# A CIOS Analysis for the Promotion of Sustainable Plans of Mobility: The Case of Mexico City
## 3 Results  
### Representation Phase  
#### 3.1.1 System's Explanation  
In this section, we provide a list of characteristics of Mexico City, highlighting some of the most important problems that are putting the attempt to establish a sustainable mobility environment in Mexico City and its Metropolitan Area under pressure. These problems have been identified in literature review (included in the introduction and in the following lines), and are strongly related to the Mexico City's SUMP implementation attempt, as well as to the actual problematic situation in Mexico City in terms of unsustainable urban planning. * Mexico City is a \"Megacity\" with more than 20 million inhabitants in its Metropolitan Zone, producing a very high demand level for mobility in order the people to cover their needs [61]. * Every day, about 17 million trips are made through Mexico City. The extensive network of public and concessional transport, as well as the road infrastructure, allows the population to access their workspaces, education, health services, as well as the transport of goods to supply the population of the city. In recent decades, this system has strengthened in terms of road safety by encouraging a gradual [35%] decline of road events [62]. * While the rate of traffic deaths has been significantly reduced, the challenges remain great in achieving an equitable and safe city. In addition to the high number of deaths (659) resulting each year from traffic events, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists remain the main victims of the car drivers driving habits. According to the Ministry of Citizen Security (SSC in Spanish), private cars are involved in 50% of road events. At the same time, according to the same source, 44% of fatalities were pedestrians and only 8.5% were car drivers [62]. * These patterns of accident rates reflect that--while the mobility system as a whole is safer--the travel conditions of the most vulnerable road users have not improved: (a) the pedestrians, predominantly women of low socio-economical level, are the most exposed and vulnerable road users to traffic events. (b) Adults over the age of 61 are the most common victims of road accidents with a percentage equal to 21.7%, followed by young people aged 18 to 25. (c) Transit events are the leading cause of death in Mexico in boys and the second in girls aged 5 to 14 [62]. * The modal distribution in Mexico City can be characterized by a 57% use of public transport, followed by non-motorized usage 28% and 15% of private auto-mobiles use. While the average cost of public transport services is equal to 16 Mexican pesos considering that 50.5% of the trips total include at least two modes of transport in order for people to reach their destinations [63]. * The increased private auto usage causes several negative externalities, such as poor air quality, road accidents and congestion that not only affect the people that make use of the cars, but society as a whole [64]. * The real estate market determines the current model of urban growth in Mexico City as well as its Metropolitan Zone; until today, it has been predominantly dispersed, disordered, with low densities, without mixed uses and unsustainable. This 3D (disperse, distant, disordered) urban model demands the expenditure of a greater amount of energy for transportation and for road space allocation, a phenomenon that is reflected in the majority of Mexican cities that show a faster increase in the number of private cars in comparison to its population [65]. * The majority of investments (65%), product of public policies oriented to the mobility sector, are destined to be used in road infrastructure for private cars [66]. * The travel times in Mexico City increase steadily. In fact, the transfer times and transport modes used are very unevenly distributed in Mexico City and its suburban area. This is due to the unequal distribution of travel destination areas and to the lack of coverage and serious operational flaws of mass transit networks [67].