Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 95, Issue 6, pp 888–898 | Cite as

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bike Share Expansion to Low-Income Communities in New York City

  • Wenya YuEmail author
  • Chen Chen
  • Boshen Jiao
  • Zafar Zafari
  • Peter Muennig


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.


Cost-effectiveness Bike share Health 



This study was supported by funds from Global Research Analytics for Population Health at Columbia University.


  1. 1.
    Bauman A, Crane M, Drayton BA, Titze S. The unrealised potential of bike share schemes to influence population physical activity levels–a narrative review. Prev Med. 2017;103:S7–S14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Larsen J. Bike-sharing programs hit the streets in over 500 cities worldwide. Earth Policy Institute. 2013;25(1). Available at: Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  3. 3.
    Shaheen S, Guzman S. Worldwide bikesharing. ACCESS Magazine, 2011;1(39):22–27.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Association of City Transportation Officials. Bike share in the US 2010-2016. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Available at: Accessed 21 Mar 2017.
  5. 5.
    Citi Bike. Experience NYC in a whole new way. Citi Bike Available at: Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  6. 6.
    Basch CH, Ethan D, Zybert P, Afzaal S, Spillane M, Basch CE. Public bike sharing in New York City: helmet use behavior patterns at 25 Citi Bike™ stations. J Community Health. 2015;40(3):530–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Citi Bike. Station map. Available at: Accessed 31 July 2018.
  8. 8.
    Citi Bike. Citi Bike expansion. Available at: Accessed 31 Jul 2018.
  9. 9.
    New York City Charter. The New York City Council’s response to the mayor’s riscal 2018 preliminary budget and fiscal 2017 preliminary mayor’s management report. 2017. Available at: Accessed 30 July 2018.
  10. 10.
    New York City Department of Transportation. Bicyclists. Available at: Accessed 31 Jul 2018.
  11. 11.
    Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transp Rev. 2013;33(2):148–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organization. Physical inactivity: a global public health problem. World Health Organization. Available at: Accessed 30 Jul 2018.
  13. 13.
    Stewart G, Anokye NK, Pokhrel S. What interventions increase commuter cycling? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(8):e007945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tainio M, de Nazelle AJ, Götschi T, Kahlmeier S, Rojas-Rueda D, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, et al. Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking? Prev Med. 2016;87:233–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahlmeier S, Cavill N, Dinsdale H, et al. Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and for cycling. 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. Physical activity. World Health Organization. Available at: Accessed 16 Feb 2018.
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution. World Health Organization. Available at: Accessed 30 Jul 2018.
  18. 18.
    Kelly P, Kahlmeier S, Götschi T, Orsini N, Richards J, Roberts N, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of reduction in all-cause mortality from walking and cycling and shape of dose response relationship. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andersen LB, Schnohr P, Schroll M, Hein HO. All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work, sports, and cycling to work. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(11):1621–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, Daniel M, Fournier M, Morency P, et al. Use of a new public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(1):80–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N. Bike share’s impact on car use: evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ. 2014;31:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kretman S, Johnson D, Smith W. Bringing bike share to a low-income community: lessons learned through community engagement, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E138.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, Morency P, Drouin L. The potential modal shift and health benefits of implementing a public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1):66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Börjesson M, Eliasson J. The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal. Transp Res A Policy Pract. 2012;46(4):673–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Qiu L-Y, He L-Y. Bike sharing and the economy, the environment, and health-related externalities. Sustainability. 2018;10(4):1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huber J, Puto C. Market boundaries and product choice: illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J Consum Res. 1983;10(1):31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muennig P, Fiscella K, Tancredi D, Franks P. The relative health burden of selected social and behavioral risk factors in the United States: implications for policy. Am J Public Health. Sep 2010;100(9):1758–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stewart SK, Johnson DC, Smith WP. Peer Reviewed: bringing bike share to a low-income community: lessons learned through community engagement, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Motivate, Inc. De Blasio administration announces low-cost citi bike membership will be available to all SNAP recipients. Available online at: Accessed 8/3/17.
  30. 30.
    DATA USA. Data USA. New York, NY. Available at: Accessed 2 Jul 2018.
  31. 31.
    United States Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American community survey 5-year estimates, vol S0801. 2015. Available at: Accessed 30 Mar 2018.
  32. 32.
    Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gu J, Mohit B, Muennig PA. The cost-effectiveness of bike lanes in New York City. Inj Prev. 2017;23:239–43.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Muennig P, Bounthavong M. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    World Health Organization. Cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE). Available at: Accessed 14 June 2017.
  37. 37.
    Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(2):165–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Motivate. Citi Bike monthly operating reports, December 2017. Available at: Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
  39. 39.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC’s web-based injury statistics query and reporting system. Available at: Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
  40. 40.
    Muennig PA, Epstein M, Li G, DiMaggio C. The cost-effectiveness of New York City’s safe routes to school program. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(7):1294–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rabl A, De Nazelle A. Benefits of shift from car to active transport. Transp Policy. 2012;19(1):121–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Summary of New York City motor vehicle crashes 2014. Available at: Accessed 14 June 2018.
  43. 43.
    Getman A, Gordon-Koven L, Hostetter S, Viola R. Safer cycling: bicycle ridership and safety in New York City. New York: New York City Department of Transportation; 2017.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    New York City Department of Transportation. Cycling in the city: cycling trends in NYC 2018. Available at: Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
  45. 45.
    U.S. Census Bureau. 2014 American community survey 1-year estimates - summary file population division - New York City and boroughs. Available at: Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
  46. 46.
    Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research. New York State motor vehicle crash data: county motor vehicle crash summary reports. ITSMR. Available at: Accessed 30 Jul 2018.
  47. 47.
    Sonja Kahlmeier, Paul Kelly, Charlie Foster, et al. Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and for cycling. Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2014.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rojas-Rueda D, de Nazelle A, Tainio M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. BMJ. 2011;343:d4521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Celis-Morales CA, Lyall DM, Welsh P, et al. Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2017;357:j1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Matthews CE, Jurj AL, X-o S, et al. Influence of exercise, walking, cycling, and overall nonexercise physical activity on mortality in Chinese women. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(12):1343–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    New York City Department of Transportation. Citi Bike expansion: draft plan. Available at: Accessed 30 Jun 2018.
  52. 52.
    New York City Department of Transportation. Cycling in the city. Available online at: Accessed 3/12/2018.
  53. 53.
    Meyer D. NYC has a bike-share system that works. Why aren’t we expanding it? Available online at: Accessed 8/3/18.
  54. 54.
    Goodman A, Cheshire J. Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited: impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices. J Transp Geogr. 2014;41:272–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kim S, Zafari Z, Bellanger M, Muennig PA. Cost-effectiveness of capping freeways for use as parks: the New York Cross-Bronx expressway case study. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(3):379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wu J, Dean KS, Rosen Z, Muennig PA. The cost-effectiveness analysis of nurse-family partnership in the United States. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2017;28(4):1578–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jiao B, Zafari Z, Will B, Ruggeri K, Li S, Muennig P. The cost-effectiveness of lowering permissible noise levels around U.S. airports. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Noonan B. Understanding the reasons why patients delay seeking treatment for oral cancer symptoms from a primary health care professional: an integrative literature review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. Feb 2014;18(1):118–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenya Yu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Chen Chen
    • 2
  • Boshen Jiao
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zafar Zafari
    • 2
  • Peter Muennig
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Military Health Service ManagementSecond Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.School of PharmacyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations