Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339

www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Transport metabolism, social diversity and equity:

The case of São Paulo, Brazil
Eduardo Alcântara de Vasconcellos
Associação Nacional dos Transportes Públicos—ANTP, Brazil, Al. Santos 1000, 7o. andar, 01418-100 São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract

The movement of people in space implies the consumption of resources such as time, space, money and energy, as well as the
production of negative externalities such as accidents, pollution and congestion. Some of these effects have been analyzed on an
aggregate level by comparing regions in the world, a set of selected cities and different geographical areas in a particular city.
The analysis of data on a more disaggregate level that considers the differences in the cause and continuance of negative transport
externalities among social classes and groups living in a particular city in the developing world is rare.
This paper uses the São Paulo Metropolitan Region (SPMR) 1997 origin–destination (OD) survey to investigate such phenom-
enon by taking advantage of the fact that data are divided according to six levels of household income. Results refer to mobility
patterns in workable days.
The main conclusions are that although people at the lowest income level spend a high share of their income on transport, they
have a very low overall mobility and contribute almost nothing to transport externalities. At the other extreme, the two highest
income groups that use cars intensively invest much more time, space and money to travel around and so contribute to transport
externalities 8.4–15.2 times more than the lowest income group. Such large differences challenge current transport policies in devel-
oping countries and call both for a reassessment of assumptions and principles as well as for opposition to the propagation of myths
that have sustained such inequitable policies.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Transport externalities; Resource consumption; Equity

1. Objectives the differences in the cause and continuance of negative

The movement of people in space implies the con-
sumption of resources such as time, space, money and
energy, and the production of negative externalities such
as accidents, pollution and congestion. Some of these ef-
fects have been analyzed on an aggregate level by com-
paring regions in the world (World Bank, 1997; WHO,
2004), a set of selected cities (Newman and Kenworthy,
1989, 1999; UITP, 2001) and different geographical
areas in a particular city (Nicolas et al., 2001). The anal-
ysis of data on a more disaggregate level that considers
E-mail address: eavas@uol.com.br
transport externalities among social classes and groups
living in a particular city in the developing world is rare.
The diversity in transport modes and in the intensity of
their use by different people corresponds to differences in
consumption of resources and in the production of
externalities. The analysis of such externalities and their
equity consequences is a key factor in superseding lim-
ited, conservative traditional transport planning ap-
proaches (Dimitriou, 1992). Such approaches minimize
social and equity discussions and tend to reproduce
inequitable conditions by supporting large investments
in road infrastructure for automobiles as a ‘‘natural con-
sequence of development’’. This alternative analysis is
also important in order to redefine transport policies

0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.10.007
330 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339
both in developed countries (Newman and Kenworthy,
1999; Whitelegg, 1997; Litman, 1996) and in developing
ones (Vasconcellos, 2001).
This paper uses data from the São Paulo Metropoli-
tan Region (SPMR) origin–destination (OD) survey
conducted in 1997 to investigate such phenomenon
(CMSP, 1998). 1 In order to carry out the 1997 OD sur-
vey, the metropolitan area was divided into 389 traffic
zones and 30,000 households were statistically selected
and visited, to interview household members about their
travel behavior on the previous working day. In this
paper, specific attention is given to how social and eco-
nomic differences among people translate into differ-
ences in mobility, consumption patterns and the
production of externalities. Analysis is limited to passen-
ger transportation, be it walking or using bicycles,
motorcycles, public transport and automobiles.
The term ‘‘transport metabolism’’ was selected to
represent the complex interaction that occurs in the pro-
cess of transport-related consumption of resources and
production of externalities. Results are treated both on
an aggregate basis as well as according to the six income
strata adopted by the survey (see Table 4). Results are
represented through:
time consumption;
consumption of resources from the built environment,
such as road space;
natural resource consumption, such as energy and fuel;
effects on congestion, pollution and traffic accidents.
The paper is divided into five parts. The first part
summarizes the paperÕs objectives. Part 2 provides a gen-
eral discussion on transport externalities and comments
on recent assessment reports for these externalities. Part
3 provides general data on transport, mobility and exter-
nalities in the SPMR in 1997. Part 4 analyzes the data
according to the social perspective proposed by the
paper. It investigates ‘‘transport metabolism’’ by
relating consumption, externalities and income groups.
Part 5 summarizes conclusions.
2. Transport externalities
2.1. General remarks
Transport activities imply several costs and are re-
lated to the production of externalities. Main costs
may be divided into internal (purchase, taxes, mainte-
nance) and external, represented by those paid by others
1 of each transport mode (Brunn and Vuchic, 1993;
The OD survey has been conducted in the São Paulo Metropol-
itan Region (SPMR) every 10 years, since 1967; in 2002, an extra
survey was performed, to check for possible important changes in
mobility. It registers the trip pattern on workable days only.
(office parking) or imposed on others (congestion, pollu-
tion) (Baumol and Oates, 1988; Litman, 1996; Verhoef,
1994). For a more precise scientific definition:
An external effect exists when an actorÕs (the receptorÕs)
utility (or profit) function contains a variable whose
actual value depends on the behavior of another actor
(the supplier), who does not take these effects of his
behavior into account in his decision making process
(Verhoef, 1994, p. 274).
As Baumol and Oates have pointed out (1988), such a
definition excludes cases in which someone deliberately
does something to affect someone else, that is, external-
ity is seen as an unintended effect. Such a characteristic
is stressed even further by saying that an externality ex-
ists whether or not payment for the effect is imposed on
the decision maker.
The comprehension of such externalities has evolved
over time, since perceived transport impacts have also
become clearer (Bovy, 1990; Button, 1993; Miller and
Moffet, 1993). It is important to emphasize that the nat-
ure and consequences of such externalities are different
in the case of developing countries vis à vis developed
ones, from where most studies originate.
The list of external effects may be quite long, ranging
from congestion/pollution to waste disposal. Moreover,
there is controversy as to what is an ÔexternalÕ transport
benefit or cost (Verhoef, 1994). Some effects are direct—
congestion, pollution—while others are indirect—such
as visual annoyance. In most cases three main impacts
have been considered: congestion, pollution and acci-
dents, both in terms of their visibility as well as their tan-
gible nature. Pedestrians hit by cars, drivers delayed by
others and people breathing polluted air are suffering
externalities often without any sort of compensating
mechanism.
The identification of externalities has to be followed
by their measurement. Some effects are relatively easy
to measure, such as excess time imposed by congestion
on buses using a particular road, while others are diffi-
cult to measure, such as the health effects of accident
and pollution, or the impact of traffic flows on peopleÕs
quality of life. Some of the most important external ef-
fects are discussed below.
2.1.1. Space
One of the greatest environmental impacts of trans-
port is the land that is required. The space occupied
by a person while using public roads is dependent on
the transport mode, its speed while moving and the time
it remains parked, in the case of a vehicle. Many authors
have already analyzed the different space requirements
Whitelegg, 1997). The space needed for parking and cir-
culating is much larger in the case of the automobile: it
consumes 30 times more area than a bus and about five
 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339
times that of a two-wheeler (Vivier, 1999). Comprehen-
sive city-wide surveys reflect how road public assets are
divided among citizens: in Brazilian large cities, people
using automobiles—the minority—are taking from
70% to 80% of road space (IPEA/ANTP, 1998).
Road space must also be considered in relation to its
impact on peopleÕs life: social relations may be severely
affected by traffic flows—the ‘‘barrier effect’’—and peo-
ple may be forced to reorganize their travelling routes
and adopt ‘‘preventive behavior’’ to adapt to new condi-
tions (Appleyard, 1981; Hillman, 1988). Children and
youngsters are especially affected by this externality
while socializing.
2.1.2. Pollution
On a global scale, transport contributes to high per-
centages of total emissions, with industrialized countries
playing a major role in atmospheric pollution. Con-
versely, developing countries contribute in a minor
quantity, due to their much lower level of motorization
(World Bank, 1997). Large cities in the developing
world such as São Paulo and Mexico City already pro-
duce enormous quantities of pollutants. Urban air pol-
lution affects everybody, regardless of social or
economic conditions, however it is important to empha-
size that most of it is produced by motor vehicles, espe-
cially private transport (World Bank, 1997).
The negative effects of transport pollution on human
health have long been recognized. At the local level,
there is increasing evidence that HC, NOX and SO2
and suspended fine particulate matter (SPM) are the
most health threatening pollutants (provided lead has
been eliminated) (Gwilliam, 2000). There is a growing
concern on the impact of SPM on the death of elderly
and people with respiratory diseases (Saldiva, 1998).
2.1.3. Congestion
There is much literature on the analysis of travel time
on urban roads, which seeks to give a clear definition of
congestion (ITE, 1976; TTI, 1996). The most used con-
cept is the ‘‘engineering’’ one, based on the extra travel
time that comes out of a comparison between ÔidealÕ and
actual values. The definition of the former considers
road physical and operational characteristics, such as
geometric features, traffic signal density and the vol-
ume-to-capacity ratio. The actual values are measured
on the road. Another more ‘‘economic’’ concept is re-
lated to the cost a user imposes on others while travel-
ling, and the correspondent search for an ‘‘equilibrium
point’’, that would represent the idea of ‘‘optimum’’
congestion.
Technically, the congestion phenomenon—and an
externality—occurs because vehicles entering a traffic
stream on a particular road increase relative travel time
(minutes per kilometer) of vehicles already travelling on
the road. Such an impact is low when traffic flow is small
331
in comparison with road capacity and increases expo-
nentially as traffic flow increases (TRB, 1985; Button,
1993). If the costs of travelling along a particular road
are examined, it is possible to split those experienced
by a particular driver and those imposed by him/her
on the others. The costs of making the trip (personal
time, fuel) may be called the average social cost of the
journey (ASC) that increases as traffic flow increases.
The cost imposed on others may be called marginal
social cost (MSC) that also increases exponentially
according to growing traffic flow, in an exponential
way (Maddison et al., 1996).
The significance of congestion stems from two sorts
of concerns. First, equity, since people using roads cause
delays to others. Second, the environment, as congestion
with motorized vehicles implies higher energy consump-
tion and pollutant emission. A specific analysis of con-
gestion that is relevant for developing countries is that
of how bus traffic is affected by automobile traffic. Traf-
fic congestion may also severely hamper pedestrians.
Long signal cycles imply higher red times for crossing
flows, and so increased waiting time for pedestrians.
2.1.4. Traffic accidents
Traffic accidents are a major public health problem
all over the world. It is estimated that 1.2 million road
traffic deaths occur and about 50 million people are in-
jured in the world every year (WHO, 2004), most of
them in developing countries. From a public health per-
spective, traffic fatalities have become increasingly more
significant among overall fatalities and are affecting
mainly the most vulnerable users.
Traffic accidents are a very complex phenomenon,
involving technological, political, psychological and
social determinants. Their inclusion as a transport exter-
nality has been debated for a long time. I will use the
above definition from Verhoef and the current condi-
tions in developing countries to perform my analysis.
Traffic accidents occur in built environments that are
man-made environments. Both the way the city is con-
structed, and the way in which circulation infrastructure
is formed, have a direct effect on the nature of traffic
conflicts and hence the probability of traffic accidents.
In developing countries, highly complex urban built
environments have been organized in the last four dec-
ades, leading to a high risk of traffic accidents, especially
for those travelling in most vulnerable conditions. Street
systems have been either constructed or adapted to
allow for greater vehicle mobility in space, implying rela-
tively high average speeds. Most of the adapted streets
do not have proper sidewalks, or do not have sidewalks
at all, forcing pedestrians to share space with vehicles.
New roads usually cross high density pedestrian areas,
changing a once pedestrian-friendly environment into
a new, automobile-friendly one. Urban social networks
are disrupted and remaining pedestrian movements have
332 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339
to face heavy traffic. Further, traffic management tech-
niques, especially one-way streets and signal coordina-
tion, tend to allow for higher speeds, further
restraining pedestrian movements. Finally, deficient
enforcement and judicial procedures mean that most
traffic offenders remain free of penalties, including
drunk drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists. The actual
result of this sort of spatial occupation reveals a hidden
feature of the built environment in developing countries:
it is inherently dangerous for the majority of the popula-
tion, which depends on non-motorized modes, as modes
per se or to provide access to public transportation. For
instance, in São Paulo, 1621 pedestrians were killed in
traffic accidents in 1986, compared to 271 in New York
and 43 in Tokyo (CET, 2000). Despite some social dif-
ferences, and different vehicle fleets, the figures are
self-explanatory. As stated by Sachs (1992, p192) ‘‘space
conformed to speed destroys space conformed to the
pedestrians.’’
Such a critical assessment has to be conducted in
order to overcome some misleading ways of explaining
traffic accidents in developing countries. First, to blame
pedestrians and cyclists for negative accident statistics is
to blame the victims. Second, in viewing accidents as
externalities, is to assume that people choose freely to
travel and counterbalance benefits to risks (therefore
accepting the risks) and to omit that people in develop-
ing countries travel in inadequate conditions because
they have no alternative. Moreover, while travelling they
cannot properly protect themselves from a savage trav-
elling environment. In addition, the fact that some driv-
ers (actually very few in developing countries) pay
insurance for their cars does not disqualify traffic acci-
dents as externalities (Baumol and Oates, 1988). It is
clear that some pedestrians behave unsafely or walk
under drunk conditions however an automobile-domi-
nated environment and all the correspondent difficulties
to use streets as a pedestrian or cyclist have created a
space in which the most vulnerable roles are in danger
most of the time and are forced out of roads by the most
powerful roles (automobile drivers). This is a clear, deci-
sive and overwhelming externality.
2.2. Comprehensive analyses
On the one hand, literature on each of the aforemen-
tioned externalities is quite extensive. On the other hand,
comprehensive studies combining several externalities
are less common, especially in the case of developing
countries. Some studies have combined a series of exter-
nalities and managed to unveil the comprehensive rela-
tionship among them, when seen together in a specific
physical space. Two excellent recent examples may be
mentioned.
First, there is the study conducted by Newman and
Kenworthy on transport and externalities in wealthy ci-
ties in the world (1989) that eventually evolved towards
a study encompassing both developed and developing
countries (1999), which formed the basis for the UITP
document on 100 large cities in the world (UITP,
2001). Such studies have clearly demonstrated that
urban physical patterns and motorized vehicle types
used, determine a cityÕs energy consumption and pollu-
tant emission patterns. Dispersed, high income and auto-
mobile-based cities expend much more fuel and generate
much more pollution than compact, low or high income,
transit-based cities.
Another study analyzed the relationship between
mobility and sustainable development and explored
the economic, environmental and social aspects of the
issue, using detailed data from the city of Lyon, France
(Nicolas et al., 2001). Its main objective was to compare
environmental impacts as related to the geographical
areas of Lyon (center, middle and peripheral), to the
type of family structure and income, and to the type
of transport mode used by them.
This present study seeks to add to these two paths a
third dimension: how the production of transport exter-
nalities is related to the large income disparities of
households in a large city of a developing country.
Therefore, each main externality is analyzed according
to six income groups and the final effect is demonstrated.
3. The São Paulo Metropolitan Region: 1997 transport
conditions
3.1. General characteristics
The São Paulo Metropolitan Region (SPMR) is the
largest in Brazil and in South America, with an esti-
mated population of 16.8 million in 1997. It is formed
by 39 cities, with the city of São Paulo being the largest
and most important in economic and political terms,
having a population of about 10 million people. The re-
gion has experienced intense growth in the last decades:
from 1970 to 1997 the population doubled and the
motorized vehicle fleet multiplied by six, with 3.7 million
cars registered in 1997. The region has consolidated it-
self as the most important economic and political region
in the country, with the tertiary sector corresponding to
70% of jobs. Average income, although high for Brazil-
ian standards, is relatively low (about U$280), with 58%
of people earning less than U$350 a month (and highly
skewed towards the upper strata). The region has also
experienced increasing transportation problems, most
of them related to the sharp increase in the use of private
transportation and the corresponding decrease in public
transportation use: the percentage of congested main
roads in the afternoon peak is currently 80% and aver-
age bus and auto speeds are very low (12 km/h and
17 km/h, respectively). Atmospheric pollutant concen-
 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339 333

tration is higher than the limits suggested by the World Table 1

Health Organization on about 10% of the days and the Modal split, standard (main mode) classification SPMR, 1997
city of São Paulo presents some of the highest traffic Mode Trips/day
accident figures among large cities in the developing Number %
world, with 50,000 injured people and 2000 fatalities in Walking 10,812,000 34.4
1997. Public 10,467,000 33.3
Buses 8,172,000 26.0
3.2. Mobility and transport Train 598,000 1.9
Metro 1,697,000 5.4
Private 10,153,000 32.3
3.2.1. Modal split, mobility and income Total 31,432,000 100.0
The traditional way of computing overall modal split
in a city considers a trip made with more than one mode
as just one trip, classified according to the ‘‘heaviest’’
mode used. 2 This is the case of a bus-subway trip that Table 2
is counted as just a subway trip. This traditional modal Mobility, gender and mode, SPMR, 1997
split computation shows 31.4 million trips in workable Main mode Mobility (trips/person/day)
days in the SPMR, divided equally among the three Males Females Total
main modes, walking, public transport and private
Walking 0.62 0.67 0.64
transport (Table 1). Public 0.66 0.59 0.62
Average daily individual mobility—trips per person, Private 0.75 0.47 0.60
per day—in 1997 was found to be 1.87 for all trips, with Total 2.03 1.73 1.87
1.23 for motorized trips and 0.64 for non-motorized
trips. It is important to point out that some pedestrian
trips—those shorter than 500 m, for other than working particular modes shows that with walking, 90% of trips
and school purposes—are not computed. take 30 min or less. With motor vehicles, just 34% of bus
In terms of gender, female mobility corresponds to trips take 30 min or less, a figure that increases to 75%
85% of that of males. Male mobility is higher than fe- for automobiles, indicating how autos are convenient.
maleÕs for private and public transport and lower for Table 5 shows total travel times by main mode. It can
walking trips (Table 2). be seen that people use 17.9 million hours per day on
Mobility increases with increasing income and higher their trips. Most travel time is consumed on public
levels of auto ownership (Table 3). The number of peo- modes (59%).
ple not making trips on the surveyed day (immobility
rate) decreases from 55% in the lowest income level to 3.2.3. Space consumption
24% in the highest. Such immobility patterns are related Traffic counts made at the city of São PauloÕs main
to either lack of money to make additional trips and to arterial stream reveal that autos occupy about 80–90%
unemployment/underemployment: Work trips increase of road space, although serving about 50% of motorized
from 16% at the lowest income level to 42% at the high- trips (IPEA/ANTP, 1998). Space budgets were estimated
est, with corresponding increases in the percentage of by computing traveled distances, considering, for
daily travel time devoted to them. motorized modes, that aerial measurements of distances
The use of automobiles grows with increasing in- (from centers of origin and destination zones of any trip)
comes, contrary to what happens with walking. The use should be magnified by a factor of 1.3 to represent
of public transport increases up to the third income level actual distances on the street (Nicolas et al., 2001).
(38.1% of all trips) and then decreases to the lowest value For pedestrian trips, actual distances were estimated
of 19.5%, among the wealthiest households (Table 4). considering an average speed of 4 km/hr, applied to the
travel time declared by respondents. Most of the dis-
3.2.2. Time consumption tance is due to public modes (55%) (Table 6).
Differences in travel time by mode are great, from
15 min for walking trips to 93 min for combined bus– 3.2.4. Energy and fuel consumption
train trips. Time to get to the vehicle is 5–9 min in the Buses consume 1.6 million liters of diesel per day and
case of public transport and just 1–2 min in the case of autos and motorcycles use 8.6 million liters of gasoline
automobiles, confirming that the latter are much more per day. The daily consumption of energy on transport
attractive to users. The distribution of travel times for is 9.2 billion GEP. Automobiles are responsible for 78%
of total energy, while buses consume 16% (Table 7).
Energy consumption per passenger is the highest for auto-
2
The usual order of importance is from train/subway, to buses or mobiles (709 GEP). Consumption per passenger/km
cars and then to walking or cycling. shows automobiles also as the highest consumers (73.1
334 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339

Table 3
Mobility, income and motorization, SPMR, 1997
Monthly family income (R$) Autos/person Mobility (trips/person/day) Immobility (% of people) Working trips
% total trips % total travel time
<250 0.06 1.16 55 16.3 24.4
250–500 0.07 1.47 46 35.5 52.7
500–1000 0.12 1.76 38 40.4 59.2
1000–1800 0.18 2.07 30 43.5 60.1
1800–3600 0.32 2.34 28 44.4 59.7
>3600 0.50 2.64 24 42.4 56.8

