The Experts below are selected from a list of 23370 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Rúben Fernandes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
urban public Transport in europe technology diffusion and market organisation
Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 2012Co-Authors: Álvaro Costa, Rúben FernandesAbstract:Technological change and incremental technology, at various levels, are believed to have played an important role in the success of urban public Transport in Europe. In this paper, a historical overview of the evolution of different Transport Modes across different European cities is presented. Our major concern is with the processes of diffusion of urban Transport Modes in European cities and, in particular, with the factors, mainly of an economic nature, that may explain their rates of adoption across Europe. Among these factors, special attention is given to the role played by the dimension and organisation of public Transport markets in the rates of adoption of different public Transport Modes. The main conclusion of the paper is that the success of the introduction of a new Transport Mode appeared to be mainly related to its ability to provide cheaper and more reliable Transport services compared with previous Transport Modes, and that, in the case of the electric tram, this was achieved by transforming of the structure of the market relating to this urban Transport Mode into monopolies.
-
Urban public Transport in Europe: Technology diffusion and market organisation
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2012Co-Authors: Álvaro Costa, Rúben FernandesAbstract:Technological change and incremental technology, at various levels, are believed to have played an important role in the success of urban public Transport in Europe. In this paper, a historical overview of the evolution of different Transport Modes across different European cities is presented. Our major concern is with the processes of diffusion of urban Transport Modes in European cities and, in particular, with the factors, mainly of an economic nature, that may explain their rates of adoption across Europe. Among these factors, special attention is given to the role played by the dimension and organisation of public Transport markets in the rates of adoption of different public Transport Modes. The main conclusion of the paper is that the success of the introduction of a new Transport Mode appeared to be mainly related to its ability to provide cheaper and more reliable Transport services compared with previous Transport Modes, and that, in the case of the electric tram, this was achieved by transforming of the structure of the market relating to this urban Transport Mode into monopolies. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
Hannah Badland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
examining associations between urban design attributes and Transport Mode choice for walking cycling public Transport and private motor vehicle trips
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Claire Boulange, Billie Gilescorti, Lucy Gunn, Suzanne Mavoa, Christopher Pettit, Hannah BadlandAbstract:Abstract Objective Many research papers examine the relationship of the built environment on Transport behaviour using only one Mode of Transport. Yet to inform policy makers, a broader examination of Transport Mode choice across different Transport Modes is required. Here, associations between urban design attributes and Transport Mode choices including Transport walking, Transport cycling, public Transport and private motor vehicle use were explored. Methods Secondary analysis was conducted on 16,890 participants aged 18 years or older who participated in the Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel Activity 2009–2010 (VISTA09) in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Adjusted multilevel logistic regression Models were used to explore the relationship between urban design attributes and Transport-walking, cycling, public Transport and private motor vehicle use. Results Taking Transport-walking, cycling or public Transport trips was positively associated with the housing diversity score and gross dwelling density. Taking private motor vehicle trips was negatively associated with street connectivity, land use mix, local living score, housing diversity score, gross dwelling density and proximity to supermarkets. Conclusion The study found that environments that neighbourhoods with gross residential densities exceeding 20 dwellings per hectare, a well-connected street network, access to 9 or more local living destinations and short distances to public Transport services (i.e., ≤ 400 m for bus and ≤ 800 m for train) encourage walking, cycling and public Transport use, while discouraging driving. Comprehensive integrated urban planning of Transport infrastructure, land use development and service provision is required to create neighbourhoods that support active and sustainable living that allow for a flexible mix of land uses and Transport options.
-
associations between individual socioeconomic position neighbourhood disadvantage and Transport Mode baseline results from the habitat multilevel study
Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety - Qld (CARRS-Q); Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation; Science & Engineering Fa, 2015Co-Authors: Jerome N. Rachele, Anne M Kavanagh, Hannah Badland, Billie Gilescorti, Simon Washington, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Background - Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with Transport Modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) and usual Transport Mode. Methods - This investigation included 11,036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual Transport Mode (car or motorbike, public Transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation, and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of Transport was the reference category. Results - Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public Transport were higher for white collar employees (OR1.68, 95%CrI 1.41-2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95%CrI 1.25-2.30), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95%CrI 1.46-2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95%CrI 0.49-0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95%CrI 0.50-0.81). The odds of walking for Transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95%CrI 1.18-2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95%CrI 1.38-2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95%CrI 1.23-3.64), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95%CrI 1.46-5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19-0.48). Conclusion - The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and Transport Modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of Transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual- and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind Transport Mode choice, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active Transport Modes.
