that much better suits
households living in prosperous neighbourhoods. Fig. 6 shows the cu-
mulative opportunities and the closest high concentration area for jobs.
In this case, the differences among social classes are significant. The
percentage of opportunities a person living in a low-income area can
reach within 29 min by public transport is almost five times less than
the percentage reachable by those in a middle-income area and seven
times less than the percentage reachable by those living in a high-in-
come area. In the same vein, but with a reduction of the differences, the
closest zone with a high concentration of jobs is two and three times
higher for low-income areas than for middle- and high-income areas. In
this case, to have an area with a high concentration of jobs within a few
minutes access is a positive indication but, nonetheless, has to be as-
sessed in light of the effect of competition. That is, many persons may
compete for the same position at that location.
5. Discussion and final remarks
The empirical evidence of this paper points out inequality in terms
D. Hernandez
Fig. 6. Accessibility to job opportunities using public transport (29 min or less) and time
cost using public transport to closest area with a high concentration of opportunities (in
percentages and minutes).
of the capacity to reach two types of urban opportunities: education and
jobs. Indeed, the percentage of opportunities available to a person re-
siding in an area with high concentration of vulnerable households is
smaller when compared to citizens living in less vulnerable areas. These
figures are the result of an analysis of travel times through public
transport that, in an apparent contradiction, should enhance mobility
equality. Thus, it is plausible these results underestimate inequality and
that, in reality, the mobility system is more unequal than it seems in the
city.
Even though Montevideo, and Uruguay in general, has a decent
performance in terms of social protection and quality of life (see
ECLAC, 2016) to analyse accessibility allows to identify territorial in-
equality present behind those numbers. These findings tend to confirm
the same trend already documented regarding basic access to public
transport in the city. In this case, the transit network's spatial coverage
is extremely high, almost universal. The excluded areas on the city's
fringe though, concentrate the most vulnerable citizens, deepening
their levels of pre-existent deprivations (Hernandez, 2017; Hansz,
2016). It is noticeable that public primary education is an exception.
The centennial state blueprint for public primary education in Uruguay
seems to secure equal accessibility to all citizens, regardless of the so-
cioeconomic status of the area they live in. That is not the case for
upper level education which has a lower spatial coverage. Neither
happens when considering job opportunities that follow market pat-
terns for their location. This pattern combined with household locations
maximizes inequality in terms of accessibility.
These results call for a better performance of several fields of public
policy that should take into account social equity principles. They pose
a challenge that has to do with public transport policies, but also with
land use policies and the deployment of urban opportunities in the
territory on the one hand, and household locations on the other. For
both challenges, the role of the state is crucial. Its participation en-
compasses public transportation regulation—and even direct provi-
sion—as does any other social policy. It also includes regulation and
mediation in space production through integrated urban and transport
planning and housing policies.
The discussion is related to capitalist spatial production in con-
temporary urban agglomerations in which market forces tend to ap-
propriate governance devices (Harvey, 2005). This is a relevant issue
for Latin America urban discussion and contestation. Inequality must be
tackled from an integrated urban and transport planning perspective
that transcends a pure sectoral one. The case of Montevideo illustrates
the need for a better transit network on the one hand, but for a broader
social protection schemes (including sectors such as education or
housing) in order to tackle accessibility issues on the other.
The results also shed light on the broader discussion about equality
in Latin America. The accessibility inequality illustrates that mobility is
not an individual issue but also a structural one. As a social
6
Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
phenomenon, mobility is the result of individual choices constrained by
structural features (Massot and Orfeuil, 2005; Kaufmann, 2002;
Hernández, 2012). As such, transport disadvantages could be a source
for social exclusion and challenges people's odds to achieve decent le-
vels of wellbeing (Lucas, 2012).
Regardless of the heterogeneity of the urban contexts in Latin
America, it is possible to identify some basic features. The first one
derives from income inequality that is the result of a social structure
with high levels of income concentration among small number of af-
fluent households. This inequality translates to educational achieve-
ment, the job market and the spatial structure. In particular, urban
structures in the continent are consistently marked by social segrega-
tion and, in some cases, serious difficulties regarding basic services.
This pattern combines with housing deficit that leads to the rise of in-
formal settlements and social housing policies that, seeking for cheap
land, locate the urban poor far from urban centralities. Additionally,
Latin American cities tend to concentrate job opportunities within a low
number of centralities, in which nearby land is not affordable for low-
middle and low-income houses (Portes et al., 2005; Portes and Roberts,
2005; Kaztman et al., 2005; CAF, 2011; ONU HABITAT, 2008, 2013; De
Mattos et al., 2007; Rodríguez Vignoli 2008; López Morales 2005;
Hidalgo et al., 2008). These households depend on public transporta-
tion for commuting very long distances every day. Several cities have
attempted to tackle this problem through massive transport initiatives,
namely BRT systems, and to a lesser extent, metros and cable systems
(CEPAL, 2010, 2008; Hidalgo and Huizenga, 2013; Hidalgo et al., 2007;
Davila, 2013). This paper points out that this type of intervention
should be aware of previous accessibility inequalities to avoid wor-
sening it through new infrastructure that focus on already valued city
areas.
In addition, the paper shows that even in a society with medium
high social development, public transport is having a good perfor-
mance. In turn, it imposes differential costs for the urban poor. Then, to
address transport-based social inequality in Latin America is indis-
pensable and to do so mobility must not be taken for granted. Once
again the interaction between individual attributes and social structure
should be acknowledged. To grasp this interaction and to disentangle
hidden inequality even in societies with a medium social development
such as the Uruguayan one, it is necessary to go well beyond observed
mobility and capture either individual or structural constraints. To do
so, a complex perspective should be adopted. Even though this per-
spective is slowly spreading in the continent, it is far from being part of
the mainstream literature in transport. The above-mentioned challenges
are particular areas for contestation from policy-making, political, and
academic perspectives.
Regarding the future agenda, it is necessary to address and over-
come some limitations of this paper. The first is to incorporate afford-
ability to the accessibility equation, this is a crucial obstacle for mo-
bility in Latin American cities (see Falavigna and Hernandez, 2016).
Some specific studies are addressing simultaneously accessibility and
affordability (Bocarejo S. and Oviedo H. 2012; Aivinhenyo et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, this paper shows that to address affordability measures
without quality of service provision initiatives may have very limited
impact on people's well-being. Even when they can pay, time costs may
overwhelm urban poor capacities to commute. Additionally, discus-
sions on the level of service of public transport should be included, as
well as data on “opportunity quality”. That is, to problematize the as-
sumption on homogeneity of, for instance, education opportunities. As
in other spheres, Latin America presents strong spatial inequalities that
define a different geography of opportunities for different social classes.
Thence, it is necessary to assess which is the quality of the service
provided (or the required profile for the jobs) in order to overcome the
assumption that to reach is equal to satisfying the need.
D. Hernandez
References
Aivinhenyo, I., Zuidgeest, M., van Ryneveld, M., 2016. Measuring Destination
Accessibility by Public Transport Incorporating User Affordability: A Case of Cape
Town, South Africa. (In. Shanghai).
Ascher, Francois, 2005. Ciudades Con Velocidad Y Movilidad Múltiples: Un Desafío Para
Los Arquitectos, Urbanistas Y Políticos. Rev. ARQ 11–19.
Avellaneda García, Pau, 2007. Movilidad, Pobreza Y Exclusión Social. Un Estudio de Caso
En La Ciudad de Lima. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Bocarejo, S., Pablo, Juan, Daniel Ricardo Oviedo, H., 2012. Transport accessibility and
social inequities: a tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of trans-
port investments. J. Transp. Geogr. 24 (September), 142–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.004.
CAF, 2011. Desarrollo Urbano Y Movilidad En América Latina. CAF Banco de Desarrollo
de América Latina, Panamá internal-pdf://CAF 11 des urbano y movilidad en AL-
3722562816/CAF 11 des urbano y movilidad en AL.pdf.
Cass, Noel, Shove, Elizabeth, Urry, John, 2005. Social exclusion, mobility and access.
Sociol. Rev. 53, 539–555.
CEPAL, 2008. Los Cambios En Los Sistemas Integrados de Trasnporte Masivo (SITM) En
Ciudades de América Latina. CEPAL: Boletín Facilitación del Comercio y el
Transporte en América Latina y el Caribe N° 259, Santiago internal-pdf://CEPAL 08
cambios en sistemas integrados de tr masivo en alatina-2262027264/CEPAL 08
cambios en sistemas integrados de tr masivo en alatina.pdf.
CEPAL, 2010. Convergencia Y Divergencia En Las Políticas de Transporte Y Movilidad En
América Latina: Ausencia de Co-Modalismo Urbano. CEPAL, Boletín Facilitación del
Transporte y el Comercio en América Latina y el Caribe (FAL) Edición N° 289,
número 9, Santiago de Chile.
Davila, Julio (Ed.), 2013. Urban Mobility and Poverty: Lessons from Medellín and Soacha,
Colombia. Development Planning Unit, University College London y Fac.
Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellin.
ECLAC, 2016. Social Panorama of Latin America 2015. Economic Commision for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Santiago de Chile.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta, 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Falavigna, Claudio, Hernandez, Diego, 2016. Assessing inequalities on public transport
affordability in two Latin American cities: Montevideo (Uruguay) and Córdoba
(Argentina). Transp. Policy 45 (January), 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2015.09.011.
Geurs, K.T., Wee, Bert Van, 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport
strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 12, 127–140.
Gutierrez, Andrea, 2009. Movilidad Y Acceso: Embarazo Y Salud Pública En La Periferia
de Buenos Aires. In: XV Congreso Latinoamericano de Transporte Público Y Urbano
(CLATPU). Buenos Aires, internal-pdf://GUTIERREZ 09 clatpu embarazo y salud pub
en periferia baires-2617558786/GUTIERREZ 09 clatpu embarazo y salud pub en
periferia baires.pdf.
Gutierrez, Andrea, 2012. Qué Es La Movilidad? Elementos Para (Re) Construir Las
Definiciones Básicas Del Campo Del Transporte. Bitácora Urbano Territorial 2 (2012).
Hansz, Martin, 2016. Analysis of the spatial disparity in transport social needs and public
transport provision in Montevideo. In: MSc Transport Planning. University of Leeds,
Leeds.
Harvey, D., 2005. El Arte de La Renta: La Globalización Y La Mercantilización de La
Cultura. In: In Capital Financiero, Propiedad Inmobiliaria Y Cultura. Museu D'Art
Contemporani de Barcelona, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Hernández, Diego, 2012. Activos Y Estructuras de Oportunidades de Movilidad. Una
Propuesta Analítica Para El Estudio de La Accesibilidad Por Transporte Público, El
Bienestar Y La Equidad. Rev. EURE 38 (115), 117–135.
Hernandez, Diego, 2017. Transporte Público, Bienestar Y Desigualdad: Cobertura Y
Capacidad de Pago En La Ciudad de Montevideo. 122 Revista de La CEPAL
(Forthcoming August 2017).
Hernandez, Diego, Rossel, Cecilia, 2015. Inequality and access to social Services in Latin
America: space–time constraints of child health checkups and prenatal Care in
Montevideo. J. Transp. Geogr. 44 (April), 24–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2015.02.007.
Oviedo Hernandez, Daniel, Titheridge, Helena, 2016. Mobilities of the periphery: in-
formality, access and social exclusion in the urban fringe in Colombia. J. Transp.
Geogr. 55 (July), 152–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.12.004.
Hidalgo, Dario, Huizenga, Cornie, 2013. Implementation of sustainable urban transport in
Latin America. Res. Transp. Econ. 40 (1), 66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.
2012.06.034.
Hidalgo, Dario, Custodio, Paulo, Graftieaux, Pierre, 2007. A Critical Look at Major Bus
Improvements in Latin America and Asia: Case Studies of Hitches, Hic-Ups and Areas
for Improvement; Synthesis of Lessons Learned. Banco Mundial. internal-pdf://
HIDALGO Y CUSTODIO 07 critical look at bus improvement lac y asia-3961403138/
HIDALGO Y CUSTODIO 07 critical look at bus improvement lac y asia.pdf.
Hidalgo, Rodrigo, Borsdorf, Alex, Zunino, Hugo, 2008. Las Dos Caras de La Expansión
Residencial En La Periferia Metropolitana de Santiago de Chile: Precariópolis Estatal
Y Privatópolis Inmobiliaria. In: Producción Inmobiliaria Y Reestructuración
Metropolitana En América Latina. SERIE GEOlibros, Santiago de Chile.
Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Jiron, Paola, Mansilla, Pablo, 2013. Atravesando La Espesura de La Ciudad: Vida
Cotidiana Y Barreras de Accesibilidad de Los Habitantes de La Periferia Urbana de
Santiago de Chile. Rev. Geo. Norte Grande (56), 53–74.
Kaufmann, Vincent, 2002. Re-Thinking Mobility. Contemporary Sociology. Ashgate,
Aldershot (England) y Burlington (USA).
Kaufmann, Vincent, 2011. Rethinking the City: Urban Dynamics and Motility. Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY; Lausanne, Switzerland: Routledge; EPFL Press.
Kaufmann, Vincent, Manfred, Max Bergman, Joye, Dominique, 2004. Motility: mobility
as capital. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 28, 745–756.
Kaztman, Ruben, Filgueira, Fernando, Errandonea, Fernando, 2005. La Ciudad
Fragmentada. Respuesta de Los Sectores Populares Urbanos a Las Transformaciones
Del Mercado Y Del Territorio En Montevideo. In: Ciudades Latinoamericanas. Un
Análisis Comparativo En El Umbral Del Nuevo Siglo. Prometeo Libros, Buenos Aires.
Lucas, Karen, 2012. Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transp. Policy 20
(March), 105–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013.
