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.

Freedom from the Station: Spatial Equity in Access to Dockless Bike Share.

BACKGROUND: Bike sharing systems have potential to substantially boost active transportation levels (and consequent physical and mental health) in urban populations. We explored equity of spatial access in a novel 'dockless' bike share system that does not that constrain bike pickup and drop-off locations to docking stations. METHODS: Starting in July 2017, Seattle, Washington piloted a dockless bike share system that made 10,000 bikes available. We merged data on resident sociodemographic and economic characteristics from the American Community Survey about 93 defined neighborhoods with data about bike locations, bike idle time, and which neighborhoods operators rebalanced bikes to. We used mapping and descriptive statistics to compare access between neighborhoods along sociodemographic and economic lines. RESULTS: With many bikes available, no neighborhood was consistently excluded from access. However, the average availability ranged from 3 bikes per day to 341 per day. Neighborhoods with more bikes had more college-educated residents (median 75% college-educated vs. 65%) and local community resources (median opportunity index score of 24 vs. 19), and higher incomes (median 83,202 vs. 71,296). Rebalancing destinations were strongly correlated with neighborhood demand (r=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: The overall scale of the dockless system ensured there was baseline access throughout Seattle. We observed modest inequities in access along sociodemographic lines, similar to prior findings in studies of docked bike share systems. Dockless bike share systems hold promise for offering equitable spatial access to bike sharing.

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.

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.

Is the 15-minute city within reach? Evaluating walking and cycling accessibility to grocery stores in Vancouver.

Leaders around the world have embraced the idea of a "15-minute city". This urban planning concept proposes a city where residents can meet their essential needs within a short walking or cycling trip from their home. Local access to grocery stores is a necessary component for cities to achieve the 15-minute city. This study aims to evaluate local accessibility to grocery stores by walking and cycling in the City of Vancouver. We used a cu-mulative opportunity measure to count the number of grocery stores available within a 15-minute walk and cycle from people's homes. To evaluate accessibility from the perspective of younger and older travellers, we considered different travel speeds. Our results show there is good accessibility to grocery stores when cycling, with less than 1% of the city's population not having a grocery store within a 15-minute cycle. When assuming a walking speed of an older pedestrian, around one-fifth of the population did not have access to a grocery store in their local area. The neighbourhoods that did not have a store within a 15-minute walk had higher proportions of children, older adults, and visible minorities, and lower rates of employment and post-secondary education attainment. In seeking to improve accessibility via walking and cycling, cities should prioritize grocery store locations and investments in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to underserved neighbourhoods and populations.

The effects of road pricing on transportation and health equity: A scoping review.

Road pricing is increasingly considered as an option to support transportation infrastructure costs, manage demand, and reduce emissions. However, the extent to which implementation of such approaches may impact transportation and health equity is unclear. In this scoping review, we examine the differential transportation and health effects of road pricing policies across population groups and geographic region. We conducted a systematic database search of Transport Research International Documentation, GEOBASE, Scopus, and Ovid Medline, supplemented by bibliographic review and internet searches. Fifteen studies were included in the review. The studies evaluated area and cordon road pricing systems in Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, and Gothenburg, and had a median follow-up period of 12 months. Outcomes evaluated include car commuting, mode shift to public transit, accessibility to destinations, affordability, welfare, social interactions, air pollution, traffic injuries and deaths, acute asthma attacks, and life expectancy. While more studies across diverse urban contexts and policy settings will be needed to strengthen the evidence base, the existing evidence suggests road pricing has mostly net positive effects related to a reduction in car trips, air pollution, asthma attacks, and road traffic collisions, and increases in life expectancy. Frequency and ease of social interactions were found to be negatively impacted, with fewer visits to family and friends. The population groups that generally fared better across transportation and health outcomes were those with higher incomes, men, and people between the ages of 35-55. Across space, there are benefits for both the areas inside and outside the cordon boundary, but to a greater degree for the area inside. Overall, the evidence base is limited by a narrow set of health-related outcomes and a lack of longer-term studies. We did not come across any studies assessing distributional effects of noise pollution, mode shifts to walking or cycling, or other morbidities in the general population that are not listed above. In addition, there are few evaluations that include non-work trips, therefore potentially missing effects for unemployed populations or women who are more likely to make non-work trips. We find that the limited body of evidence on area and cordon pricing policies suggests these policies are beneficial for a number of transportation and health outcomes, particularly for populations inside the cordon area, but that there may be some degree of inequities in the distribution of the benefits and burdens.

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's 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.

Roadmap for free-floating bikeshare research and practice in North America.

The deployment of smartphone-operated, non-station-based bicycle fleets ("dockless" or "free-floating" bikeshare) represents a new generation of bikesharing. Users locate bikes in these free-floating systems using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and lock bikes in place at their destinations. In this paper, we review current free-floating bikesharing systems in North America and discuss priorities for future research and practice. Since launching in 2017, free-floating bikeshare has expanded rapidly to encompass 200+ systems operating 40,000+ bikes within 150+ cities. In contrast with previous systems, free-floating systems operate almost exclusively using commercial "for-profit" models, amidst concerns of financial sustainability. Governance for these systems is in early stages and can include operating fees, fleet size caps, safety requirements, parking restrictions, data sharing, and equity obligations. We identify research and practice gaps within the themes of usage, equity, sharing resources, business model, and context. While some existing bikesharing literature translates to free-floating systems, novel topics arise due to the ubiquity, fluidity, and business models of these new systems. Systems have numerous obstacles to overcome for long-term sustainability, including barriers common to station-based systems: limited supportive infrastructure, equity, theft or vandalism, and funding. Other unique obstacles arise in free-floating bikeshare around parking, sidewalk right of ways, varied bicycle types, and data sharing. This review offers background in and critical reflection on the rapidly evolving free-floating bikeshare landscape, including priorities for future research and practice. If concerns can be overcome, free-floating bikeshare may provide unprecedented opportunities to bypass congested streets, encourage physical activity, and support urban sustainability.

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's 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.