## 4 Methodology
### Index of Mass Transport Provision  
The Index of Mass Transport Provision (IMTP) was based on frequency, capacity, and proximity [25, 55]. Table 2 describes data sources. Frequency used was at peak-time when most people commute to/from work [21]. The vehicle capacity was used for the index calculations. Proximity was calculated through walking time from each of the GS centroids to the nearest stop/station. The distances were modelled by means of advanced spatial  
Figure 3: Mass Public Transport System in the Guadalajara Metropolitan Area. Source: Authors based on [42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. analysis (e.g., street network and nearest facility) and involved time as an innovative variable instead of traditional Euclidian distance. In accordance with [PERSON] et al. [55], the distances were classified in ranges and normalized. As described in Table 2, the geometry of the road network was generated from two data sources. Given the differences in data generation criteria, the construction of the road network implied significant technical efforts. Finally, the resulting network achieved an acceptable topological quality for a metropolitan scale. Walking time was based on the street network distance assuming a speed of four kilometre per hour, since Mexican authorities recognize that children, the elderly and the motion-impaired walk at this speed [56]. In addition, when two or more stops/stations were less than 50 m apart, this research assumed that users preferred the one that had a higher frequency or capacity in the following order: LRT, BRT, and then bus. This hierarchy served to eliminate the duplicated stops of 284 SITEUR stops/stations. Table 3 describes the general characteristics of SITEUR considered for the IMTP calculations. The Index of Mass Transport Provision (IMTP) was calculated as shown in Equation (1) and normalized through Equation (2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Dimension** & **Indicator** & **Variable** & **Source** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Transport} & & & Authors, based on the Statistical \\  & & & and Geographic Information \\  & Proximity & Walking minutes to reach the nearest & Institute of the State of Jalisco \\  & & stop/station & (IIEGJa) [50] and the National \\  & & & Institute of Statistics and \\  & & & Geography (INEGI) [53] \\  & Frequency & Peak-time frequency, in minutes & SITEUR [43; 44; 45; 46] and Metropolitan \\  & Capacity & Passenger per vehicle & Planning Institute (IMEPLAN) [49] \\ \hline \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Social} & Disability & People with motor, visual and \\  & & auditory handicap \\  & Educational level & People from 3 to 24 years assisting to an \\  & & educational centre \\  & Elderly & People of 65 years and over \\  & Childhood & People of 5 years and under \\  & Unemployment & Unemployed people \\  & & People of 15 years and over without ability \\  & & to read \\  & Low income & Dwelling without refrigerator \\  & Vehicle ownership & Dwelling without privately-owned vehicle \\  & Gender & Dwelling with female-headed household \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Factors, Indicators, and Data Sources Used to Assess the Index of Mass Transport Provision and the Index of Transport Social Needs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Social Indicator (S\({}_{i}\))**} & **Weight (W\({}_{i}\))** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{S\({}_{1}\)- Disability} & W\({}_{1}\) = 0.137 \\  & S\({}_{2}\)- Educational level & W\({}_{2}\) = 0.125 \\  & S\({}_{3}\)- Elderly & W\({}_{3}\) = 0.143 \\  & S\({}_{4}\)- Childhood & W\({}_{4}\) = 0.113 \\  & S\({}_{5}\)- Unemployment & W\({}_{5}\) = 0.128 \\  & S\({}_{6}\)- Illiteracy & W\({}_{6}\) = 0.129 \\  & S\({}_{7}\)- Low income & W\({}_{7}\) = 0.036 \\  & S\({}_{8}\)- Vehicle ownership & W\({}_{8}\) = 0.066 \\  & S\({}_{9}\)- Gender & W\({}_{9}\) = 0.123 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Social Indicators Weights. Equation (1).