Paper detail

Spatial Equity of Micromobility Systems: A Comparison of Shared E-scooters and Station-based Bikeshare in Washington DC

Many cities around the world have introduced dockless micromobility services in recent years and witnessed their rapid growth. Shared dockless e-scooters have the potential to benefit neighborhoods that lack access to station-based bikeshare services, but they may also exacerbate the existing spatial disparities. While some studies have examined the equity of station-based bikeshare systems, limited knowledge is available regarding dockless e-scooter services. This study uses Washington DC as a case study, a city with both dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare systems, to conduct equity analysis of the two types of micromobility options. We develop an analytical framework to examine how dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare differ on a set of equity-related outcomes (i.e., availability, accessibility, usage, and idle time) across neighborhoods of different socioeconomic categories. Results reveal that dockless e-scooter services increase accessibility to shared micromobility options for disadvantaged neighborhoods but also widen the access gap across neighborhoods. Compared to bikeshare, shared e-scooters have a higher level of spatial accessibility overall due to greater supply; however, the greater supply largely leads to longer average idle time of shared e-scooters rather than a greater number of trips. Finally, it appears that the bikeshare system's equity program effectively promotes low-income use but e-scooters' equity programs do not. Our findings suggest that increasing vehicle supply alone would probably not lead to higher micromobility use in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Instead, policymakers should combine a variety of strategies such as promoting the enrollment of equity programs and reducing access barriers (e.g., smartphone and banking requirements) to micromobility services.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.