3 Case Study I: The Mobility Challenges in the Cities of the Global South

Chapter Overview

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first part critically examines the mobility challenges experienced in large cities of the Global South. These challenges include congestion in central towns and limited access to transportation by low-income communities and informal settlements on the urban edge. The second part examines paratransit and conversational transportation forms, such as low-capacity buses and minivans, which provide mobility to impoverished communities. The deficiencies that exacerbate safety concerns are also presented. The third section examines sustainable mobility approaches emerging in cities of the Global South, such as cable cars in Medellin. Informal transport improvements that enable more equitable transportation are also considered.

The Transportation Challenges in Large Cities of the Global South

This section examines the mobility challenges experienced by low-income commuters in large cities of the Global South. These challenges include limited access to public transportation, especially on the city fringe, where the poorest families tend to live (Suárez et al., 2016). In addition, they are more likely to work at times and in locations where public transport is unavailable. However, as discussed in Chapter 1, and supported by the United Nation’s Habitat (2016), some local and national governments in Latin America, as exemplified by Curitiba in Brazil and Medellin in Colombia, have increased transportation access for low-income commuters and implemented policies and constructed infrastructure, such as the Bus Rapid Transit and the cable car, to mitigate the regressive and unjust consequences of insufficient transportation.

Comparison of Global North and South

To illustrate the characteristics of low-income commuters in Global South cities, we draw on the research conducted by Guerra et al. (2020). They compared how poor commuters get to places in U.S. and Mexican cities. The U.S. and Mexico share one of the longest borders between North and South. Low-income commuters in Mexico earn only one-sixth of what their American counterparts do. Although low-income commuters in the U.S. are more likely to live in high-density urban centers with convenient public transportation, their Mexican counterparts live in cities nearly four times denser. In addition, Mexican cities have significantly better access to transit, including mass transit, such as subways and bus rapid transit, and low-capacity buses. The latter are informal forms of transportation because private organizations, not the government or the transportation authority, manage and operate low-capacity buses and minivans (Guerra et al., 2020).

Mexico City, Mexico

Poor workers in Mexico are more likely to commute by public transit or non-motorized modes, such as biking or walking to work. While poor commuters in Mexico are unlikely to drive private cars in dense metropolitan areas. Instead, they primarily drive old vehicles within the city’s peripheral areas. On the other hand, wealthier commuters are more likely to go to work and less likely to utilize non-motorized transportation (Guerra et al., 2020). Thus, car congestion is associated with wealthy solo drivers that overcrowd roads and highways. However, as poor workers improve their economic situation, they are more likely to switch to driving cars. Over the past two decades, car ownership has increased significantly in Mexican cities, exacerbating congestion and air pollution (Guerra, 2015).

Mexican cities are not unique. Instead, it exemplifies the typical large city in the Global South, which often have better access to transit than U.S. cities (Guerra et al., 2020). However, transit is scarce, inefficient, and unsafe as the periphery rapidly expands. As a result, low-income commuters in periurban municipalities endure more considerable commute burdens than those residing in central cities with better transit access (Reyes, 2020).

The Traffic and Congestion Challenges in Jakarta

Typical of large cities in the Global South, most commuters travel to central locations where jobs and education services are concentrated. Drivers of private cars, especially solo drivers, cause congestion and traffic in the central city areas. Global South cities have implemented solutions to address congestion and traffic, including 1) investments to expand the road network and 2) managing the existing road network by implementing car restrictions. However, expanding the space of roads, highways, and private transportation infrastructure does not alleviate congestion. Instead, it incentivizes car driving and thus increases traffic congestion (Pojani & Stead, 2015).

To examine the congestion challenges of Global South cities, we can refer to Jakarta, Indonesia. Three and a half million people travel in this congested city which is typically hot and humid weather. Car congestion is particularly intense, especially during morning and evening rush hours. In 2015, the Index developed by the oil company Castrol found Jakarta the city with the worst traffic in the world. The typical motorist is stuck in stop-and-go traffic more than 33,000 times yearly. In addition, private vehicles contribute to 70% of the city’s air pollution. Traffic congestion has increased partly because of rapid population growth on the periphery and the drivers who travel from the city to the fringe (Mead, 2016).

