Associations between gentrification, census tract-level socioeconomic status, and cycling infrastructure expansions in Montreal, Canada

Behzad Kiani; Benoit Thierry; Philippe Apparicio; Caislin Firth; Daniel Fuller; Meghan Winters; Yan Kestens

doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101637

Associations between gentrification, census tract-level socioeconomic status, and cycling infrastructure expansions in Montreal, Canada

SSM Popul Health. 2024 Feb 18:25:101637. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101637. eCollection 2024 Mar.

Authors

Behzad Kiani¹, Benoit Thierry², Philippe Apparicio³, Caislin Firth⁴, Daniel Fuller⁵, Meghan Winters⁶, Yan Kestens²

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
² Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique, Université de Montréal, 7101, Avenue du Parc, Montréal, H3N 1X9, Canada.
³ Department of Applied Geomatics, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500, boulevard de l'Université, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Canada.
⁴ Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
⁵ University of Saskatchewan, 105 Administration Place, Saskatoon, S7N 5A2, Canada.
⁶ Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, V5A 1S6, Canada.

Abstract

Background: Cycling infrastructure investments support active transportation, improve population health, and reduce health inequities. This study examines the relationship between changes in cycling infrastructure (2011-2016) and census tract (CT)-level measures of material deprivation, visible minorities, and gentrification in Montreal.

Methods: Our outcomes are the length of protected bike lanes, cyclist-only paths, multi-use paths, and on-street bike lanes in 2011, and change in total length of bike lanes between 2011 and 2016 at the CT level. Census data provided measures of the level of material deprivation and of the percentage of visible minorities in 2011, and if a CT gentrified between 2011 and 2016. Using a hurdle modeling approach, we explore associations among these CT-level socioeconomic measures, gentrification status, baseline cycling infrastructure (2011), and its changes (2011-2016). We further tested if these associations varied depending on the baseline level of existing infrastructure, to assess if areas with originally less resources benefited less or more.

Results: In 2011, CTs with higher level of material deprivation or greater percentages of visible minorities had less cycling infrastructure. Overall, between 2011 and 2016, cycling infrastructure increased from 7.0% to 10.9% of the road network, but the implementation of new cycling infrastructure in CTs with no pre-existing cycling infrastructure in 2011 was less likely to occur in CTs with a higher percentage of visible minorities. High-income CTs that were ineligible for gentrification between 2011 and 2016 benefited less from new cycling infrastructure implementations compared to low-income CTs that were not gentrified during the same period.

Conclusion: Montreal's municipal cycling infrastructure programs did not exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in cycling infrastructure from 2011 to 2016 in CTs with pre-existing infrastructure. However, it is crucial to prioritize the implementation of cycling infrastructure in CTs with high populations of visible minorities, particularly in CTs where no cycling infrastructure currently exists.

Keywords: Cycling infrastructure; Equity; Gentrification; Hurdle modeling; Material deprivation; Visible minority.