Spatial disparity in transport social needs and public transport provision in Santiago de Cali (Colombia)

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 24, Issue , 2012, Pages 340-357

  Jaramillo, Ciro ^a   Lizárraga, Carmen ^b   Grindlay, Alejandro Luis ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DEL VALLE   (Colombia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Latin America; Public transport provision; Social exclusion; Transport disadvantage; Transport social needs

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; SERVICE PROVISION; SOCIAL EXCLUSION; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

CALI; COLOMBIA; LATIN AMERICA; VALLE DEL CAUCA;

EID: 84865176042     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.014     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali, 2011. Cali 21 megaobras. <>. http://www.cali.gov.co/publico2/documentos/valorizacion/presentacion21megaobras.pdf.
2. Amoroso, S., Salvo, G., Zito, P., 2010. L'accessibilità dei trasporti pubblici come strumento per vincere l'esclusione sociale. XII Riunione Scientifica Annuale della Società Italiana di Economia dei Trasporti e della Logistica. Rome, Italy. <>. http://www.sietitalia.org/siet2010/69-Amoroso_Zito_Salvo_paper.pdf.
3. Ataieyan, S., 2010.Urban accessibility in an inefficient transportation system: can Tehrani households afford their daily trips? Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR) Lisbon, Portugal.
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Area's (SEIFA), Canberra. <>. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/2039.0.55.0012001?OpenDocument.
5. Avellaneda P. Movilidad, pobreza y exclusión social en la ciudad de Lima. Anales de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense 2008, 28(2):9-35.
6. Banister D. Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century 2005, Routledge, London.
7. Baza I., Geymenb A., Nogay E.S. Development and application of GIS-based analysis/synthesis modeling techniques for urban planning of Istanbul Metropolitan Area. Advances in Engineering Software 2009, 40(2):128-140.
8. Behrman, J.R., Gaviria, A., Székely, M., 2002. Social Exclusion in Latin America: Introduction and Overview. IDB Working Paper No. 157. <>. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1814705.
9. Barter, A.R.P., 1998. Transport and Urban Poverty in Asia: A Brief Introduction to the Key Issues. UNCHS (Habitat) Regional Symposium on Urban Poverty in Asia, Fukuoka. <>. http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/docs/occasional_papers/project_a/06/transport-barter-e.html.
10. Black J.A., Paez A., Suthanaya P.A. Sustainable Urban Transportation: Performance Indicators and Some Analytical Approaches. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 2002, 128(4):184-209.
11. Blumenberg E., Shiki K. How welfare recipients travel on public transit, and their accessibility to employment outside large urban centers. Transportation Quarterly 2003, 57(2). .
12. Burchardt T., Le Grand J., Piauchaud D. Social exclusion in Britain 1991-95. Social Policy and Administration 1999, 33(3):227-244.
13. Calderia T.P.R. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in Sao Paulo 2000, University of California Press, Berkeley.
14. Cámara de Comercio de Cali, Fundación AlvarAlice, El País Casa Editorial El Tiempo, Fundación Corona and Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá, 2009. Mesa de trabajo "Sobre la reestructuración de las rutas de transporte público en Cali a partir de la entrada en operación del MIO" , Iniciativa para evaluar los cambios en la calidad de vida de Cali. Santiago de Cali. <>. http://www.calicomovamos.org.co/calicomovamos/files/3%20Mesas%20Trabajo%20CCV/Memoria%20Rutas%2011Mar09%20Final.pdf.
15. Cámara de Comercio de Cali, 2011. Estado del Sistema Integrado de Transporte Masivo de Cali SITM-MIO. Santiago de Cali: CCC.
16. Carvalho, D., Rodrigues, A., Hoadley, S., 2010. Developing tools to describe and improve the accessibility of transport. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR). Lisbon, Portugal.
17. Cass N., Shove E., Urry J. Social exclusion, mobility and access. The Sociological Review 2005, 53(3):539-555.
18. Cebollada, A., Avellaneda, P., 2008. Equidad social en movilidad: reflexiones en torno a los casos de Barcelona y Lima. Scripta Nova 12(270). <>. http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/-xcol/185.htm.
19. Cervero R. America's Suburban Centers: The Land Use-Transportation Link 1989, Unwin Hyman, Boston.
20. Cervero R. Informal Transport in the Developing World 2000, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), UNCHS, Nairobi.
21. Clichevsky N. Informalidad y segregación urbana en América Latina, serie Medio ambiente y desarrollo, 28 2000, CEPAL, Santiago de Chile.