Lucas, Karen, Bates, John, Moore, José, Carrasco, Juan Antonio, 2016. Modelling the
relationship between travel behaviours and social disadvantage. Transp. Res. A Policy
Pract. 85 (March), 157–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.01.008.
Manderscheid, Katharina, 2009. Unequal Mobilities. In: Mobilities and Inequality.
Ashgate, Surrey (England) y Burlington (USA).
Martens, Karel, 2012. Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: applying Walzer's
‘spheres of justice’ to the transport sector. Transportation 39 (6), 1035–1053. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9388-7.
Massot, Marie-Helene, Orfeuil, Jean-Pierre, 2005. La Mobilite Au Quotidien, Entre Choix
Individuel et Production Sociale. In: Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie CXVIII, pp.
81–100.
De Mattos, Carlos, Pérez, Luis Riffo, Salas, Ximena, Warner, Gloria Yañez, 2007. Cambios
Socio-Ocupacionales Y Transformación Metropolitana: Santiago 1992–2002. In:
Santiago de Chile. Movilidad Espacial Y Reconfiguración Metropolitana. Instituto de
Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales e Instituto de Geografía. Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile.
Miralles-Guasch, Carmen, Cebollada, Angel, 2003. Movilidad Y Transporte. Opciones
Políticas Para La Ciudad. In: Documentos de Trabajo. Laboratorio de Alternativas
Barcelona 25.
López Morales, Ernesto José, 2005. Impacto Del Crecimiento Del Gran Santiago En El
Deterioro Funcional de Sus Espacios Pericentrales. Scripta Nova 9. http://www.ub.
es/geocrit/sn/sn-194-47.htm.
Ohnmacht, Timo, Maksim, Hanja, Bergman, Manfred Max, 2009. Mobilities and
Inequalities - Making Connections. In: Mobilities and Inequality. Ashgate, Surrey
(England) y Burlington (USA).
ONU HABITAT, 2008. State of the World's Cities 2010/2011. In: Bridging the Urban
Divide. Earthscan, London.
ONU HABITAT, 2013. Estado de Las Ciudades de América Latina Y El Caribe 2012.
Rumbo a Una Nueva Transición Urbana. ONU HABITAT.
Paulley, Neil, Balcombe, Richard, Mackett, Roger, Titheridge, Helena, Preston, John,
Wardman, Mark, Shires, Jeremy, White, Peter, 2006. The demand for public trans-
port: the effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transp. Policy
13, 295–306.
Portes, Alejandro, Roberts, Bryan, 2005. La Ciudad Bajo El Libre Mercado. La
Urbanización En América Latina Durante Los Años Del Experimento Neoliberal. In:
Ciudades Latinoamericanas. Un Análisis Comparativo En El Umbral Del Nuevo Siglo.
Prometeo Libros, Buenos Aires.
Portes, Alejandro, Roberts, Bryan R., Grimson, Alejandro, Aliaga, Lissette (Eds.), 2005.
Ciudades Latinoamericanas: Un Análisis Comparativo En El Umbral Del Nuevo Siglo.
Prometeo Libros, Buenos Aires.
Silva, Cecilia, Pinho, Silva, 2010. The structural accessibility layer (SAL): revealing how
urban structure constrains travel choice. Environ. Plan. A 42, 2735–2752.
Social Exclusion Unit, 2003. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and
Social Exclusion. Social Exclusion Unit. [Web en línea]. Disponible en internet desde.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/publications.aspx#m
(Diciembre de 2008).
Titheridge, Helena, 2006. Social Exclusion and Transport Policy. University College
London (MIMEO), London.
Urry, John, 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press, Cambridge y Malden.
Vasconcellos, Eduardo Alcântara, 2010. Análisis de La Movilidad Urbana. In: Espacio.
Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF), Medio Ambiente Y Equidad. Bogotá.
Vasconcellos, Eduardo Alcântara, 2012. Transporte Urbano Y Movilidad En Los Países En
Desarrollo: Reflexiones Y Propuestas. Instituto Movimiento, San Pablo.
Rodríguez Vignoli, Jorge, 2008. Dinámica Sociodemográfica Metropolitana Y
Segregación Residencial: ¿Qué Aporta La CASEN 2006? In: Congreso Internacional
Ciencias, Tecnologías Y Culturas. Diálogo Entre Las Disciplinas Del Conocimiento.
Hacia El Futuro de América Latina Y El Caribe. Mesa 68: Cambios Demográficos Y
Espacios En Transformación: Movilidad Y Ciudad. Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
Santiago.
Wenglenski, Sandrine, Orfeuil, Jean-Pierre, 2006. The Differences in the Accesibility to
the Job Market According to the Social Status and the Place of Residence in the Paris
Area. (MIMEO).