Evaluation of the urban transportation infrastructure and its urban surroundings in the Iztapalapa County: A geotechnology approach about its management

Figures & data

Table 1. Justification of the selection of a CT in Iztapalapa County as case study

	Criterion	Resume
1	Socio-demographic status	It is the most populated County within Mexico City
2	Socio-economic status	It is a geographic area with a very low socio-economic level and a large number of vulnerable groups. Thus, there is a tremendous necessity to improve the conditions of alternative mobility for the people who do not have the capacity to buy a private vehicle
3	Road security	Iztapalapa is the first county in Mexico City in relation to road accidents, hence, the urban design and the urban transit management need to prioritize the alternative modes of transportation (cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport) and not only focus on private motorized transport as it has been the practice all these years
4	Urban planning	It has many irregular settlements that most of the cases are the result of self-construction affecting their surroundings, because they do not have a network vision, resulting in disjointed and unfinished infrastructure
5	UTI and urban surroundings condition	It has deficient UTI, which does not provide the same quality of service to the local population, generating barriers among the society. In some areas of Iztapalapa various components of UTI such as public lights, ramps, sidewalks and sidewalk fittings do not have the required maintenance and there is no full coverage of the expected service, making it difficult to guarantee accessibility and pedestrian safety. Talking about the motorized road network, it can be said that part of the asphalt is impaired and bumpy; this situation increases the chances of accidents and transportation time delays

Figure 1. The relationship between CT and blocks.

Table 2. The hierarchy and characteristics of road types

Roads category	Importance	Types of roads	Characteristics
Primary roads	I1	Road of continuous circulation	The roads of continuous circulation are the ones qualified with major importance (I1) because they are primary roads that have the capacity to connect whole regions of the city. Also, they have high-volume of vehicles and do not have traffic lights; therefore, there is a continuous flow of vehicles
	I2	Main artery	The main arteries are qualified with importance (I2) because they present flows of a large number of vehicles, they have the capacity to connect whole regions of the city and their geometric characteristics are equal to the roads of continuous circulation. The only difference that this type of road has in comparison with the previous one is that the main arteries do have traffic lights so that the flow of vehicles can be regulated
Secondary roads	I3	Secondary avenue	The secondary avenue type of road follows in terms of importance (I3), because it is used to connect the primary roads with local streets, hence, it has reduced geometric characteristics. Moreover, the secondary avenues can also present intense traffic but only in short parts of its network, something that is not the case for the primary roads presented before
	I4	Local street	The local streets have been qualified with the lower importance (I4) because they have lower demand for mobility in terms of very short distances and very low traffic volumes

Table 3. Block’s qualification with high, medium or low connectivity according to road types

High connectivity	Interactions-presence of roads
1	I1–I1
	I1–I2
	I2–I1
	I2–I2
Medium connectivity	Interactions-presence of roads
2	I1–I3
	I1–I4
	I2–I3
	I2–I4
	I3–I1
	I3–I2
	I4–I1
	I4–I2
Low connectivity	Interactions-presence of roads
3	I3–I3
	I3–I4
	I4–I3
	I4–I4

Table 4. Block’s qualification according to different stations type

Block’s qualification	Presence of public transport stations
1	I1–I1 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I1–I2 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I2–I1 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I1 (in case that the block counts with only one station and that is of high capacity)
2	I1–I3 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I2–I2 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I3–I1 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I2 (in case that the block counts with only one station and that is of medium capacity)
3	I3–I3 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I2–I3 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I3–I2 (in case that the block counts with more than one stations)
	I3 (in case that the block counts with only one station and that is of low capacity)

Figure 2. Pyramid of Maslow’s human needs in relation to POIs.

Table 5. Block’s self-sufficiency qualification as very high, high, medium and low according to the presence of POIs

Very high self-sufficiency	Interactions-presence of points of interest
1	I1–I2–I3–I4
High self-sufficiency	Interactions-presence of points of interest
2	I1–I2–I3
	I1–I2–I4
	I1–I3–I4
	I2–I3–I4
Medium self-sufficiency	Interactions-presence of points of interest
3	I1–I2
	I1–I3
	I1–I4
	I2–I3
	I2–I4
	I3–I4
Low self-sufficiency	Interactions-presence of points of interest
4	I1
	I2
	I3
	I4

Table 6. Actual features of the selected CT

CT features	Resume
Total population	The selected CT is the most populated within the geographic borders of Iztapalapa County. Thus, it generates a very high demand of mobility and at the same time demands the existence of sufficient-adequate UTI and urban surroundings in order to cover the different human needs of its inhabitants
High concentration of POIs	The selected CT has a very high concentration of various points of interest, which can cover several human needs, making as a result the area of study a high candidate in relation to generation and attraction of travels
Low level of urban planning	The blocks within the examined CT do not have a regular form, their form factor in majority is very different than the normal one (square form factor). For that reason, the blocks look like labyrinths, do not permit easy connectivity between different blocks, make the orientation of pedestrians difficult and more importantly the blocks due to their form factor do not offer the opportunity to the people to be connected with public transportation modes and to pass from hierarchical networks to well organized ones

Figure 3. Street lights coverage.