22. Cohen B. Urban growth in developing countries: a review of current trends and a caution regarding existing forecasts. World Development 2004, 32(1):23-51.
23. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe 2009, CEPAL/CELADE, Santiago de Chile.
24. Commission of the European Communities, 2001a. Integrated Policy Aspects of Sustainable Mobility. Thematic Synthesis of Transport Research Results, Paper 1.
25. Commission of the European Communities, 2001b. White Paper European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide. COM(2001) 370 Final. <>. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/doc/2001_white_paper/lb_com_2001_0370_en.pdf.
26. Commission of the European Communities, 2007. Green Paper Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility. COM(2007) 551 Final. <>. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport/doc/2007_09_25_gp_urban_mobility_en.pdf.
27. Commission of the European Communities, 2009. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Action Plan on Urban Mobility. COM(2009) 490 Final. <>. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0490:FIN:EN:PDF.
28. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social Documento 3166-Sistema Integrado de Transporte Masivo de Pasajeros para Santiago de Cali - Seguimiento 2002, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social-CONPES. Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Nacional-DNP, Bogotá.
29. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social Documento 3260-Política Nacional de Transporte Urbano y Masivo 2003, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social-CONPES. Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Nacional-DNP, Bogotá.
30. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social Documento 3369-Sistema Integrado de Servicio Público Urbano de Transporte Masivo de Pasajeros para Santiago de Cali - Seguimiento- 2005, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social-CONPES. Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Nacional-DNP, Bogotá.
31. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social Documento 3504-Sistema Integrado de Servicio Público Urbano de Transporte Masivo de Pasajeros para Santiago de Cali - Seguimiento- 2007, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social-CONPES. Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Nacional-DNP, Bogotá.
32. Corporación Andina de Fomento El transporte urbano en América Latina y la situación actual en Colombia 2005, CAF, Bogotá.
33. Corporación Andina de Fomento Informe del Observatorio de Movilidad Urbana de América Latina 2010, CAF, Bogotá.
34. Currie G. Gap analysis of public transport needs: measuring spatial distribution of public transport needs and identifying gaps in the quality of public transport provision. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2004, 1895:137-146.
35. Currie G. Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. Journal of Transport Geography 2010, 18:31-41.
36. Davis M. Planet of Slums 2006, Versobooks, London.
37. De Haan, A., Maxwell, S., 1998. Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South. In: IDS Bulletin Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South, vol. 29, no. 1. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, pp. 1-9.
38. Denmark D. The outsiders: planning and transport disadvantage. Journal of Planning Education and Research 1998, 17(231):231-245.
39. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística Censo General 2005 2005, DANE, Bogotá.
40. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística-Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2008. Seguimiento a proyectos de inversión. Sistema integrado de transporte masivo para Santiago de Cali - MIO (Masivo Integrado de Occidente). <>. http://spi.dnp.gov.co/App_Themes/SeguimientoProyectos/ResumenEjecutivo/0027037650000.pdf.
41. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística-Departamento Nacional de Planeación MESEP/ Misión para el Empalme de las Series de Empleo 2009, DANE, Pobreza y Desigualdad, Bogotá.
42. Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Municipal Cali en cifras 2009 2009, Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali, Santiago de Cali.
43. Dodson J., Gleeson B., Evans R., Sipe N. Transport disadvantage in the Australian Metropolis: towards new concepts and methods. Infrastructure 2003, 03:2-23.
44. Farrington J.H. The new narrative of accessibility: its potential contribution to discourses in (transport) geography. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15:319-330.
45. Figueroa O. Transporte urbano y globalización. Políticas y efectos en América latina. Eure 2005, 30(94):44-53.
46. Gacitúa, E., Sojo, C., Davis, S.H. (Eds.), 2000. Exclusión social y reducción de la pobreza en América Latina y Caribe. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington. <>. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ICAP/UNPAN029027.pdf.
47. Gaffron, P., Hine, J.P., Mitchell, F., 2001. The Role of Transport on Social Exclusion in Urban Scotland. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Transport Research Institute, Napier University, Edinburgh. <>. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/05/9027/File-1.
48. Geurs, K.T., Ritsema van Eck, J.R., 2001. Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Urban Research Centre, Utrech University, Utrech. <>. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/408505006.pdf.
49. Geurs K., Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 2004, 12:127-140.
50. Gilbert A. The mega-city in Latin America 1996, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
51. Giraldo F., Garcia J., Ferrari C., Bateman A. Urbanización para el desarrollo humano. Políticas para un mundo de ciudades 2009, United Nations-Habitat, London.