Table 4 NOx emissions are similar. Total emissions of particu-

Income and transport modes, SPMR, 1997
late matter (PM) are also higher for automobiles.
Family monthly Trips (%) by main mode
income (R$) Public Private Foot Total 3.2.6. Travel time and congested hours
<250 30.5 12.1 57.4 100.0 Congestion in 1997 was estimated by using the ‘‘engi-
250–500 36.9 13.3 49.8 100.0 neering’’ concept mentioned before—by comparing ac-
500–1000 38.1 19.6 42.3 100.0 tual and ‘‘ideal’’ travel times—instead of the economic
1000–1800 37.3 27.7 35.0 100.0
concept. With autos, total daily travel time is 4.4 million
1800–3600 29.5 47.0 23.5 100.0
3600 19.5 66.1 14.4 100.0 hours. Should average daily speed be equal to the high-
est value registered in 24 h (28.4 km/h), daily travel time
could be decreased to 3.2 million hours per day, imply-
ing a savings of 1.2 million hours. With buses, should
Table 5
average speed be that attainable on a good quality oper-
Total daily travel time by main mode, SPMR, 1997
ation (25 km/h), total daily travel time could be reduced
Main mode Total Time
from 6.5 to 4.6 million hours, representing a savings of
Hours/day % 1.9 million hours (about 570 million hours a year)
Walking only 2,722,700 15 (Table 9). In the city of São Paulo alone, a special study
Publica 10,587,000 59 revealed that 118 million additional hours per year are
Privatea 4,569,100 26
imposed by automobiles on bus passengers (represent-
Total 17,878,800 100
a
ing, on average, about 15 min in peak-hour), when traffic
Includes walking to/from mode.
volumes reach road capacity. Extra bus operating costs,
which have reached 16%, are passed on to users (IPEA/
ANTP, 1998).
Table 6
Daily traveled distances by main mode, SPMR, 1997
3.2.7. Traffic accidents
Main mode Daily distancea In the city of São Paulo, in 1997, 202,082 traffic acci-
Kilometers % dents were registered, with 2042 fatalities (1:99 ratio)
Walking only a
10,890,900 4.4 (Table 10). Among them, 190,223 were vehicular acci-
Publicb 138,701,290 55.9 dents and 95% involved automobiles. Pedestrian acci-
Privateb 98,603,050 39.7 dents accounted for 11,859 cases (5.8% of the total
Total 248,195,240 100
number), resulting in 1109 fatalities (1:10 ratio), corre-
a
Estimated by comparing declared travel times to an average speed sponding to 54% of all fatalities and revealing the high
of 4 km/h.
b vulnerability of walking as a transport mode. It is
Distances between centers of the OD survey zones, magnified by a
factor of 1.3; includes walking to/from the vehicle or public transport important to emphasize that 83% of pedestrian trips
terminal. are made by people belonging to the four initial income
bands (76% of total population), for whom the availabil-
ity of automobiles is lower than 0.18 vehicles/person. In
GEP), while diesel buses are the most efficient, followed addition, 28% of pedestrian trips are made by the two
closely by the train and the subway. initial income bands—the very poor, whose automobile
use is close to zero. Conversely, 59% of auto trips are
3.2.5. Pollution made by people in the two highest income bands, (com-
Total pollutant emission for autos and buses is shown prising just 24% of the population) and who seldom
in Table 8 (local pollutants). Autos emit 33 times more walk. In working with the different types of vehicles in-
CO and 12 times more HC than buses, while total volved in accidents, accidents were split into bus-related
 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339 335

Table 7
Energy consumed by transport mode, SPMR, 1997
Mode Daily consumption Consumption per passenger
GEP/day (million) % GEP/pass Ratio (auto = 100) GEP/pass km Ratio (auto = 100)
Auto 7196 78.1 709 100 73.1 100
Busa 1431 15.5 175 25 14.6 20
Metro 357b 3.9 210b 30 23.4b 32
Train 236b 2.6 395b 56 18.8b 26
Total 9219 100.0 447 / 41.1 /
a
Diesel and trolley buses.
b
Total energy (traction and facilities such as stations and offices); energy for traction is about 70–80% of total energy.

Table 8 and other cities in the region, reaching 271,331 accidents

Daily pollutant emissions, autos and buses, SPMR, 1997
per year, with 2662 fatalities (truck-related accidents
Pollutant Autos (ton/day) Buses (ton/day) Ratio auto/bus were excluded, since this paper considers only passenger
CO 1999 66.7 33.7 transportation).
NOx 61.0 68.5 0.97 Tables 11 and 12 summarize general data on meta-
HC 170.3 15.1 12.3
bolism as per main mode and per trip at the metropolitan
PM 5.8 3.7 1.5
Total 2236 150.3 14.9 level, while Fig. 1 shows the contribution of transport
modes in percentage. With accidents, each pedestrian
Reference for emission rates: Cetesb (2000).
accident was attributed to the class of vehicle that was
involved in the accident, based upon the externality ap-
proach previously explained. This means that from this
Table 9
paperÕs perspective, vehicle drivers are the principal
Estimated excess travel time, autos and buses, SPMR, 1997 source of the externality. Although this leads to an over-
Mode Actual travel time Minimum travel time
estimation of vehicle involvement, it gives a fair approx-
(pass h/day) that could occur imation of the share of the externality effect.
(pass h/day) Average consumptions in Table 12 were estimated by
Bus 6,513,053 4,591,397a dividing total consumption by the number of trips (for
Absolute loss (h) 1,921,656 time and distances) and by the number of motorized
Relative loss (%) 29.5 trips (for all other cases).
Auto 4,411,680 3,215,329b It can be seen from Table 12 that average travel time
Absolute loss (h) 1,196,311
Relative loss (%) 27.1
goes from 15 min for walking to 61 min for public trans-
a
port. Average trip length goes from 1 km for walking to
Ideal conditions at 25 km/h; walking and waiting times of 3 min
(either origin or destination).
13.2 for public transport. When comparing motorized
b
Based on maximum observed speed in 24 h (28.4 km/h). modes, it can be seen that the energy spent per trip on
private modes is 3.7 higher than that made on public
modes, while fuel consumption is 5.6 higher. The
Table 10 average trip on private modes emits 15 times more pol-
Traffic accidents in the city of São Paulo, 1997 lutants than that made on public modes. The rate of
Accidents Fatalities accidents per million trips is 14.6 higher using private
modes than public ones, while the corresponding figure
Vehicular Pedestrian Total User Number %
for fatalities is 12.1. It is clear, from such figures, that
190,223 11,859 202,082 Cyclists 30 2
automobiles impose a much higher burden on society
(94%) (6%) (100%) Motor cyclists 221 11
Automobiles 682 33 than buses.
Pedestrians 1109 54
Total 2042 100
CET (2000). 4. Transport metabolism and social diversity

This section makes a detailed analysis of how trans-

(public modes) and auto and motorcycle accidents (pri-
vate modes) (there were no accidents with trains or the
subway). Values for the SPMR in 1997 were estimated
as 50% higher than those for the city of São Paulo itself,
according to the automobile fleet ratio between this city
port metabolism relates to social groups with different
incomes. The 1997 OD survey classified individuals
and their families in six income levels, from the very
poor to the wealthy. The analysis looks firstly at gen-
eral investments in mobility and transport and then
336 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339

Table 11
Passenger transport metabolism, main mode, SPMR, 1997
Figure Daily quantity (main mode)
Walking Public Private Total
Trips (main mode) 10,812,241 10,467,286 10,153,705 31,432,232
Travel time (h) 2,722,000 10,587,000 4,569,000 17,878,000
Distance (pass km) 10,890,000 138,701,290 98,603,050 248,195,240
Energy (103 GEP) (–) 2,023,000 7,196,000 9,219,000
Fuel (l) (–) 1,596,000a 8,645,093b 10,241,093
Pollutants (kg) (–) 150,300c 2,236,000d 2,386,300
Accidents (–)e 49f 694g 743
Traffic fatalities (–)e 1.2f 6.1g 7.3
a
Diesel buses only.
b
Automobiles only (gasoline and alcohol).
c
Pollutants: CO, NOx, HC and PM, emitted by diesel buses only.
d
Pollutants: CO, NOx and HC, emitted by autos only.
e
Assuming that pedestrians are victims of accidents, caused by vehicles.
f
Buses.
g
Bicycles, motorcycles, automobiles.

Table 12
Average consumption per main mode, per trip, SPMR, 1997
Figure Consumption/trip (main mode)
Walking Public Private Total Rate priv/pub
Travel time (min) 15.1 60.7 27.0 34.1 0.4
Distance (km) 1.0 13.3 9.7 7.9 0.7
Energy (GEP) (–) 193.3 708.7 447.1 3.7
Fuel (l) (–) 0.15 0.85 0.50 5.6
Pollutants (g) (–) 0.01 0.22 0.12 15.3
Accidents/million trips (–) 4.7 68.4 36.0a 14.6
Fatalities/million trips (–) 0.1 1.3 0.4a 12.1
a
Motorized trips only.

100.0
foot In Table 13, a time budget was obtained by multiply-
90.0
80.0 public ing the number of trips in each income level by average
70.0 private travel times of 15.1 min (walking) 60.7 min (public trans-
60.0
port) and 27 min (automobile). A space budget was esti-
Data (%)

50.0 mated in its dynamic form by multiplying linear

40.0 distances by the static area occupied per person when
30.0 using a particular mode. According to the OD survey,
20.0 linear distances varied within income levels from 0.8 to
10.0 1.2 km/day (walking), 8.1 to 10.2 km (public transport)
0.0 and 6.9 to 8.3 km (automobiles). Specific individual
trips time distance energy fuel pollutants accidents fatalities areas per mode were considered as: 1 m2 for walking
Fig. 1. Transport modes, consumption and externalities, SPMR, 1997. trips; 1 m2 for bus trips (30 people per bus, which was
in 1997 the ‘‘instantaneous’’ average during operation
on working days, with a vehicle ‘‘shadow’’ of 30 m2),
examines resource consumption and the generation of and 6 m2 for automobile trips (average occupation of
externalities. 1.5 people per automobile, with a vehicle ‘‘shadow’’ of
9 m2).
4.1. Investments in mobility and transport It can be noted that family travel time budget experi-
ences a threefold increase between income extremes
Table 13 and Fig. 2 show data on the investments (from 100 to 326 min per day) and that the space budget
people make to ensure their living (their social and eco- (dynamic distance) increases much more (eight times)
nomic reproduction), expressed in terms of mobility and from 33 km to 300 km. This space consumption brings
time and money expenses. to light the myth behind the generalized assumption that
 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339 337

