4.6 Article

Use of a New Public Bicycle Share Program in Montreal, Canada

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 80-83

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.002

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [GIR-99711]
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cycling contributes to physical activity and health. Public bicycle share programs (PBSPs) increase population access to bicycles by deploying bicycles at docking stations throughout a city. Minimal research has systematically examined the prevalence and correlates of PBSP use. Purpose: To determine the prevalence and correlates of use of a new public bicycle share program called BIXI (name merges the word BIcycle and taXI) implemented in May 2009 in Montreal, Canada. Methods: A total of 2502 adults were recruited to a telephone survey in autumn 2009 via random digit dialing according to a stratified random sampling design. The prevalence of BIXI bicycle use was estimated. Multivariate logistic regression allowed for identification of correlates of use. Data analysis was conducted in spring and summer 2010. Results: The unweighted mean age of respondents was 47.4 (SD = 16.8) years and 61.4% were female. The weighted prevalence for use of BIXI bicycles at least once was 8.2%. Significant correlates of BIXI bicycle use were having a BIXI docking station within 250m of home, being aged 18-24 years, being university educated, being on work leave, and using cycling as the primary mode of transportation to work. Conclusions: A newly implemented public bicycle share program attracts a substantial fraction of the population and is more likely to attract younger and more educated people who currently use cycling as a primary transportation mode. (Am J Prev Med 2011; 41(1): 80-83) (C) 2011 American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available