Commuters in Bogor, a sizeable peripheral city in the metropolitan area around Jakarta, spend an average of two hours one-way commuting from downtown locations. A complicated trip may take up to three hours one way. This means it is not uncommon that commuters may spend five to six hours on their daily commutes. In addition, while private cars in Bogor occupy most of the road right-of-way, they only move a small number of passengers because wealthy drivers tend to travel alone. Ironically, there may be more passengers on bikes than in cars. And congestion has forced some commuters to switch to scooters, unsafely weaving through traffic. In Jakarta, motorcycles travel twice as fast as cars, taking up significantly less space. They also consume less gasoline and cost approximately one-tenth the cost of a vehicle. Yet, drivers of motorcycles are disproportionately exposed to accidents and fatalities (Mead, 2016).

Commuter trains travel from Bogor to the city center in Jakarta in approximately 55 minutes, twice as quickly as driving. However, public transportation is overcrowded, especially during rush hours. After a recent crackdown, passengers may no longer ride on the roof or hang on the sides of the vehicle. For decades, Jakarta has implemented simplistic solutions to address congestion, such as expanding roads and private car infrastructure. Unfortunately, the broader streets incentivized drivers of private cars and informal buses to drive more, and thus, congestion and traffic remained unchanged or increased over time (Mead, 2016). More recently, to address the transportation challenges, the city is constructing a new hub at Dukuh Atas that will eventually house a subway system, light rail, airport link, and a projected bullet train from Bandung. In addition, Jakarta, and many cities in the Global South, have implemented Bus Rapid Transit to address congestion and, at the same time, promote sustainable transportation systems. As a result, Jakarta became the first city in Southeast Asia to operate a Bus Rapid Transit 12 years ago. Also, the town promotes non-motorized transportation and has constructed three bike lanes in downtown areas. Unfortunately, drivers disregard bike lanes partly because they are only painted on the roads and thus lack protective infrastructure. Mead (2016) found that one potential solution to encourage commuters to bike in the city and improve their safety perceptions is to provide protected bike infrastructure that enhances their sense of safety (Mead, 2016).

Informal Transportation in the Global South

This section examines how paratransit and informal transportation, such as low-capacity buses and minivans, provide mobility to impoverished communities but with deficiencies that exacerbate safety concerns. Because of the lack of affordable housing in central locations, low-income families are forced to live on the fringes of the cities, where land and housing are cheap and accessible. However, these peripheral communities often lack access to essential services, including transportation systems, especially high-capacity transportation systems. Poor transit access forces residents to endure long commutes from the outskirts to central city locations where employment and education opportunities are historically/typically concentrated (Reyes, 2020). A primary mobility challenge is insufficient access to affordable, safe, and reliable transportation systems in the communities where the poorest residents live.

Informal transportation systems partially address the mobility needs of many commuters throughout metropolitan areas, especially in the cities of the Global South. Informal transit refers to the transportation services, such as low-capacity buses and minivans, which are privately operated with little oversight by the transportation authority. As Robert Cervero (2007) argued, the most significant contribution of informal transportation is that it exists throughout locations within Global South cities. Entire districts of Latin American cities, such as Lima or Mexico City, would become isolated or inaccessible without informal transportation (Cervero, 2007).

In Latin America, informal transit serves isolated neighborhoods with challenging topographies, such as informal settlements on the slopes of the foothills. Moto taxis, rickshaws, or minivans provide transportation access in poor communities characterized by narrow dirt roads that wind along a hillside. The informal sector provides paratransit services, either door-to-door or flexible enough to stray from fixed routes. Formal transit could not easily replace everyday transportation, especially in urban fringe areas. Therefore, simple transportation is a necessary service. As Robert Cervero states, simple transportation is “a significant gap-filler.” A just transit future for Global South should include policies supporting and improving everyday transportation qualities. Informal settlements or poor communities in Global South cities depend on public transit. Informal transit could be an effective complement to connect residents in isolated locations to formal, high-capacity transit.

While informal transportation does fill a gap in trips to and from central business districts, there are challenges associated with this segment of the transportation industry. Some of these challenges include road congestion and safety. Unlike mass transit, informal transit vehicles carry fewer riders, adding many cars to the roads and increasing congestion problems.

Additionally, misguided informal transit increases the number of buses on the road, exacerbating traffic. Congestion from everyday transportation increases air pollution because fleets tend to be older and, thus, inefficient in terms of fuel consumption and emissions. Every day buses increase the exposure of residents in low-income communities to air pollution and are associated with deteriorated health. Sustainable mobility policies should reduce the excessive number of informal transit buses to mitigate air pollution and traffic while maintaining the transit option, catering to low-income residents on the fringe (Jauregui-Fung et al., 2019).