-
associations between individual socioeconomic position neighbourhood disadvantage and Transport Mode baseline results from the habitat multilevel study
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2015Co-Authors: Jerome N. Rachele, Anne M Kavanagh, Hannah Badland, Billie Gilescorti, Simon Washington, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Background Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with Transport Modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP), and usual Transport Mode. Methods This investigation included 11 036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual Transport Mode (car or motorbike, public Transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of Transport was the reference category. Results Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public Transport were higher for white collar employees (OR 1.68, 95% CrI 1.41–2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95% CrI 1.25–2.30) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.46–2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.49–0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.50–0.81). The odds of walking for Transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.18–2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 1.38–2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.23–3.64) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95% CrI 1.46–5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19–0.48). Conclusions The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and Transport Modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of Transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual-level and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind choice of Transport Mode, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active Transport Modes.
Álvaro Costa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
urban public Transport in europe technology diffusion and market organisation
Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 2012Co-Authors: Álvaro Costa, Rúben FernandesAbstract:Technological change and incremental technology, at various levels, are believed to have played an important role in the success of urban public Transport in Europe. In this paper, a historical overview of the evolution of different Transport Modes across different European cities is presented. Our major concern is with the processes of diffusion of urban Transport Modes in European cities and, in particular, with the factors, mainly of an economic nature, that may explain their rates of adoption across Europe. Among these factors, special attention is given to the role played by the dimension and organisation of public Transport markets in the rates of adoption of different public Transport Modes. The main conclusion of the paper is that the success of the introduction of a new Transport Mode appeared to be mainly related to its ability to provide cheaper and more reliable Transport services compared with previous Transport Modes, and that, in the case of the electric tram, this was achieved by transforming of the structure of the market relating to this urban Transport Mode into monopolies.
-
Urban public Transport in Europe: Technology diffusion and market organisation
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2012Co-Authors: Álvaro Costa, Rúben FernandesAbstract:Technological change and incremental technology, at various levels, are believed to have played an important role in the success of urban public Transport in Europe. In this paper, a historical overview of the evolution of different Transport Modes across different European cities is presented. Our major concern is with the processes of diffusion of urban Transport Modes in European cities and, in particular, with the factors, mainly of an economic nature, that may explain their rates of adoption across Europe. Among these factors, special attention is given to the role played by the dimension and organisation of public Transport markets in the rates of adoption of different public Transport Modes. The main conclusion of the paper is that the success of the introduction of a new Transport Mode appeared to be mainly related to its ability to provide cheaper and more reliable Transport services compared with previous Transport Modes, and that, in the case of the electric tram, this was achieved by transforming of the structure of the market relating to this urban Transport Mode into monopolies. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
Gavin Turrell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Prospective trends in body mass index by main Transport Mode, 2007–2013
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Belinda Hewitt, Jerome N. Rachele, Billie Giles-corti, Wendy J. BrownAbstract:Background: Cohort studies have examined whether change in Transport Mode is associated with change in bodyweight among commuters. We complement this research by examining trends in body mass index (BMI) for men and women who used the same Transport Mode between 2007 and 2013, and where Transport was used for any activity of daily life. Methods: Data are from the HABITAT study, a longitudinal investigation of health among 11,035 persons aged 4065 residing in 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Mode was measured as private motor vehicle (PMV), public Transport, walking, and cycling. Analyses were conducted using random effects Models before and after adjustment for time-varying and time-invariant confounders. Interactions between Transport Mode and time were Modelled to assess whether the rate of change in BMI differed by Mode. Results: Averaged over the four time-points, the BMI of men who consistently walked or cycled was ?3.20 kg/m2 (95%CI ?4.28, ?2.12) and ?2.15 kg/m2 (95%CI ?3.22, ?1.08) lower respectively than PMV users: the corresponding difference for women who walked or cycled was ?2.42 kg/m2 (95%CI ?3.66, ?1.18) and ?2.44 kg/m2 (95%CI ?5.98, 1.11). For men, there were no BMI differences between PMV and public Transport users; among women, those who mainly used public Transport had higher BMI (1.06 kg/m2 95%CI 0.51, 1.62) than PMV users. For men, no significant interactions were found between Transport Mode and time; for women, those who mainly walked for Transport experienced a significant decline in BMI compared with PMV users. Conclusion: Those who consistently walked or cycled sustained a lower BMI over time relative to those who consistently used a PMV. Transport and land use policies and behavioural interventions that successfully shift Mode-share from PMV to active travel might help stem the global increase in obesity related chronic disease.
-
associations between individual socioeconomic position neighbourhood disadvantage and Transport Mode baseline results from the habitat multilevel study
Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety - Qld (CARRS-Q); Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation; Science & Engineering Fa, 2015Co-Authors: Jerome N. Rachele, Anne M Kavanagh, Hannah Badland, Billie Gilescorti, Simon Washington, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Background - Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with Transport Modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) and usual Transport Mode. Methods - This investigation included 11,036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual Transport Mode (car or motorbike, public Transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation, and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of Transport was the reference category. Results - Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public Transport were higher for white collar employees (OR1.68, 95%CrI 1.41-2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95%CrI 1.25-2.30), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95%CrI 1.46-2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95%CrI 0.49-0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95%CrI 0.50-0.81). The odds of walking for Transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95%CrI 1.18-2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95%CrI 1.38-2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95%CrI 1.23-3.64), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95%CrI 1.46-5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19-0.48). Conclusion - The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and Transport Modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of Transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual- and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind Transport Mode choice, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active Transport Modes.
