Technological development of motorised transport modes has provided a greater reach to consumer markets, labour supply and the needs of the supply chain. However, this increase in mobility is limited by the infrastructure required and results in sociospatial inequalities that contrast with the relative isonomy previously provided by non-motorised transport. This paper focuses on investigating the disparity that also occurs according to each mode: transit needs specific routes, while cars use practically all streets within urban areas. By using street network data and designing a topological model that represents specific characteristics of a transit network, travel times matrices between small geographic units were determined to derive thirty-four heat maps, depicting different indices regarding closeness centrality. Each index referred to one of two modes, transit or car, and one of seventeen territorial extents, differing by travel time limits from the source place. Cluster analysis allowed determining objects of interest in the study area, with less transit coverage or more relative advantage for private transport. Results show how the ubiquitous presence of road infrastructure in modern urban space affects mobility. While differences between local and long-distance transit are relevant, divergences between different territorial-bound road network indices are milder.

机动运输方式的技术发展为消费者市场，劳动力供应和供应链需求提供了更大的影响。但是，这种机动性的提高受到所需基础设施的限制，并导致社会空间不平等，这与以前由非机动交通提供的相对等距形成了鲜明对比。本文着重研究根据每种模式也会出现的差异：公交需要特定的路线，而汽车实际上使用市区内的所有街道。通过使用街道网络数据并设计代表公交网络特定特征的拓扑模型，确定了小地理单位之间的旅行时间矩阵，从而得出了34个热图，这些热图描绘了有关紧密度中心度的不同指标。每个索引指的是两种模式之一，即公交或汽车，以及17个领土范围之一，其区别在于从源位置出发的旅行时间限制。聚类分析可以确定研究区域内的感兴趣对象，而较少的过境覆盖范围或私人交通的相对优势。结果表明，现代城市空间中道路基础设施的普遍存在如何影响机动性。尽管本地和长途运输之间的差异是相关的，但不同的边界路网指数之间的差异较小。结果表明，现代城市空间中道路基础设施的普遍存在如何影响机动性。尽管本地和长途运输之间的差异是相关的，但不同的边界路网指数之间的差异较小。结果表明，现代城市空间中道路基础设施的普遍存在如何影响机动性。尽管本地和长途运输之间的差异是相关的，但不同的边界路网指数之间的差异较小。