UNASSIGNED: Planners increasingly involve stakeholders in co-producing vital planning information by crowdsourcing data using online map-based commenting platforms. Few studies, however, investigate the role and impact of such online platforms on planning outcomes. We evaluate the impact of participant input via a public participation geographic information system (PPGIS), a platform to suggest the placement of new bike share stations in New York City (NY) and Chicago (IL). We conducted 2 analyses to evaluate how close planners built new bike share stations to those suggested on PPGIS platforms. According to our proximity analysis, only a small percentage of built stations were within 100 feet (30m) of suggested stations, but our geospatial analysis showed a substantial clustering of suggested and built stations in both cities that was not likely due to random distribution. We found that the PPGIS platforms have great promise for creating genuine co-production of planning knowledge and insights and that system planners did take account of the suggestions offered online. We did not, however, interview planners in either system, and both cities may be atypical, as is bike share planning; moreover, multiple factors influence where bike stations can be located, so not all suggested stations could be built.
UNASSIGNED: Planners can use PPGIS and similar platforms to help stakeholders learn by doing and to increase their own local knowledge to improve planning outcomes. Planners should work to develop better online participatory systems and to allow stakeholders to provide more and better data, continuing to evaluate PPGIS efforts to improve the transparency and legitimacy of online public involvement processes.

Bike sharing can leverage its physical distancing advantages for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, but system management and communication are essential to support healthy transportation. This study addresses the need to understand the range of bike share systems\' responses to the pandemic by reviewing bike share system cases in the United States and reports survey responses from bike share users in San Antonio (TX). Five out of eleven bike share systems communicated their responses to the pandemic online at the time of review. 43% of survey respondents who were unemployed due to the pandemic reported increasing use of the bike share system, whereas 36% of employed respondents decreased ridership. Most respondents were unaware of the bike share operator\'s steps to control the spread of COVID-19 for users. Moderate-frequency riders (1-2 times per month) may increase bike sharing the most after Coronavirus restrictions are lifted, from 22% of respondents to 34%. Based on our findings, we suggest bike share operators should expand communication efforts about policies and actions to support community health, explore how to serve unemployed and low-income communities best, and prepare for the equitable expansion of ridership following the pandemic.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been promoted worldwide as an integrated land-use and transportation strategy to foster urban sustainability. Bike share provides people with a convenient and relatively affordable way to enlarge the spatial scale of TODs across urban communities, as a solution to the first/last mile (FLM) issue with respect to the transit nodes of TODs. Even though barriers to FLM have been frequently studied, few studies incorporate people\'s perceptions of their barriers and/or the integration of multiuse paths (MUPs) into the network of bike share and public transit. Using a survey conducted in the Greater Cincinnati area, Ohio, this study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What are people\'s major barriers to integrating different green transportation modes and/or facilities (bike share, MUPs, public transit)? (2) To what extent does the built environment around people\'s residential location affect their integration level of MUPs, bike share, and public transit? (3) Which improvements would most likely encourage people to integrate them more often? With descriptive statistics, spatial analysis, and statistical comparison, we found that (1) the major barrier to integrating MUPs into the green transportation system was their lack of connection and availability to transit and bike share; (2) a person\'s living environment is spatially related to whether a person integrates bike share; and (3) more respondents would use MUPs more often if an integrated green transportation system could be provided or improved. These findings suggest the potential of incorporating MUPs and bike share into TOD strategies to address the FLM issue.

To investigate the injury effects of bike share programs and the helmet usage status in bike share programs. We conducted a systematic review of peer reviewed scientific literature. Searches were conducted in three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science) on March 1 2020 to identify all articles on the injury incidence related to bike share programs and the helmet usage status in bike share programs. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened to identify all articles relevant to the themes by two authors independently, and discrepancies were resolved after discussion with the third author. Standardised data extraction and quality assessment (The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were implemented. A sum of 491 records after removing duplicates was identified, 181 fulltext articles were screened, and 13 studies were included in the review. The primary outcome are injuries of bike share users and unhelmeted rate among bike share users as well as the unhelmeted rate among personal bike users. Two studies evaluated the injuries related to bike share users, but have inconclusive results. A total of 11 studies reported the unhelmeted rates in bike share programs ranging from 36.0 to 88.9%. There is a significant change in bike injuries with the implementation of bike share programs. Moreover, the unhelmeted rate of bike share users was generally higher than that of personal bike users, which may result from helmets\' accessibility and users\' safety perception.

The \"Citi Bike\" bike share program in New York City is the largest bike share program in the USA. We ask whether expanding this program to lower-income communities is cost-effective means of encouraging exercise and reducing pollution in New York City. We built a stochastic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Citi Bike expansion program, an effort to extend bike share to areas with higher costs and risks over a 10-year time horizon. We used one-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation to test the model uncertainty. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the Citi Bike expansion program relative to the current program (status quo) was $7869/quality-adjusted life year gained. The Citi Bike expansion program in New York City offers good value relative to most health interventions.

Bike sharing can play a role in providing access to transit stations and then to final destinations, but early implementation of these systems in North America has been opportunistic rather than strategic. This study evaluates local intermodal plan goals using trip data and associated infrastructure such as transit stops and bike share station locations in Austin, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois. Bike sharing use data from both cities suggest a weak relationship with existing rail stations that could be strengthened through collaborative, intermodal planning. The study suggests a planning framework and example language that could be tailored to help address the linkage between bike sharing and transit. Rather than an exhaustive study of the practice, this study provides evidence from these two cities that identify opportunities to improve intermodal planning. Cities that are planning or expanding a bike sharing system should consider carefully how to leverage this mode with existing modes of transport. Regardless of a city\'s status in implementing a bike sharing system, planners can leverage information on existing transport systems for planning at regional and local levels.