52. Grupo de gestión y tecnología, 2006. Revisión de parámetros operacionales del MIO. Documento Técnico. Asesoría en operación y transporte para el sistema integrado de transporte de Santiago de Cali-MIO.
53. Gullo, K., Brown, J., Sorensen, C., 2008. A model of social inequity and accessibility in Detroit. In: Future Research Directions in Sustainable Mobility and Accessibility. Sustainable Mobility Accessibility Research and Transformation-SMART. Center for Advancing Research & Solutions for Society-CARSS.
54. Hall P. A European Perspective on the Spatial Links between Land Use, Development and Transport. Transport and urban development 1995, 65-88. E & FN Spon, London. D. Banister (Ed.).
55. Hansen W.G. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 1959, 25:73-76.
56. Hine J., Mitchell F. Better for everyone? Travel experiences and transport exclusión. Urban Studies 2001, 38(2):319-332.
57. International Association of Public Transport, 2007. Tackling Social Exclusion. The Role of Public Transport. <>. http://www.sortclearinghouse.info/research/273/.
58. Jolliffe I.T. Principal Components Analysis 2002, Springer, New York.
59. Kansky, K., 1963. Structure of transportation networks: relationships between network geography and regional characteristics. University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Papers 84.
60. Keeling D.J. Latin American development and the globalization imperative: new directions, familiar crises. Journal of Latin American Geography 2004, 3(1):1-21.
61. Keeling D.J. Latin America's transportation conundrum. Journal of Latin American Geography 2008, 7(2):133-154.
62. Kenyon S., Lyons G., RaVerty J. Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 2002, 10(3):207-219.
63. Knowles R.D., Shaw J., Docherty I. Transport Geographies: Mobilities, Flows, and Spaces 2008, Blackwell, London.
64. Lazo, A., 2008. Transporte, movilidad y exclusión. El caso de Transantiago en Chile. Scripta Nova 12(270). <>. http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-270/sn-270-45.htm.
65. Litman, T., 2003. Social Inclusion as a Transport Planning Issue in Canada. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. <>. http://www.vtpi.org/soc_ex.pdf.
66. Litman, T., 2010a. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. <>. http://www.vtpi.org/access.pdf.
67. Litman, T., 2010b. Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. <>. http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
68. Lizarraga C. Movilidad urbana sostenible: un reto para las ciudades del siglo XXI. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio 2006, 5(22):283-321.
69. Lizarraga C. Expansión metropolitana y movilidad: el caso de Caracas. Eure 2012, 113(38):99-125.
70. Mackett, R.L., Achuthan, K., Titheridge, H., 2010. The impact on equity of changes to access to local facilities. In: Selected Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Transport Research Society, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1-17.
71. McCray T., Brais N. Exploring the role of transportation in fostering social exclusion: the use of GIS to support qualitative data. Network and Spatial Economics 2007, 7:397-412.
72. Miller H.J., Wu Y.H. GIS software for measuring space-time accessibility in transportation planning and analysis. Geoinformatica 2000, 4(2):141-159.
73. Mina L. Estratificación socioeconómica como instrumento de focalización. Economía y Desarrollo 2004, 3(1):53-67.
74. Metrocali, S.A., 2010. Cartografía digital del Sistema Integrado de Transporte Masivo de Pasajeros. Cali.
75. Moller, R. 2006. Transporte urbano y desarrollo sostenible en América Latina. El ejemplo de Santiago de Cali (Colombia). Universidad del Valle, Cali.
76. Sistemas y análisis de la información geográfica. Manual de autoaprendizaje con ArcGIS 2008, Ra-Ma, Madrid. A. Moreno (Ed.).
77. Newman P.W.G., Kenworthy J.R. The land use-transport connection: an overview. Land Use Policy 1996, 13(1):1-22.
78. Omer I. Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: a spatial equity perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 2006, 30:254-274.
79. Palmer, C.J., Astrop, A.J., Maunder, D.A.C., 1997. Constraints, Attitudes and Travel Behaviour of Low-income Households in Two Developing Countries, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 263.
80. Peng Z.R., Zhu Y. Mobility of the Chinese urban poor: a case study of Hefei City. Chinese Economy 2008, 41(1):36-57.
81. Preston J., Rajé F. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(3):151-160.
82. Qureshi I.A., Lu H., Ye S. Urban transportation and equity: a case study of Beijing and Karachi. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2008, 42:125-139.