The transportation authority poorly regulates informal services. Operators often lack driving licenses, permits, and insurance to operate public collective-ride services safely. Owners of regular buses do not provide safe and decent work conditions for drivers, who tend to be impoverished workers. Drivers work long hours and thus develop harmful and unsafe driving behavior. In many low-income communities of the Global South, informal transportation is the only source of employment. Owners of regular buses often require operators who rely on thin or low-profit margins to compete vigorously and sometimes dangerously for consumers—stopping anywhere to board passengers, driving overloaded cars, and other hazardous driving behaviors. Informal operators are frequently politically weak and underrepresented. The industry is labor-intensive, low-tech, and horizontally structured, with many individual operators (Cervero & Golub, 2007).

The affordability of informal transportation highly varies in Global South cities because the cost depends on how much cities subsidize public transportation. For example, Mexico City highly funds mass transit. Thus the price of subway systems and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) is significantly lower than that of informal minivans on the periphery. Yet, informal transit may be more affordable than mass transit in other Latin American cities and, therefore, more accessible for low-income commuters. The following subsection delineates solutions to improve the quality of informal transportation to support the commutes of low-income commuters in Global South cities.

Envisioning solutions to improve informal transit

Whether formal or informal, paratransit supports transportation justice in low-income communities. City governments across the globe struggle to keep up with the demand for public transportation. For example, many cities in Africa and Southeast Asia have limited budgets to support transportation institutions that help with oversight and improve the quality of informal transportation. Informal transportation is flexible, more responsive to passenger needs, and more accessible to isolated homes in metropolitan areas. Thus, everyday transportation is often the most reliable mode of transportation.

Informal transportation is often the most reliable and sometimes the only available mode of transportation. However, as discussed earlier, informal transit raises safety concerns for riders. These include unsafe driving behavior partly due to poorly compensated work conditions for drivers, which require them to work extensively. These factors contribute to the poor and unsafe quality of informal transit. One potential solution to improving drivers’ working conditions is the creation of associations and cooperatives. These organized informal transit groups could enhance drivers’ training and working conditions. Also, local government should develop policies to invest in the coverage of transit to isolated communities and improve the quality of existing informal transit.

Therefore, policy solutions from local governments include investment in subsidies for transportation coverage in isolated communities. The investment could also be used to increase the number of routes and the frequency of buses. In these situations, regulators must balance investment with quality and safety. Investment issues are managed through competitive bidding in cities with sophisticated management capacities and subsidy sources. Operators compete for specified routes with a predefined remuneration (gross or net cost, depending on different demand variables). Drivers’ organizations can be the means for the city government to assist informal transportation agencies by allowing operators to “self-regulate.” Operators may join transportation route associations to unite the efforts of dozens of small businesses, ensuring better profit distribution, better access to financing, insurance, and other services, as well as a better level of service and competitive position against competing routes or modes (Cervero & Golub, 2007).

The solution to traffic, safety, health, and pollution problems is not to eliminate informal transit but to improve it. A transitional and just integration of the informal transportation sector with the formal transit segment may result in systemic transportation improvements and enhance the quality of informal transit. One way to strategically bridge the two is by implementing a “single-fare system.” This system reduces the cost of multi-linked trips while providing more flexible travel schedules. This would be especially beneficial to the lower-income population living in the urban periphery. Additionally, physical connections between formal and informal transit that provide space outside of train stations or the bus-rapid transit system can facilitate safe travel transfers to passengers.

Another effective policy that some Latin American governments implemented to decrease opposition to formal transportation is to bridge equitable and supportive agreements between informal operators and the city governments. These agreements enable a more regulated cooperative system. For example, some casual transportation drivers constructed and operated the Bus Rapid Transit system (Heinrichs, Dirk et al., 2017). Such an agreement would facilitate switching drivers from commission-based payments to salaried drivers. It would also set vehicle and driver frequencies to improve the mental and physical health of drivers while also mitigating congestion and, thus, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs).

Solutions for a Just and Sustainable Transportation System in the Global South

This section examines sustainable mobility approaches emerging in cities of the Global South. According to Pojani (2015), cities in the Global South have implemented various solutions to address their transportation challenges. These solutions range from simplistic solutions to increase the road supply to complicated implementation of rail-based public transit and bus rapid transit. We offer a discussion on the benefits and limitations of the ten transportation solutions discussed by Pojani (2015), as follows:

1. Road infrastructure: Governments increase the road supply to lower traffic congestion. However, increasing road supply induces drivers to drive a lot. As a result, traffic congestion levels quickly return to pre-expansion levels, with no travel time savings. Road investments also exacerbate long-term traffic congestion. They generate new journeys due to the increased land-use development (and sprawl) that greater vehicle access brings.
2. Road construction in densely populated metropolitan areas can be highly disruptive, often requiring the demolition of buildings and the loss of open space. This can lead to economic hardship and poor investment choices, such as legislators cutting road maintenance budgets in favor of new roads in new development financed by donors. Institutional failures, such as the division of responsibility between road providers and users, further exacerbate the problem. In emerging cities, poorly maintained roads and inadequate transportation options (both public and private) can severely hinder economic recovery and development. Current research indicates that while maintenance spending supports economic growth in these cities, large-scale new road infrastructure projects can have negative effects. Simply increasing road supply is also problematic, as it disproportionately benefits wealthier commuters who rely on private transportation, leaving those who depend on public transit overlooked.
3. Rail-based public transportation: Population density impacts how commuters use and benefit from rail-based public transit. Thus, rail or road-based public transportation may be economically viable when it is close and accessible to low-income communities with high densities. In addition, because new rail systems are exceedingly expensive to build and operate, rail should have a clear benefit over road-based systems to justify installation in smaller and distant cities. There are two types of rail-based public transportation: 1) Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems, which span from Eastern Europe’s medieval tramways, trolleys, and streetcars, which operate alongside ordinary traffic in city streets, to Singapore’s modern elevated and entirely separated systems; and 2) Metro (suburban or heavy rail) systems, which are typically the most expensive type of public transportation to build and operate, but they have the highest performance since they are entirely separated from roads.
4. Metro (suburban or heavy rail): Large cities in the Global South have implemented interconnected metro systems that allow commuters to get to places. These mass transit systems are particularly effective in high-density areas and regions with a high concentration of jobs. Additionally, ropeways, or aerial gondolas, are another form of public transportation that complement these systems by providing an alternative mode of travel in challenging or congested environments. Ropeways have evolved into a reasonable and attractive proposition for mainstream urban public transport in several medium-sized developing cities, including Algiers and Oran (Algeria), Medellin (Colombia), and Caracas (Venezuela), with capacities comparable to small or medium-sized tramways on rail tracks and moderate costs (Venezuela). They may offer adequate urban transportation on steep terrains, along with over rivers, ports, and highways, can accommodate densely populated areas and historic structures, and can supplement other public transportation choices. For example, in Medellin, Colombia, cable cars help connect residents of informal settlements in the foothills to the city. This form of transportation supports transportation justice because it serves low-income commuters and, at the same time, reduces air pollution.
5. Road-based public transportation: In recent decades, creating bus lanes on existing roads (painting a street a distinct color from the rest of the asphalt) has become a popular low-cost technique for increasing the quality of bus services worldwide. Also, BRT is a newly created bus-based mass transport system that mimics the performance and facilities of rail transit. An interconnected system of BRT lines in large cities is the most cost-effective transportation system because it can serve up to 45,000 passengers (about twice the seating capacity of Madison Square Garden) per hour in each direction, which exceeds the capacity of many rail systems. BRT systems have successfully improved residents’ commutes in Global South cities, including Bogotá, Curitiba, and Guangzhou. Another advantage is the affordability of BRT systems compared to metro systems. BRT systems are Latin American cities’ most sustainable and cost-effective transportation systems. Existing conventional bus and paratransit networks can supplement mainline services by providing feeder connections and serving rural locations. BRT vehicles can run on natural gas, electricity, or biofuels to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. If finance becomes available, a developing community can upgrade to light rail after securing the right of way for a BRT system. Despite its benefits, BRT systems in developing countries may face several challenges. These challenges include excessive occupancy levels, early depreciation of infrastructure, fare-collecting systems needing close supervision, and insufficient user education for initial deployment and system modifications (Pojani & Stead, 2015).