BACKGROUND: Bike share has emerged as a rapidly growing mode of transport in over 800 cities globally, up from just a handful in the 1990s. Some analysts had forecast a rise in the number of bicycle crashes after the introduction of bike share, but empirical research on bike share safety is rare. The goal of this study is to examine the impact of bike share programs on cycling safety.
METHODS: The paper has two substudies. Study 1 was a secondary analysis of longitudinal hospital injury data from the Graves et al. (2014) study. It compared cycling safety in cities that introduced bike share programs with cities that did not. Study 2 combined ridership data with crash data of selected North American and European cities to compare bike share users to other cyclists.
RESULTS: Study 1 indicated that the introduction of a bike share system was associated with a reduction in cycling injury risk. Study 2 found that bike share users were less likely than other cyclists to sustain fatal or severe injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: On a per kilometer basis, bike share is associated with decreased risk of both fatal and non-fatal bicycle crashes when compared to private bike riding.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that concerns of decreased levels of cycling safety are unjustified and should not prevent decision makers from introducing public bike share schemes, especially if combined with other safety measures like traffic calming.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) has made significant roadway infrastructure improvements, initiated a bicycle share program, and enacted Vision Zero, an action plan to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries. The objective of this study was to examine whether bicycle helmets offer a protective advantage against traumatic brain injury (TBI) within a contemporary dense urban setting with a commitment to road safety.
METHODS: A prospective observational study of injured bicyclists presenting to a Level I trauma centre was performed. All bicyclists arriving within 24 h of injury were included. Data were collected between February, 2012 and August, 2014 and included demographics, imaging studies (e.g. computed tomography (CT)), injury patterns, and outcomes including Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Injury Severity Score.
RESULTS: Of 699 patients, 273 (39.1%) were wearing helmets at the time of injury. Helmeted bicyclists were more likely to have a GCS of 15 (96.3% [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 93.3-98.2] vs. 87.6 [95% CI, 84.1-90.6]) at presentation. Helmeted bicyclists underwent fewer head CTs (40.3% [95% CI, 34.4-46.4] vs. 52.8% [95% CI, 48.0-57.6]) and were less likely to sustain intracranial injury (6.3% [95% CI, 2.6-12.5] vs. 19.7% [14.7-25.6]), including skull fracture (0.9% [95% CI, 0.0-4.9] vs. 15.3% [95% CI, 10.8-20.7]) and subdural hematoma (0.0% [95% CI, 0.0-3.2] vs. 8.1% [95% CI, 4.9-12.5]). Helmeted bicyclists were significantly less likely to sustain significant TBI, i.e. Head AIS ≥3 (2.6% [95% CI: 0.7-4.5] vs.10.6% [7.6-12.5]). Four patients underwent craniotomy while three died; all were un-helmeted. A multivariable logistic regression model showed that helmeted bicyclists were 72% less likely to sustain TBI compared with un-helmeted bicyclists (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.61).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial road safety measures in NYC, the protective impact of simple bicycle helmets in the event of a crash remains significant. A re-assessment of helmet laws for urban bicyclists is advisable to most effectively translate Vision Zero from a political action plan to public safety reality.

BACKGROUND: Helmet use among bike-share users is low. We sought to characterize helmet-use patterns, barriers to helmet use, and cycling safety practices among bike-share users in Toronto.
METHODS: A standardized survey of public bike-share program (PBSP) users at semi-random distribution of PBSP stations was undertaken. By maintaining a ratio of one helmet-wearer (HW): two non-helmet-wearers (NHW) per survey period, we controlled for location, day, time, and weather.
RESULTS: Surveys were completed on 545 (180 HW, 365 NHW) unique users at 48/80 PBSP locations, from November 2012 to August 2013. More females wore helmets (F: 41.1%, M: 30.9%, p=0.0423). NHWs were slightly younger than HWs (NHW mean age 34.4 years vs HW 37.3, p=0.0018). The groups did not differ by employment status, education, or income. Helmet ownership was lower among NHWs (NHW: 62.4% vs HW: 99.4%, p<0.0001), as was personal bike ownership (NHW: 65.8%, vs HW: 78.3%, p=0.0026). NHWs were less likely to always wear a helmet on personal bikes (NHW: 22.2% vs HW: 66.7%, p<0.0001), and less likely to wear a helmet always or most of the time on PBSP (NHW: 5.8% vs HW: 92.3%, p<0.0001). Both groups, but more HWs, had planned to use PBSP when leaving their houses (HW: 97.2% vs NHW: 85.2%, p<0.0001), primarily to get to work (HW: 88.3% vs NHW: 84.1%, p=0.19). NHWs were more likely to report that they would wear a helmet more (NHW: 61.4% vs HW: 13.9%, p<0.0001), and/or cycle less (NHW: 22.5% vs HW: 4.4%) if helmet use was mandatory.
CONCLUSIONS: PBSP users surveyed appear to make deliberate decisions regarding helmet use. NHWs tended to be male, slightly younger, and less likely to use helmets on their personal bikes. As Toronto cyclists who do not wear helmets on PBSP generally do not wear helmets on their personal bikes, interventions to increase helmet use should target both personal and bike-share users. Legislating helmet use and provision of rental helmets could improve helmet use among bike-share users, but our results suggest some risk of reduced cycling with legislation.