Table 13
Family investments in mobility, SPMR, 1997
Monthly family People 106 Household data
income (R$)
Mobility Trips/day Time budget (min/day) Dynamic Space Expenses with transport
budget (km/day)
R$/month % of average income
0–250 1.7 3.3 100.2 32.6 37.2 29.8
250–500 2.7 4.9 166.1 56.8 65.7 17.5
500–1000 4.6 6.5 228.9 94.3 109.8 14.6
1000–1800 3.6 8.4 299.2 151.5 179.7 12.8
1800–3600 2.6 9.2 315.3 216.1 256.4 9.5
3600 or more 1.4 10.2 326.0 300.3 355.7 9.9
All 16.8 6.9 235.4 133.4 154.3 14.9

12 4.2. Transport metabolism and income

mobility
10 Transport metabolism was analyzed according to in-
Ratio (income level 1 = 1)

time
distance
come. Table 14 and Fig. 3 show how travel times, dy-
8 namic distance, energy use, fuel use, pollution and
expenses
accidents vary with family income.
6
With traffic accidents, involvement of motorized
4 modes was estimated by multiplying the number of trips
in each mode by the relative danger of that mode, of
2 0.37 accidents per million pass km (public transport)
and 8.08 accidents per million pass km (automobiles)
0 (data from the city of São Paulo).
0 - 250 251 - 501 – 1,001 – 1,801 – 3,601 or The effects of such changes in time and space con-
500 1,000 1,800 3,600 more
sumption among income levels are significant. Follo-
Household monthly income (R$)
wing increasing orders of magnitude, energy
Fig. 2. Investments in mobility according to income, SPMR, 1997. consumption rises according to a ratio of 1:9, fuel con-
sumption to a ratio of 1:11, pollutant emission to a ratio
of 1:14 and traffic accidents to a ratio of 1:15. It can be
investing public money in more roads is democratic and observed that the worsening of externalities occurs
equitable, often voiced as ‘‘they benefit everybody’’. mainly from the fourth income level onwards, when
This increase implies more people travelling in the automobiles start to be widely used.
household and the use of more expensive modes. There-
fore overall expenses are multiplied by almost 10, how-
ever, the percentage of income spent with transport 4.3. Transport metabolism, social diversity and equity
decreases instead, from 30% in the lower income level
to 10% in the highest. Travel time budget per household The analysis of household consumption budgets of
is multiplied by about three. space and time reveals five distinct social groups:

Table 14
Transport metabolism, consumption and externalities, SPMR, 1997
Monthly family income (R$) Rates
Time Dynamic distancea Energy Fuel Pollutants Accidents
0–250 1 1 1 1 1 1
251–500 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7
501–1000 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.2
1001–1800 3.0 3.9 4.1 4.6 5.2 5.6
1801–3600 3.1 5.9 6.5 7.6 9.1 10.0
3601 or more 3.3 8.4 9.2 11.1 13.8 15.2
a
Aerial distances between the centers of origin and destination zones, magnified by a factor of 1.3 and by the area occupied per person, per mode
(see text).
338 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339
16
14 Energy
Ratio (income level 1 = 1)
Fuel
12
Pollutants
10
Accidents
8 income families; 66% of trips are made with auto-
6
4 on an average day; they spend less than 10% of
2 income on transport; they contribute to transport
0
0 - 250 251 - 501 –
500 1,000
Household monthly income (R$)
Fig. 3. Transport metabolism, consumption and externalities, SPMR,
1997.
(a) The excluded. Comprise 1.7 million people (10% of
population), with the lowest household monthly
income (between R$0 and 250 a month); they have
a very low mobility (3.2 trips per day per family
and 1.16 trips per day per person, less than half
the figures for the highest income people); make lit-
tle use of public transport; more than 50% of people
are immobile; just 24% of travel time is for working
purposes; they spend about 30% of income with
transport; they contribute almost nothing to trans-
port externalities.
(b) The poor. Comprise 2.7 million people (16% of total
population), with an income between R$250 and 500
a month; individual mobility is 1.47; one-third of
daily trips are made using public transport; travel
time for working purposes corresponds to 53% of
total time, the double of that of the excluded.
(c) Intermediate groups. Comprise 8.3 million people
(49% of total), with a family monthly income
between R$500 and 1800; mobility is higher,
between 1.76 and 2.07 trips/person; they correspond
to the largest group of public transport users and
automobiles start to be used; activity patterns are
more diversified, with trips to work (service sector),
school, shopping centers and leisure; time and
spatial amplitude while making trips is higher; just
34% of people are immobile; they represent the first
group to contribute significantly to transport
externalities.
(d) The middle class. Comprise about 2.6 million people
(16% of total), with family monthly incomes
between R$1800 and 3600; this is the first group
to use automobiles intensively, with 47% of trips
made with the same; 28% of people are immobile;
people make a high number of trips to services
and have a large time and spatial coverage (ampli-
tude); they are able to select destinations, thus
reducing average trip distances.
(e) Upper middle class and elite. Comprise 1.4 million
people (9% of total), with family income above
R$3600 a month; they present greatest mobility—
9.9 trips per family, per day and 2.6 trips per per-
son—more than twice as great as that of low
mobiles, a high number of activities being linked
to services; just 24% of people do not make trips
externalities 11–16 times more than the lowest
1,001 – 1,801 – 3,601 or income group.
1,800 3,600 more
5. Conclusion
The analysis of aggregate data revealed that passen-
ger mobility in a working day in the SPMR requires
31 million trips, divided equally among walking, public
transport and private modes (main modes). Individual
mobility rates increase with income, from 1.16 to 2.64,
and female mobility is generally lower than malesÕ.
Average travel time varies form 15 min for walking trips,
up to 93 min for combined bus–train trips.
Such trips consume 17.9 million hours daily and re-
quire 248 million kilometers (actual distances on streets).
Motorized modes consume 9.2 billion GEP daily, auto-
mobiles being responsible for 78% of total energy spent.
Buses and cars emit 2300 tons of pollutants per day.
About 270,000 traffic accidents occurred in 1997, with
2600 fatalities, 60% of them pedestrians.
When the data are analyzed according to household
income levels, broad differences appear. Although they
spend a high share of their income on transport, people
at the lowest income level have a very low overall mobil-
ity and contribute almost nothing to transport external-
ities. At the other extreme, the two highest income
groups that use cars intensively invest much more time,
space and money to travel around and contribute to
transport externalities 8.4–15.2 times more than the low-
est income group. Such large differences challenge cur-
rent transport policies in developing countries and call
both for a reassessment of assumptions and principles
as well as for opposition to the propagation of myths
that have sustained such inequitable policies.
References
Appleyard, D., 1981. Livable Streets. California University Press,
USA.
Baumol, W.J., Oates, Wallace E., 1988. The Theory of Environmental
Policy. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Bovy, P., 1990. Transport and the Environment: a Tentative Overview
of Issues in Cities of Developed and Developing Countries. Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology.
 E.A. de Vasconcellos / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 329–339
Brunn, E.C., Vuchic, V., 1993. Time–area concept: development,
meaning and applications, TRB, Transportation Research Record
1499, Washington.
Button, K.J., 1993. Transport, The Environment and Economic
Policy. Edward Elgar, UK.
CET–Cia de Engenharia de Tráfego, 2000. Fatos e Estatı́sticas de
Acidentes de trânsito em São Paulo—2000, São Paulo.
Cetesb, Cia de Tecnologia e Saneamento Ambiental, 2000. Relatório
da poluição atmosférica no Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo.
CMSP—Cia do Metropolitano de São Paulo, 1998. Pesquisa Origem–
Destino—resultados finais, São Paulo.
Dimitriou, H., 1992. Urban Transport Planning—A Developmental
Approach. Routledge, London.
Gwilliam, K.M., 2000. Pollution from motorcycles in Asia: issues and
options, World Bank Infrastructure Notes, Transport Sector, No.
UT-8, Washington.
Hillman, M., 1988. Foul play for children: a price of mobility. Town
and Country Planning (October), 331–332.
IPEA/ANTP, 1998. Melhoria do transporte público com a redução
dos congestionamentos, Brası́lia.
ITE—Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976. Transportation and
Traffic Engineering Handbook. Prentice Hall, US.
Litman, T., 1996. Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Esti-
mates and Implications. Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
Vancouver, Canada.
Maddison, David, Pearce, David, Johansson, Olof, Calthrop, Edward,
Litman, Todd, Verhoef, Eric, 1996. The True Costs of Road
Transport. Earthscan, UK.
Miller, P., Moffet, J.,1993. The price of mobility—uncovering the
hidden costs of transportation, Natural Resources Defense Coun-
cil, US.
339
Newman, P.W.G., Kenworthy, J.R., 1989. Cities and Automobile
Dependence: An International Sourcebook. Gower, England.
Newman, P.W.G., Kenworthy, J.R., 1999. Sustainability and Cities—
Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, US.
Nicolas, J.-P., Pochet, P., Poimbeuef, H., 2001. Indicateurs de mobilité
durable—application à lÕ Agglomération de Lyon, Laboratorie
dÕEconomie des Transports, France.
Sachs, W., 1992. For Love of the Automobile. University of California
Press, US.
Saldiva, P.H., 1998. Poluição atmosférica e saúde, uma abordagem
experimental. Greenpeace, São Paulo.
TRB—Transportation Research Board, 1985. Highway Capacity
Manual, Washington.
TTI—Texas Institute of Technology, 1996. Quantifying congestion,
Final report, US.
UITP, Union Internationale des Transports Publiques, 2001. Mille-
nium cities, Brussels.
Vasconcellos, E.A., 2001. Urban Transport, Environment and
Equity—The Case for Developing Countries. Earthscan,
UK.
Verhoef, E., 1994. External effects and social costs of road transport.
Transportation Research A 28 (4), 273–287.
Vivier, J., 1999. Comparaison des coûts externes du transport public et
lÕautomobile en milieu urbain. Transport Public International 48
(5), 36–39.
Whitelegg, John, 1997. Critical Mass—Transport, Environment and
Society in the Twenty-first Century. Pluto Press, London.
WHO—World Health Organization, 2004. World Report on Road
Traffic Injury prevention, Geneva.
World Bank, 1997. World Resources, A Guide to the Global
Environment, Washington, DC.