Examining the Link Between Public Transit Use and Active Commuting

Abstract

Background: An established relationship exists between public transportation (PT) use and physical activity. However, there is limited literature that examines the link between PT use and active commuting (AC) behavior. This study examines this link to determine if PT users commute more by active modes. Methods: A volunteer, convenience sample of adults (n = 748) completed an online survey about AC/PT patterns, demographic, psychosocial, community and environmental factors. t-test compared differences between PT riders and non-PT riders. Binary logistic regression analyses examined the effect of multiple factors on AC and a full logistic regression model was conducted to examine AC. Results: Non-PT riders (n = 596) reported less AC than PT riders. There were several significant relationships with AC for demographic, interpersonal, worksite, community and environmental factors when considering PT use. The logistic multivariate analysis for included age, number of children and perceived distance to work as negative predictors and PT use, feelings of bad weather and lack of on-street bike lanes as a barrier to AC, perceived behavioral control and spouse AC were positive predictors. Conclusions: This study revealed the complex relationship between AC and PT use. Further research should investigate how AC and public transit use are related.

Transit use and physical activity: Findings from the Houston travel-related activity in neighborhoods (TRAIN) study

“…Variables entered as potential confounders based on their known associations with transit-use and physical activity ( Bopp et al, 2015 , Brown et al, 2015 , Lachapelle et al, 2016 , Lachapelle and Pinto, 2016 , Miller et al, 2015 ) were self-reported in the participant questionnaire. These included age, sex, race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, black, and other [American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Asian or East Indian, and other]), body mass index (BMI [weight in kilograms/height in meters 2 ]), automobile ownership, residence type (single family, multi-family, other), household income (“low income” < 200% of the Federal Poverty Threshold [FPT]; and “not low income”, greater than or equal to 200% FPT), educational level (no high school or GED, high school or GED, and some college or more).…”

Potential health implications and health cost reductions of transit-induced physical activity

“…Those with better access to public transit were more likely to have higher rates of self-reported physical activity and active commuting. Bopp et al (2015) used a similar methodology for commuters in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The study revealed that public transit was the most significant predictor of active commuting status.…”

Examining the Influence of a New Light Rail Line on the Health of a Demographically Diverse and Understudied Population within the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area: A Protocol for a Natural Experiment Study

“…Although activity is most frequently considered within a recreational context, physical activity can be classified into four domains of life describing how people spend their time including active transportation (AT), such as walking, biking or using public transportation (PT) [ 8 ]. AT, with PT, is considered a strategic and integral pathway to improving physical activity levels and thus reducing overweight/obesity levels [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Since travel is essential to daily living, the level of physical activity involved with PT is particularly significant because PT users typically walk or bike on the origin, destination or both sides of their transit stops [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].…”