-
associations between individual socioeconomic position neighbourhood disadvantage and Transport Mode baseline results from the habitat multilevel study
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2015Co-Authors: Jerome N. Rachele, Anne M Kavanagh, Hannah Badland, Billie Gilescorti, Simon Washington, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Background Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with Transport Modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP), and usual Transport Mode. Methods This investigation included 11 036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual Transport Mode (car or motorbike, public Transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of Transport was the reference category. Results Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public Transport were higher for white collar employees (OR 1.68, 95% CrI 1.41–2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95% CrI 1.25–2.30) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.46–2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.49–0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.50–0.81). The odds of walking for Transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.18–2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 1.38–2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.23–3.64) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95% CrI 1.46–5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19–0.48). Conclusions The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and Transport Modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of Transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual-level and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind choice of Transport Mode, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active Transport Modes.
Billie Gilescorti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
examining associations between urban design attributes and Transport Mode choice for walking cycling public Transport and private motor vehicle trips
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Claire Boulange, Billie Gilescorti, Lucy Gunn, Suzanne Mavoa, Christopher Pettit, Hannah BadlandAbstract:Abstract Objective Many research papers examine the relationship of the built environment on Transport behaviour using only one Mode of Transport. Yet to inform policy makers, a broader examination of Transport Mode choice across different Transport Modes is required. Here, associations between urban design attributes and Transport Mode choices including Transport walking, Transport cycling, public Transport and private motor vehicle use were explored. Methods Secondary analysis was conducted on 16,890 participants aged 18 years or older who participated in the Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel Activity 2009–2010 (VISTA09) in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Adjusted multilevel logistic regression Models were used to explore the relationship between urban design attributes and Transport-walking, cycling, public Transport and private motor vehicle use. Results Taking Transport-walking, cycling or public Transport trips was positively associated with the housing diversity score and gross dwelling density. Taking private motor vehicle trips was negatively associated with street connectivity, land use mix, local living score, housing diversity score, gross dwelling density and proximity to supermarkets. Conclusion The study found that environments that neighbourhoods with gross residential densities exceeding 20 dwellings per hectare, a well-connected street network, access to 9 or more local living destinations and short distances to public Transport services (i.e., ≤ 400 m for bus and ≤ 800 m for train) encourage walking, cycling and public Transport use, while discouraging driving. Comprehensive integrated urban planning of Transport infrastructure, land use development and service provision is required to create neighbourhoods that support active and sustainable living that allow for a flexible mix of land uses and Transport options.
-
associations between individual socioeconomic position neighbourhood disadvantage and Transport Mode baseline results from the habitat multilevel study
Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety - Qld (CARRS-Q); Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation; Science & Engineering Fa, 2015Co-Authors: Jerome N. Rachele, Anne M Kavanagh, Hannah Badland, Billie Gilescorti, Simon Washington, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Background - Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with Transport Modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) and usual Transport Mode. Methods - This investigation included 11,036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual Transport Mode (car or motorbike, public Transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation, and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of Transport was the reference category. Results - Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public Transport were higher for white collar employees (OR1.68, 95%CrI 1.41-2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95%CrI 1.25-2.30), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95%CrI 1.46-2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95%CrI 0.49-0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95%CrI 0.50-0.81). The odds of walking for Transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95%CrI 1.18-2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95%CrI 1.38-2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95%CrI 1.23-3.64), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95%CrI 1.46-5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19-0.48). Conclusion - The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and Transport Modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of Transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual- and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind Transport Mode choice, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active Transport Modes.
-
associations between individual socioeconomic position neighbourhood disadvantage and Transport Mode baseline results from the habitat multilevel study
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2015Co-Authors: Jerome N. Rachele, Anne M Kavanagh, Hannah Badland, Billie Gilescorti, Simon Washington, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Background Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with Transport Modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP), and usual Transport Mode. Methods This investigation included 11 036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual Transport Mode (car or motorbike, public Transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of Transport was the reference category. Results Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public Transport were higher for white collar employees (OR 1.68, 95% CrI 1.41–2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95% CrI 1.25–2.30) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.46–2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.49–0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.50–0.81). The odds of walking for Transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.18–2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 1.38–2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.23–3.64) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95% CrI 1.46–5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19–0.48). Conclusions The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and Transport Modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of Transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual-level and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind choice of Transport Mode, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active Transport Modes.