Figure 4. Semi-fixed posts coverage.

Figure 5. Roadside stands coverage.

Figure 6. Pedestrian bridges coverage.

Figure 7. Sidewalks coverage.

Figure 8. Ramps coverage.

Figure 9. Connectivity indicator.

Figure 10. Public transportation coverage.

Figure 11. Public transportation stations indicator.

Figure 12. Population indicator.

Figure 13. Self-sufficiency indicator.

Figure 14. Block’s size and form factor.

Table 7. Resume of the actual values of the established indicators in the examined CT

Indicator	Symbolism of each indicator	Value of each indicator	Criterion for each indicator
Streetlights	Vsl	$Vsl=\left(\frac{13}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{91434.61}{469697.81}\right)=0.10$	Number of blocks with sufficient coverage of public streetlights
Semi-fixed road posts	Vsfr	$Vsfr=\left(\frac{11}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{283600.68}{469697.81}\right)=0.28$	Number of blocks that have coverage of semi-fixed road posts in every front
Roadside stands	Vrs	$Vrs=\left(\frac{12}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{238458.72}{469697.81}\right)=0.26$	Number of blocks that have coverage of roadside stands in every front
Pedestrian bridges	Vpb	$Vpb=\left(\frac{2}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{31617.08}{469697.81}\right)=0.0056$	Number of blocks that have pedestrian bridge in any of its fronts
Sidewalks	Vsw	$Vsw=\left(\frac{5}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{683.01}{469697.81}\right)=0.00029$	Number of blocks presenting coverage of sidewalks in every front
Ramps	Vra	$Vra=\left(\frac{5}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{683.01}{469697.81}\right)=0.00029$	Number of blocks with coverage of ramps in every front
Sidewalk fittings	Vsf	$Vsf=\left(\frac{5}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{683.01}{469697.81}\right)=0.00029$	Number of blocks with coverage of sidewalk fittings in every front
Road network of motorized transit	Vrn	$Vrn=\left(\frac{6}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{107346.79}{469697.81}\right)=0.059$	Number of blocks that are evaluated with high or medium level of connectivity. We selected this kind of connectivity because the primary roads due to their geometrical characteristics facilitate the coverage of public transport
Public transportation coverage	Vpt	$Vpt=\left(\frac{18}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{406915.09}{469697.81}\right)=0.67$	Number of blocks presenting public transportation mode in any of its fronts
Stations	Vst	$Vst=\left(\frac{2}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{123699.38}{469697.81}\right)=0.021$	Number of blocks that have station of public transport in any of its fronts
Population’s concentration	Vpc	$Vpc=\left(\frac{15}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{463026.79}{469697.81}\right)=0.63$	Number of blocks that have a very high or high population concentration
Land use	Vlu	$Vlu=\left(\frac{23}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{469697.81}{469697.81}\right)=1$	Number of blocks that have mixed land use. It needs to be said, that we decided to qualify the CT with a value equal to 1 because there are many POIs around the CT changing the predominant land use type as mixed and making the area as a high candidate for generation and attraction of travels
Proximity to points of interest (POIs)	Vpr	$Vpr=\left(\frac{23}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{469697.81}{469697.81}\right)=1$	Number of blocks that have the majority of POIs within the limits of an acceptable pedestrian distance (750 m). The CT has the capacity to be transformed into a complete neighborhood
Blocks self-sufficiency according to the presence of POIs	Vss	$Vss=\left(\frac{23}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{469697.81}{469697.81}\right)=1$	Number of blocks that have very high-high level of self-sufficiency. The CT of the case study has the capacity to be transformed into a complete neighborhood
Bike lanes	Vbl	$Vbl=\left(\frac{0}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{0}{469697.81}\right)=0$	Number of blocks that have in any of their front a bike lane. At the moment there is no bike lane in the examined CT
Type of block and form factor (perimeter/area)	Vty	$Vty=\left(\frac{7}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{3423.94}{469697.81}\right)=0.0021$	Number of blocks that have a regular form factor and small area
Trees	Vtr	$Vtr=\left(\frac{0}{23}\right)\times \left(\frac{0}{469697.81}\right)=0$	Number of blocks that have coverage of trees in every front. At the moment, none of the blocks has sufficient coverage of trees (in every front)