A20 The Siketha Ukuba Nempilo (We Choose to be Healthy) Project. Can taking public transport lead to a healthier lifestyle?. Issue 2 (June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bartels, Clare; Lambert, Estelle V; Kolbe-Alexander, Tracy; Behrens, Roger
• Is Part Of: Journal of transport & health. Volume 2:Issue 2(2015:Jun.)Supplement
• Page Start: S15
• Publication Date: 2015-06
• Subjects: Transportation -- Health aspects -- Periodicals; Transportation -- Periodicals; Public Health -- Periodicals; Noise, Transportation -- Periodicals; Air Pollutants -- Periodicals; 388
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2015.04.508
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2214-1405

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Globally, growing evidence suggests that transport-related physical activity (PA) can positively contribute to overall physical activity, however limited data is available from Africa. Within South Africa, non-motorised transport, particularly active transport, and the use of public transport has been identified as a national priority, with the development of a national integrated public transport network (IPTN), including the MyCiTi Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System in Cape Town. The purpose of this study is to firstly describe the travel characteristics and differences between BRT-users (cases) and non-BRT users (control group) and to quantify the impact of active commuting on weekly PA. Methods: Intercept interviews were conducted with BRT passengers (N=1 023) during the period of April to December 2013. A similar questionnaire was distributed to worksites, included local businesses and schools along the BRT feeder route to non-BRT users (N=450). 1 087 surveys were included in the final analysis (771 BRT-users and 316 non-BRT users). Results: Mean age of BRT-users was 33 (10.5) years, and over 50% of the sample were women, who were less likely to use the BRT compared to men (P<0.001). Cost and time savings were the main reasons for using the BRT service, whereas short travelling distances and time inefficiency were cited as main reasons for not using the BRT. Over half (52%) of non-users resided and worked along the BRT corridor. The main travel purpose in BRT-users was commuting (74%), however over 60% of passengers utilised the service for social purposes. 98% of BRT-users walked as part of their journey, whereas 74% of non-users used a private vehicle as their main mode to work. BRT-users accumulated significantly more time in active transport per week than non-users (walking 131.9 min vs 42.1 min; P=0.006), as well as significantly more total physical activity time per week (544 min vs 498 min; P< 0.000). 39% of BRT-users achieved PA guidelines with active commuting alone compared to 10% of non-users. Conclusions: In this study, BRT-users engage in more active commuting (98% vs 24%) than non-BRT users, accumulating significantly more active travel time and total physical activity. In addition, a larger percentage of BRT-users meet the physical activity guidelines compared to non-BRT users using active transport (39% vs 10%) and total PA (77% vs 63%). This study highlights therefore, that this form of public transport can be promoted as a means to increase levels of population-level physical activity in order to prevent the onset of non-communicable diseases.