Citation

Hosford K, Winters M, Gauvin L, Camden A, Dube AS, Friedman SM, Fuller D. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019; 16(1): e107.

Affiliation

Department of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1B 3V6, Canada.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group - BMC)

DOI

10.1186/s12966-019-0871-9

PMID

31747949

Abstract

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.

Language: en

Keywords

Bicycle share; Bicycling; Difference in differences; Evaluation; Natural experiment