83. Ramjerdi F. Equity measures and their performance in transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2006, 1983:67-74.
84. Rodrigue J.P., Comtois C., Slack B. The Geography of Transport Systems 2006, Routledge, New York.
85. Rodriguez D.A., Targa F. Value of accessibility to Bogotá's bus rapid transit system. Transport Reviews 2004, 24(5):587-610.
86. Rodrik D. Goodbye Washington consensus, hello Washington confusion? A review of the World Bank's: economic growth in the 1990s: learning from a decade of reform. Journal of Economic Literature 2006, 44:973-987.
87. Sathisan S., Srinivasan N. Evaluation of accessibility of urban transportation networks. Transportation Research Record 1999, 1617(98-1356):78-83.
88. Sen A. Development as Freedom 1999, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
89. Silva A.N.R., Costa M.S., Macedo M.H. Multiple views of sustainable urban mobility: the case of Brazil. Transport Policy 2008, 15:350-360.
90. Social Exclusion Unit Making the connections: transport and social exclusion 2002, Social Exclusion Unit-SEU, London.
91. Sohail M., Maunder D.A.C., Cavill S. Effective regulation for sustainable public transport in developing countries. Transport Policy 2006, 13(3):177-190.
92. Sohail M., Maunder D.A.C. Partnering to improve public transport in developing countries. Proceedings of the ICE - Transport 2007, 160(4):179-189.
93. Stiglitz J.E. El rumbo de las reformas. Hacia una nueva Agenda para América Latina. Revista de la CEPAL 2003, 80:7-40.
94. Tran H.A., Schlyter A. Gender and class in urban transport: the cases of Xian and Hanoi. Environment and Urbanization 2010, 22(1):139-155.
95. Transport Studies Group, 2005. Measuring Accessibility as Experienced by Different Socially Disadvantaged Groups. Transport Studies Group - University of Westminster. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council-EPSRC.
96. United Nations, 2003. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. Part 1: Urban and Rural Areas. Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, London.
97. United Nations-HABITAT Enhancing urban safety and security 2007, United Nations Human Settlements Programme UN-HABITAT, London.
98. Univalle, 2010. Estudio: Elaboración, Digitalización y Caracterización de la Encuesta Origen - Destino, para el Municipio de Santiago de Cali, como parte del Estudio de Demanda de Transporte del Plan Integral de Movilidad Urbana - PIMU. Presentación. Santiago de Cali: Universidad del Valle.
99. Urban Resource Centre Urban poverty and transport: a case study from Karachi. Environment and Urbanization 2001, 13(1):223-233.
100. Vasconcellos E.A. Urban Transport, Environment and Equity: The Case for Developing Countries 2001, Earthscan, London.
101. Vasconcellos E.A. Urban change, mobility and transport in Sao Paulo: three decades, three cities. Transport Policy 2005, 12:91-104.
102. Vasconcellos, E.A., 2010a. Análisis de la movilidad urbana. Espacio, medio ambiente y equidad. Bogotá: Corporación Andina de Fomento.
103. Vasconcellos E.A. El futuro de la movilidad urbana en América Latina 2010, Corporación Andina de Fomento, Ciudad de México.
104. Vaziri, M., Nasseer, N., 2009. Urban transport and poverty patterns in selected Islamic countries. In: ENP (Ed.), Proceedings of the International symposium Environment and Transport in different contexts, Ghardaïa, Algeria, pp. 215-229.
105. Viáfara, C.A., 2006. Diagnóstico de la Pobreza en Cali. Foro Debates 5. Bogotá: Fundación Foro Nacional por Colombia.
106. Victorian Department of Transport Improving Options and Reducing Barriers: Addressing Transport Disadvantage; A Status Report 2008, VDT, Victoria (Australia).
107. Wegener, M., Fürst, F., 1999. Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Report to the European Commission. Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 46. Institut für Raumplanung, Dortmund.
108. Vargas I., Jiménez E., Grindlay A., Torres C. Procesos de mejoramiento barrial participativo en asentamientos informales: Propuestas de integración en la ciudad de Ibagué (Colombia). Revista Invi 2010, 25(68):59-96.
109. World Bank Cities on the Move: A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review 2002, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington.
110. Wright L. Transporte Masivo Rápido en Autobuses TMRB 2002, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit-GTZ, Eschborn.
111. Yi C. Impact of public transit on employment status disaggregate analysis of Houston, Texas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2006, 1986:137-144.