Evaluation of the Impact of a Public Bicycle Share Program on Population Bicycling in Vancouver, BC

Public bicycle share programs have been implemented in cities around the world to encourage bicycling. However, there are limited evaluations of the impact of these programs on bicycling at the population level. This study examined the impact of a public bicycle share program on bicycling amongst residents of Vancouver, BC. Using an online panel, we surveyed a population-based sample of Vancouver residents three times: prior to the implementation of the public bicycle share program (T0, October 2015, n=1111); in the early phase of implementation (T1, October 2016, n=995); and one-year post implementation (T2, October 2017, n=966). We used difference in differences estimation to assess whether there was an increase in bicycling amongst those living and/or working in close proximity (≤500 m) to Vancouver\u27s Mobi by Shaw Go public bicycle share program, compared to those living and working outside this area. Results suggest that only living or only working inside the bicycle share service area was not associated with increases in bicycling at T1 or T2 relative to those outside the service area. Both living and working inside the bicycle share service area was associated with increases in bicycling at T1 (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.07, 4.80), however not at T2 (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.67, 2.83). These findings indicate that the implementation of a public bicycle share program may have a greater effect on bicycling for residents who both live and work within the service area, although this effect may not be sustained over time.&nbsp

Who Are The ‘Super-Users’ Of Public Bike Share? An Analysis of Public Bike Share Members in Vancouver, BC

Public bike share programs have been critiqued for serving those who already bicycle, or more well-off individuals who already have a multitude of transportation options. While substantial research focuses on characteristics of public bike share members, it often overlooks their intensity of use which may relate more directly to transport and health gains. In this study we link system data with member survey data to characterize “super-users” of Vancouver\u27s public bike share system. We used system data from September 1, 2016–August 31, 2017 to calculate member-specific trip rates (trips/month). We linked system data to demographic and travel data for members who completed an online survey in 2017 (1232 members who had made 89,945 trips). We defined super-users as those who made 20 or more trips/month. We used a logistic regression to model demographic and travel characteristics associated with super-users as compared to regular users. Of the 1232 members, 204 were super-users. Super-users made 47% of the trips and had a median trip rate of 29.3 trips/month. In adjusted models, super-users were more likely to be young, male, have household incomes below $75,000, and live and work near bike share docking stations. Super-users had fewer transportation options than regular users, with lower odds of having a personal bike or car share membership. Amongst members, we found a distinct demographic profile for super-users relative to regular users, suggesting that usage is an important consideration when quantifying transport and health gains, and the resulting equity implications of public bike share programs

Who is in the near market for bicycle sharing? Identifying current, potential, and unlikely users of a public bicycle share program in Vancouver, Canada

Background: Public bicycle share programs in many cities are used by a small segment of the population. To better understand the market for public bicycle share, this study examined the socio-demographic and transportation characteristics of current, potential, and unlikely users of a public bicycle share program and identified specific motivators and deterrents to public bicycle share use. Methods: We used cross-sectional data from a 2017 Vancouver public bicycle share (Mobi by Shaw Go) member survey (n = 1272) and a 2017 population-based survey of Vancouver residents (n = 792). We categorized non-users from the population survey as either potential or unlikely users based on their stated interest in using public bicycle share within the next year. We used descriptive statistics to compare the demographic and transportation characteristics of current users to non-users, and multiple logistic regression to compare the profiles of potential and unlikely users. Results: Public bicycle share users in Vancouver tended to be male, employed, and have higher educations and incomes as compared to non-users, and were more likely to use active modes of transportation. The vast majority of non-users (74%) thought the public bicycle share program was a good idea for Vancouver. Of the non-users, 23% were identified as potential users. Potential users tended to be younger, have lower incomes, and were more likely to use public transit for their main mode of transportation, as compared to current and unlikely users. The most common motivators among potential users related to health benefits, not owning a bicycle, and stations near their home or destination. The deterrents among unlikely users were a preference for riding their own bicycle, perceived inconvenience compared to other modes, bad weather, and traffic. Cost was a deterrent to one-fifth of unlikely users, notable given they tended to have lower incomes than current users. Conclusion: Findings can help inform targeted marketing and outreach to increase public bicycle share uptake in the population.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofReviewedFacult

Evaluating the impact of implementing public bicycle share programs on cycling: the International Bikeshare Impacts on Cycling and Collisions Study (IBICCS)

Background: Despite rapid expansion of public bicycle share programs (PBSP), there are limited evaluations of the population-level impacts of these programs on cycling, leaving uncertainty as to whether these programs lead to net health gains at a population level or attract those that already cycle and are sufficiently physically active. Our objective was to determine whether the implementation of PBSPs increased population-level cycling in cities across the US and Canada. Methods: We conducted repeat cross-sectional surveys with 23,901 residents in cities with newly implemented PBSPs (Chicago, New York), existing PBSPs (Boston, Montreal, Toronto) and no PBSPs (Detroit, Philadelphia, Vancouver) at three time points (Fall 2012, 2013, 2014). We used a triple difference in differences analysis to assess whether there were increases in cycling over time amongst those living in closer proximity (< 500 m) to bicycle share docking stations in cities with newly implemented and existing PBSPs, relative to those in cities with no PBSPs. Results: Living in closer proximity to bicycle share predicted increases in cycling over time for those living in cities with newly implemented PBSPs at 2-year follow-up. No change was seen over time for those living in closer proximity to bicycle share in cities with existing PBSPs relative to those in cities with no PBSP. Conclusion: These findings indicate that PBSPs are associated with increases in population-level cycling for those who live near to a docking station in the second year of program implementation.Other UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult

WalkRollMap.org: Crowdsourcing barriers to mobility

Walking is a simple way to improve health through physical activity. Yet many people experience barriers to walking from a variety of physical, social, and psychological factors that impact their mobility. A challenge for managing and studying pedestrian environments is that barriers often occur at local scales (e.g., sidewalk features), yet such fine scale data on pedestrian facilities and experiences are often lacking or out of date. In response, our team developed WalkRollMap.org an online mapping tool that empowers communities by providing them with tools for crowdsourcing their own open data source. In this manuscript we highlight key functions of the tool, discuss initial approaches to community outreach, and share trends in reporting from the first nine months of operation. As of July 27, 2022, there have been 897 reports, of which 53% served to identify hazards, 34% missing amenities, and 14% incidents. The most frequently reported issues were related to sidewalks (15%), driver behavior (19%), and marked crosswalks (7%). The most common suggested amenities were sidewalks, marked crosswalks, connections (i.e., pathways between streets), and curb cuts. The most common types of incidents all included conflicts with vehicles. Data compiled through WalkRollMap.org offer unique potential for local and timely information on microscale barriers to mobility and are available for use by anyone as data are open and downloadable