Individual- and Area-Level Disparities in Access to the Road Network, Subway System and a Public Bicycle Share Program on the Island of Montreal, Canada

Abstract

Background Few studies have examined potential disparities in access to transportation infrastructures, an important determinant of population health. Purpose To examine individual-and area-level disparities in access to the road network, public transportation system, and a public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Methods Examining associations between sociodemographic variables and access to the road network, public transportation system, and a public bicycle share program, 6,495 adult respondents (mean age, 48.7 years; 59.0 % female) nested in 33 areas were included in a multilevel analysis. Results Individuals with lower incomes lived significantly closer to public transportation and the bicycle share program. At the area level, the interaction between low-education and low-income neighborhoods showed that these areas were significantly closer to public transportation and the bicycle share program controlling for individual and urbanicity variables. Conclusions More deprived areas of the Island of Montreal have better access to transportation infrastructure than lessdeprived areas.

Knowing about a public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada: Are diffusion of innovation and proximity enough for equitable awareness?

“…availability of bicycles stations around home), and education. Fuller et al (2013a) showed that PBSP accessibility was greater for Montreal' residents living in loweducation and low-income areas, and in areas with environmental characteristics favouring cycling. Therefore, greater awareness of PBSP was expected for these populations given their proximity to bicycles docking station.…”

“…trains, bus, car) have historically modified healthy lifestyle (Hallal et al, 2012), recent transport-related facilities such as public bicycle share programs (PBSP) can promote active transportation (Fuller et al, 2013c;Ogilvie et al, 2012;Torres et al, 2013). Despite PBSP's promising health benefits (Fuller et al, 2012;Torres et al, 2013;Woodcock et al, 2014), accessibility is limited by the location of docking stations (Fuller et al, 2013a;Ogilvie et al, 2012;Webster and Cunningham, 2013) and by financial barriers related to cost of use (Buck, 2012;Fishman et al, 2012). Although some additional efforts have been made to increase the availability to PBSP for low-income populations, these actions may not be sufficient (Kretman Stewart et al, 2013).…”

“…To our knowledge, there is no study examining lack of awareness of PBSP across time as a factor limiting accessibility. As part of a larger investigation (see Bélanger-Gravel et al, 2014a, 2014bFuller et al, 2011Fuller et al, , 2013aFuller et al, , 2013bFuller et al, , 2013cFuller et al, , 2013d and given existing literature, this study therefore examined 2-year changes in lack of awareness of a transport-related innovation implemented in Spring 2009 in Montreal, Canada, namely a PBSP called BIXI © as a function of proximity to bicycle docking stations and educational attainment while controlling for socio-demographic and health characteristics. Our main hypothesis was that Montreal residents are more likely to be PBSP-unaware over time if the docking stations are not within a walkable distance from their home and if they have lower education.…”

The potential modal shift and health benefits of implementing a public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada

“…For example, Montreal’s BIXI (BIcycle-taXI) program, North America’s largest in 2012, makes available 5050 bicycles at 405 docking stations within an area with a population density of approximately 12,000 residents/km 2 [23]. The PBSP is implemented in areas with good access to public transportation in the form of subway and bus service [24]. PBSPs are understudied.…”

Considering daily mobility for a more comprehensive understanding of contextual effects on social inequalities in health: A conceptual proposal

“…In fact, the distribution of resources and of physical environment characteristics are neither socially nor politically neutral (Harvey, 1973, Soja, 2010. For instance, mobility opportunities such as public transit routes, bike paths, and access to highways may not be distributed equally across urban spaces (Miciukiewicz and Vigar, 2012), though this may depend on the layout of a given city (Fuller et al, 2013). Individual and geographic characteristics, as well as access conditions, thus interact to enable or impede certain social groups' possible mobilities.…”