Characterisation of the Study Area

This section presents the characteristics of the study area according to the OD dataset. This means all information and percentages refer to the 8 million com- muting people in the SPMR, and not to the entire population of 19.6 million people according to the census.

Population Composition and Spatial Distribution

The composition of the working population in the study area is presented in tables 7.1 (by income class) and 7.2 (by education level). It is noticeable from table 7.1 that only 12% of the SPMR’s working population belongs to the upper classes (A and B), while the remaining 88% of people are divided between classes C, D and E. Differences are less striking when looking at levels of education (table 7.2), as more than 60% of workers in SPMR have high school or university degrees. However, 6.7% of the population still had no formal education in the study area at the time of the survey.

Table 7.1: Proportion of individuals by income class in the SPMR. (A) Income Class Male Female Total

A 2.3% 2.4% 2.3% B 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% C 22.5% 23.3% 22.8% D 39.3% 38.7% 39.1% E 26.2% 25.9% 26.1%

Table 7.2: Proportion of individuals by education level in the SPMR. Education Level Male Female Total

University (Uni) 14.8% 21.2% 17.5% High School (HiS) 42.3% 45.5% 43.7% Middle School (MiS) 19.1% 15.6% 17.6% Elementary School (ElS) 16.2% 12.1% 14.5% No Education (NoE) 7.6% 5.5% 6.7%

The spatial distributions of places of residence and work of people in the study area are shown in figure 7.2, disaggregated by income class (maps 7.2A and 7.2C) and education level (maps 7.2B and 7.2D). The residential distribution maps by income class show people from the upper classes (7.2A1 and 7.2A2) tend to live in central areas, while the lower classes (7.2A4 and 7.2A5) live mainly in the peripheral areas of the SPMR. The residential maps by level of education show people with university degrees are concentrated in the core of the study area (7.2B1), people with high school degrees are more spread out throughout the SPMR (7.2B1), and people with lower levels of education tend to live farther away from central areas (7.2B3, 7.2B4, and 7.2B5).

The workplace maps show a polycentric distribution of jobs in the study area. The central area of the S˜ao Paulo municipality concentrates the largest number of jobs in the SPMR, for all income classes (7.2C) and educational groups (7.2D). Smaller employment centres can be found in other municipalities as well, mainly the larger ones such as the cities in the ABC region (Santo Andr´e, S˜ao Bernardo do Campo, and S˜ao Caetano do Sul), as well as Osasco and Guarulhos (the location of those cities can be seen in figure 7.1).

Figure 7.2: Residential and workplace distributions by income class and educa- tional level in the SPMR.

Modal Split and Travel Behaviour

Buses are the predominant means of transport in the SPMR, used by 43.3% of the workers in the area. Private cars are used by 28.7%, while 19.5% of people walk to work. Only 3.9% of people use the metro system or suburban trains to commute, which is a very low percentage compared to similarly sized world cities. This can be explained by the limited reach and capacity of the SPMR’s rail network. Gender differences are also evident on the modal split, with more females riding buses and walking, while more males drive to work. The least used modes of transport, namely bicycle and motorcycle, are used almost exclusively by males.

Table 7.3: Modal split in the SPMR. Mode Male Female Total Bicycle 2.1% 0.2% 1.3% Bus 38.8% 49.5% 43.3% Car 33.5% 22.2% 28.7% Metro / Train 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% Motorcycle 5.3% 0.6% 3.3% Walking 16.5% 23.6% 19.5%

There are stark differences regarding socio-economic class and transport modes, as shown in table 7.4. The higher-income individuals (income classes A and B) mostly drive to work (80% and 64.1%, respectively). Individuals of class C use cars and buses at similar rates (40.4% and 37.3%, respectively), while about half of individuals in classes D and E ride buses. More than 20% of individuals of classes D and E walk to work (20.7% and 27%, respectively), in comparison to less than 9% of individuals of classes A and B. Lower-income individuals (classes D and E) are also the ones who cycle to work more frequently (1.4% and 2.3%, respectively), although the use of this transport mode is much lower than any of the other modes. Riding motorcycles seems to be an alternative for individuals of the lower classes to increase their mobility, although their use is fairly limited, ranging from 3.2% to 3.8% for classes C, D and E. The metro and trains are used by similar rates of individuals of all classes, at rates between 3.4% and 4%.

Table 7.4: Modal split by income class in the SPMR. Income Class Mode A B C D E Bicycle 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 2.3% Bus 7.5% 20.2% 37.3% 48.9% 51.9% Car 80.0% 64.1% 40.4% 21.5% 11.5% Metro / Train 3.4% 3.9% 3.8% 3.70% 4.0% Motorcycle 0.9% 2.3% 3.2% 3.8% 3.2% Walking 8.1% 9.0% 14.7% 20.7% 27.0%

When level of education is considered, people with university degrees present the larger differences to the other groups regarding their choice of trans- port mode, as shown in table 7.5. They tend to use private cars much more

frequently than people from the other groups: 57.4%, compared to 18.2% to 25.3% of the other groups. The bus is the predominant means of transport for all groups, apart from the college educated, while a significant number of individuals with lower levels of education walk to work. A very small parcel of the population cycle to work. The ones who do cycle to work tend to be the less educated and lower classes, suggesting bicycles are used more due to economic reasons than by choice.

Table 7.5: Modal split by education level in the SPMR. Education Level

High Middle Elementary No Mode University School School School Education Bicycle 0.2% 1.0% 1.7% 2.3% 2.9% Bus 25.4% 48.9% 45.6% 43.4% 46.9% Car 57.4% 25.3% 19.3% 20.7% 18.2% Metro / Train 4.7% 3.8% 4.0% 3.0% 3.4% Motorcycle 1.8% 4.0% 3.8% 2.9% 2.2% Walking 10.3% 17.0% 25.6% 27.7% 26.4%