6. Non-motorized travel mode support walking and cycling, as well as pedicabs and other human-operated vehicles, which are the most common modes of non-motorized transportation in many developing cities, particularly in Asia and Africa. The higher the percentage of non-motorized transportation use, the smaller the town. Bicycles are often more prevalent in developing cities than in developed cities. Because of their lower incomes, the urban poor often walk or bike to work, school, food shopping, and other services. Young and disadvantaged male residents find work as pedicab drivers and other non-motorized taxi services. While non-motorized trips may take longer than automotive travel, many citizens in emerging cities endure longer commutes to avoid transportation costs. Walking and biking help reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, improve the health and well-being of commuters. Many Global South countries have implemented policies to enable bike lanes in downtown locations where most jobs are concentrated. Latin American cities, such as Mexico City and Bogota, have implemented bicycle pathways with physical separation that are more successful than bike lanes. In addition, a rising number of emerging cities have implemented bicycle-sharing programs. Despite the progress of non-motorized transportation, past studies suggest that bicycle-sharing increases bike utilization but does not decrease automobile use (Pojani & Stead, 2015).
7. Fuel-efficiency: Alternative fuel-based, urban transportation-related technical solutions are some examples of technological innovations in transportation. Fuel-efficient cars use fewer fossil fuels and thus contribute less to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, governments are supporting clean technologies to reduce the use of gasoline and diesel. These alternatives include biomass, solar and wind energy, nuclear energy, and decarbonized fossil fuels. Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine without modification; unlike ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity can only be utilized in specially manufactured or adapted vehicles. Natural gas resources and existing pipelines and delivery infrastructures are incentives in some nations, particularly South American countries, to boost natural gas use for transportation (compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas). Electric vehicles (fuel cell, battery, or plug-in) have a short range (between 100 to 300 miles on a full charge), making them ideal for usage in small and medium-sized cities. Biofuels (primarily ethanol, biodiesel, and mixes) can potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds in cities.
8. Awareness-raising campaign: With varying degrees of success, countries in the North and the Global South have supported education, persuasion, and awareness-raising efforts to promote more sustainable urban transportation. These campaigns seek to educate residents on the implications of car use for air pollution and global warming. However, awareness-raising campaigns face opposition from the automotive industry. Private cars symbolize comfort, speed, convenience, power, protection, superiority, individualism, hedonism, and independence. As a result, car ownership is rapidly increasing in the Global South cities, although most commuters still use public transit. Environmental education campaigns aim to motivate drivers to drive less, carpool, and even switch from cars to public transportation. In addition, these campaigns encourage commuters to think about the impacts of private transport on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions for present and future generations.
9. Pricing methods: Transportation policies use pricing methods to reduce car driving and traffic. Pricing methods include gasoline taxes, vehicles, emission quotas, direct road tolls, area cordon pricing (charges apply for the right to access or circulate within limited geographical areas), and parking charges.
10. Vehicle restrictions: Previous studies found that pricing methods are more successful than regulatory ones because they provide automobile owners with more options, increase revenues to support public transportation, and are flexible to adapt to changing circumstances. There are other mechanisms to control the automobile fleet. These include restrictions on vehicle-used based on fuel efficiency and emissions, occupancy to promote carpooling practices, plate-based restrictions, and quotas for distance traveled or the number of trips. Parking restrictions and speed limits are two more regulatory measures. Also, in recent years, companies and universities have been supporting telecommuting to reduce miles traveled and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions associated with job commutes.
11. Land-use management: Sustainable transportation policy needs land-use planning initiatives that help change the urban form to make transportation systems efficient. Commuters benefit from public transit in job-rich areas or communities with high population densities. This, in turn, ensures that commuters, especially low-income commuters, use public transit. A high occupancy increases the economic feasibility of public transportation. Shorter distances and less usage of motorized transport are connected with compact urban development. As a result, land-use restrictions have significant ramifications for travel patterns. Modifying urban forms in terms of density and land use, housing types, and green and open spaces improves the quality of mobility. Previous research found that land-use policies can increase population densities and land-use diversity. Densification and intensification of land use can enhance transportation occupancy around transport nodes and corridors. For example, the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) model at a regional scale helps increase access for more significant portions of the population if overall dense and compact development is not possible or desirable in each context, e.g., already hyper-dense inner-city areas (Cervero & Kockelman, 1997). Table 3.1 summarizes a cost-benefit analysis of typical approaches to addressing transportation challenges in the Global South.

