Citation

Abouelela M, Duran-Rodas D, Antoniou C. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2024; 181: e103985.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.tra.2024.103985

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Shared E-scooters were introduced as a sustainable mode of transport that could help reduce motorized traffic externalities; however, problems, such as inequitable use, emerged shortly after the start of their operations. While existing literature has focused primarily on user and vehicle characteristics as the main drivers of E-scooter inequitable use, it fails to understand or capture other factors that impact travel decisions, such as urban design and activity accessibility. This study proposes a framework to evaluate shared (E-)scooters' equity based on accessibility or lack of accessibility to different activities compared to other existing modes of transportation. To test the proposed framework, a sensitivity analysis tested various scenarios using data from scooter trips in Louisville, Kentucky. In total, 1903 main scenarios and 7612 sub-scenarios were evaluated, focusing on accessibility gains for different social groups, modes of transport that could be replaced by scooters, and different locations within the study area. As a result, scooters have the potential to improve current levels of accessibility in 8% of the examined scenarios, mostly when replacing uni-modal walking, biking, and public transportation trips. Furthermore, disadvantaged groups did not gain significant accessibility advantages compared to the rest of the population. We argue that the observed inequitable use of scooters is inherited from the urban structure and activity density. In areas with fewer activities, where mostly disadvantaged social groups live, people use E-scooters less. In order to make E-scooters a competitive mode of transport in disadvantaged areas, urban structural solutions such as densification of land use and promotion of different activities should be considered first.

Language: en

Keywords

Accessibility; Open source data; Shared mobility; Shared-E-scooter; Transportation justice