May 6, 2016

Comox Greenway: The results are in

From the City of Vancouver:

 

Research shows health benefits of public greenways

Cycling up 49%, auto trips down 35%

.
Two separate research studies show multiple health benefits for area residents from the development of the Comox-Helmcken Greenway.
.
We commissioned a study by the UBC Health and Community Design Lab, and partnered with the Centre for Hip Health and Mobility on another study entitled, “Active Streets, Active People”.
.

Both studies examined the effects of improved access to walking and cycling, and opportunities for social connection along the greenway.

The two studies looked at behaviour before and after the greenway was improved.

 

  • 16% increase in the number of days of moderate physical activity
  • 9.8% decrease in the number of days of poor mental and physical health
  • 49% increase in cycling trips
  • 35% decrease in auto trips

.

Comox

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. The results are in from…what? What’s the methodology of this study and who participated? What were the questions? “Did you get sicker more often last year? No. Voila it must be the Comox Greenway! ”

    Is the drop in auto traffic just for Comox? If so it’s hardly earth shattering news that making a road less easy to use for drivers will result in a drop in car traffic!

    1. Ok so based on Comox Greenway specific questions:
      -Less than half of respondents saw the Greenway as a positive thing.
      -Bikes increased their mode share a whopping 1%, to an unimpressive 4%.
      -Residents were asked if they are now more active but the question doesn’t seem to be linked to using the Greenway.
      Did I miss anything?

    2. Looking at the press releases as well as the Powerpoint linked above, there is some more data available.

      1) Yes, you could say that less than half saw the Greenway improvements as a positive thing. Or, you could say that 45% saw the changes as positive, and 27% saw them as negative. Depends how you want to portray the large undecided vote.

      2) Yes, you could say that bike mode share increased 1% (ie, as a function of all trips by all modes). If we want to focus on the changes in bike trips, and not on bike trips as a percent of all trips (transit, etc) then we could say that bike trips increased 49%, before and after the changes.

      3) Residents were asked if they are now more active, correct. Responses were linked to where they lived, and surveys were done immediately before construction, and after construction. There seems a strong correlation there to the Greenway changes.

      Some other numbers from the release:
      A 16% increase in the number of days with moderate physical activity
      A 10% decrease in the number of days of poor health (physical or mental)
      A 35% decrease in the number of actual auto trips, during a time when car share grew significantly in this area.

      1. What statistical methods and/or post hoc analysis were used; Is the data reliable; how did the researcher treat non respondants to the second survey; what was the ratio of respondents with a preference for vehicle use vs respondents with no vehicle use (is this a normal distribution); what are respondant perceptions/definition of moderate physical activity; what were respondents results of light and heavy physical activity after the greenway?

  2. I wouldn’t have thought that the health of people matters that much as a reason to make a greenway. I see them more as providing more mobility choices to citizens.
    But whatever they gotta do to make it happen I guess. I’m cool with that.
    We do tend to be more active here in Vancouver than many places. I know so many people that say that they’re out of shape but really they’re in okay shape. Their equivalents in some other cities are way out of shape. They don’t even walk to their own sidewalk.

    1. I think that the health impacts do matter, and even more so to specific populations.

      We don’t tend to see it holistically, and tie the health spending relating to lack of physical activity, to the provision of infrastructure that makes it easier/more likely for specific populations to get that activity. If we did, we would spend less time arguing about bike lanes and pedestrian improvements compared to the cost of building motor vehicle infrastructure, and more time relating it to health budgets.

  3. I agree with Bob and Jolson. Methodology needs to be explained and whether there is a statistical significance for the increase or decrease. It would be also be “nice” to have a little more background on the survey respondents to gauge whether they reflect the actual population in th neighbourhood, because would the results be as reliable if they were all high school students who attend King George Secondary. Devil is in the details.

    1. The starting point might be to look into who did the research, and what they say about it. Two separate teams with two separate studies, and not a political party in sight.

      The Centre for Hip Health and Mobility is a recognized research team. Affiliated with UBC, and Coastal Health. http://www.hiphealth.ca/research/research-projects/active-street,-active-people-senior/. See the Research tab for details on their current studies, the About tab for background info.

      The UBC Health and Community Design Lab is part of the faculty of Medicine at UBC. http://health-design.spph.ubc.ca/research/. Click on Current Research to read about the Comox study. The details haven’t been published there yet, but it looks like they will be.

      It seems to me to be very insulting to call something junk science without having looked at the methodology and provided details on what one is objecting to. It sounds like some readers didn’t like the reported results, and so chose to attach the researchers. Seems a lot like the climate denial debates on line. If one has other science that shows a different result, by all means publish it and let’s see it.

      It is reminiscent of what happened last year during the transit plebiscite. Researchers pointed out the health benefits of active transportation, and were repeatedly mocked by anonymous posters. Why would researchers want to engage in this forum if that is the SOP?

      1. Jeff Leigh, if the details of the 2nd UBC Comox Study have not been published yet shouldn’t you agree that these results should be taken with a grain of salt and not be presented as reliable data. I’m not a climate change skeptic, I’ve replicated the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide concentrations on Matlab as confirmation. I appreciate science, therefore I will defend its ethos. Anything else would be a failure to reject the null hypothesis 😉

        1. Defending its ethos would typically include putting your questions to the researchers before dismissing their findings.

          I have no issue with following the data and determining how reliable the conclusions are. I do have a problem with deciding that the report is unreliable, without having studied it, as some posters seem to be doing.

      2. Jeff Leigh:
        I did not call the study Junk Science.

        I did provide detail to my objections; how are we to determine true causes when obvious factors are not accounted for, such as changing weather patterns? I would add to this other factors such as economic, social, political, changing demographics, increasing access to bike rentals etc. which also affect user behavior.

        I do not care what the results are, but I do care about the truth and how we as a society arrive at an understanding of the world around us.

        I did not attach (read attack) the researchers.

        And finally, one does not need a scientific study to understand that exercise is a healthy activity.

        1. You asked rhetorically if the studies were junk science. Meaning spurious or fraudulent, to use the wiki definition. You stated that certain factors were not controlled for. How do you know that, have you reviewed the methodology of either study? It would be standard practice before suggesting different conclusions, unless you have your own data to rely on.

        2. Did not state “controlled for” but rather I stated that “some factors are not accounted for” precisely because it is quite impossible to do so!

        3. Don’t know where you get that usage of ‘control’ from.

          account for:
          they must account for the delay: explain, answer for, give reasons for, rationalize, justify.

          control only refers to jurisdiction and command [of].

        4. Let me help you. We aren’t looking up “control,” we are looking up “control for.” I used Dictionary.com, just because it was easy.

          Verb phrases

          control for, Statistics. to account for (variables in an analysis) by limiting the data under consideration to a comparison of like things:
          to control for demographic factors.

  4. These discussions are rather pointless. When the result doesn’t jive with your preconceived notion, you question the methodology and point out all the assumptions to validate your preconceived notions. When it does, you just accept it at face value because it validates your preconceived notions.

    The same people (me included) ‘argue’ back and forth on here and elsewhere and has anyone’s thoughts on anything really changed?

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles