Who Are Public Bicycle Share Programs Serving? An Evaluation of the Equity of Spatial Access to Bicycle Share Service Areas in Canadian Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public bicycle share users are predominantly Caucasian, employed, and have higher incomes and education levels, as compared to the general population. This has prompted bicycle share operators and researchers to increasingly consider equity in bicycle share program access and uptake. The location of bicycle share docking stations has been cited as a major barrier to uptake among lower socioeconomic groups. This study aimed to assess spatial access to bicycle share programs in Canadian cities by comparing the socioeconomic characteristics of dissemination areas inside and outside the bicycle share service areas. We obtained locations of bicycle share stations for the five existing programs in Canada: Vancouver, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau, and Montréal. We used the material component of the Pampalon Deprivation Index (2011) as a measure of socioeconomic status for each dissemination area, calculating city-specific quintiles. We compared the distribution of deprivation for dissemination areas inside the bicycle share service area, compared with outside the service area. We found that advantaged areas have better access to bicycle share infrastructure in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau, and Montréal, and conversely, that disadvantaged areas have better access in Hamilton. This analysis indicates that in most cities, substantial effort is needed to expand service areas to disadvantaged areas in order to increase spatial access for lower socioeconomic populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".