Source: Adapted from Pojani & Stead (2015).

Sustainable Transportation in Medium-sized Cities

While much of transportation research has been conducted in large cities (megacities) in the Global South, such as Sao Paulo or Beijing, sustainable transportation systems may work particularly well in emerging medium-sized towns, such as Medellin, Colombia, and Curitiba, Brazil. These cities tend to have high-population densities and compact urban forms, enabling sustainable and just transportation systems. In addition, these two cities demonstrate how low-cost improvements and small taxes on road users can reduce car driving and improve air quality, ultimately improving residents’ health. However, sustainable transportation requires not one solution but a comprehensive approach. More importantly, transportation planners must understand how workers at all income levels commute to provide sustainable alternatives that benefit the transportation system. Furthermore, smaller and medium-sized emerging cities require different approaches to sustainable transportation than those applied in megacities (e.g., fuel taxes rather than congestion charges). Emerging cities are in a suitable position to implement strategies and solutions learned from larger cities.

Medium-sized cities may proactively implement policies and construct infrastructure to promote walkability and accessibility. These strategies include pedestrian-only zones in areas with heavy traffic and exclusive bus and bike lanes. Cities can also improve the quality of the street network by implementing low-cost interventions, such as sidewalk maintenance and speed limits. Also, cities could prioritize the deteriorated road infrastructure in low-income communities through maintenance projects rather than focusing only on new infrastructure.

A comprehensive transportation policy combines strategies and monitors implementation progress over time. Sustainable urban transportation requires packages of policies that maximize synergies to enable multimodal transportation systems. A careful assessment of transportation policy’s cost, benefits, and obstacles is essential for successful implementation. Finally, transportation planners should carefully understand the suitability and efficacy of policy solutions in the specific urban context of smaller and medium-sized cities in developing countries instead of replicating ineffective policies from the Global North (Pojani & Stead, 2015).

Conclusion

This chapter discusses the challenges faced by low-income commuters in large cities of the Global South, who have limited access to public transportation and often rely on informal transit services such as low-capacity buses and minivans. While these services provide mobility to impoverished communities, they also have deficiencies that exacerbate safety concerns. Also, here we examine sustainable mobility approaches emerging in cities of the Global South and highlight the need for policies that support and improve the quality of informal transportation, which is a necessary service for many communities. The challenges of everyday vehicles include road congestion, air pollution, and safety concerns due to a lack of regulation. Here we suggest reducing the excessive number of daily transit buses to mitigate air pollution and traffic while maintaining the transit option for low-income residents. The affordability of simple transportation varies across cities and depends on how much cities subsidize public transit.

References

Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6

Cervero, R., & Golub, A. (2007). Informal transport: A global perspective. Transport Policy, 14(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.011

Guerra, E. (2015). The geography of car ownership in Mexico City: A joint model of households’ residential location and car ownership decisions. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.01.014

Guerra, E., Li, S., & Reyes, A. (2022). How do low-income commuters get to work in the U. S.  and Mexican cities? A comparative empirical assessment. Urban Studies, 59(1), 75–96.

Hazlegreaves, S. (2020, May 6). Informal public transport: Frontline mobility heroes. Open Access Government. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/informal-public-transport-frontline-mobility-heroes/86570/

Heinrichs, D., Goletz, M., & Lenz, B. (2017). Negotiating territory: Strategies of informal transport operators to access public space in urban Africa and Latin America. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 4507–4517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.346

Jauregui-Fung, F., Kenworthy, J., Almaaroufi, S., Pulido-Castro, N., Pereira, S., & Golda- Pongratz, K. (2019). Anatomy of an informal transit city: Mobility analysis of the metropolitan area of Lima. Urban Science, 3(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3030067

Kenny, M. (2024, November 9). Global North and Global South. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Global-North-and-Global-South. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Global-North-and-Global-South

Mead, N. V. (2016, November 23). The world’s worst traffic: Can Jakarta find an alternative to the car? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/23/world-worst-traffic-jakarta-alternative

O’Brien, J., & Evans, J. (2017). Informal mobilities and elusive subjects: Researching urban transport in the Global South. In Urban mobilities in the Global South (pp. 78–94). Routledge.

Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015). Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: Beyond megacities. Sustainability, 7(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067784

Reyes, A. (2020). Housing and transportation: The relationship between residential location, local retail economies, and commutes of low-income families in Mexico City. Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20932983

Suárez, M., Murata, M., & Delgado Campos, J. (2016). Why do the poor travel less? Urban structure, commuting and economic informality in Mexico City. Urban Studies, 53(12), 2548–2566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015596925