IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v204y2026ics0965856425004537.html

Developing an e-scooter level of service model for shared spaces: Insights from Davis, California

Author

Listed:
  • Kazemzadeh, Khashayar
  • Bansal, Prateek
  • Fitch-Polse, Dillon T.

Abstract

The rapid integration of e-scooters into transport systems has outpaced proper planning, impacting the experiences of users across all modes of transport. This underscores the urgent need to evaluate the experiences of e-scooter riders, particularly in their interactions with other road users. To address this need, we conducted a dedicated video-based experiment as part of the annual UC Davis Campus Travel Survey (CTS), involving 1142 e-scooter users and non-users. The aim was to analyse comfort levels when e-scooter riders interact with pedestrians and cyclists, laying the groundwork for developing an e-scooter level-of-service (LOS) assessment framework. We categorised interactions into passing (same-direction encounters), meeting (opposite-direction encounters), and mixed scenarios involving both interaction types. Building on this, we proposed a framework that integrates encounter direction with users’ demographic characteristics and attitudes to better understand perceived comfort. Subsequently, we estimated a Bayesian multilevel cumulative logistic regression model to quantify e-scooter riders’ comfort across different interaction types. Findings from the statistical model reveal that meeting or mixed interactions generally induce more discomfort than passing interactions among e-scooter riders. This contrasts with traditional findings in the bicycle literature, where meeting scenarios are often deemed more comfortable due to opportunities for nonverbal communication. Additionally, comfort levels of e-scooter riders in different interactions with pedestrians varied across gender groups and were significantly influenced by individuals’ general comfort with walking near e-scooters. The model results were translated into heterogeneous measures related to LOS for e-scooter riders, which are crucial for planners and policymakers to improve navigation in shared spaces, particularly for emerging transport modes and underrepresented groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazemzadeh, Khashayar & Bansal, Prateek & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T., 2026. "Developing an e-scooter level of service model for shared spaces: Insights from Davis, California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:204:y:2026:i:c:s0965856425004537
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2025.104820
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425004537
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104820?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acheampong, Ransford A. & Siiba, Alhassan, 2018. "Examining the determinants of utility bicycling using a socio-ecological framework: An exploratory study of the Tamale Metropolis in Northern Ghana," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.
    2. John Parkin & Mark Wardman & Matthew Page, 2008. "Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 93-109, January.
    3. Mahfouz, Hussein & Lovelace, Robin & Arcaute, Elsa, 2023. "A road segment prioritization approach for cycling infrastructure," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. de Jong, Tineke & Fyhri, Aslak, 2023. "Spatial characteristics of unpleasant cycling experiences," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Zohreh Asadi-Shekari & Mehdi Moeinaddini & Muhammad Zaly Shah, 2013. "Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 166-194, March.
    6. Griswold, Julia B. & Yu, Mengqiao & Filingeri, Victoria & Grembek, Offer & Walker, Joan L., 2018. "A behavioral modeling approach to bicycle level of service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 166-177.
    7. Nikiforiadis, Andreas & Paschalidis, Evangelos & Stamatiadis, Nikiforos & Paloka, Ntonata & Tsekoura, Eleni & Basbas, Socrates, 2023. "E-scooters and other mode trip chaining: Preferences and attitudes of university students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Aldred, Rachel, 2016. "Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 69-83.
    9. Prati, Gabriele & Fraboni, Federico & De Angelis, Marco & Pietrantoni, Luca & Johnson, Daniel & Shires, Jeremy, 2019. "Gender differences in cycling patterns and attitudes towards cycling in a sample of European regular cyclists," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-7.
    10. Riggs, William & Kawashima, Matt & Batstone, David, 2021. "Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 18-27.
    11. Gan, Zuoxian & Yang, Min & Zeng, Qingcheng & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2021. "Associations between built environment, perceived walkability/bikeability and metro transfer patterns," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 171-187.
    12. McQueen, Michael & Clifton, Kelly J., 2022. "Assessing the perception of E-scooters as a practical and equitable first-mile/last-mile solution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 395-418.
    13. Khashayar Kazemzadeh & Enrico Ronchi, 2022. "From bike to electric bike level-of-service," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 6-31, January.
    14. Guo, Ning & Jiang, Rui & Wong, S.C. & Hao, Qing-Yi & Xue, Shu-Qi & Xiao, Yao & Wu, Chao-Yun, 2020. "Modeling the interactions of pedestrians and cyclists in mixed flow conditions in uni- and bidirectional flows on a shared pedestrian-cycle road," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 259-284.
    15. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Skov-Petersen, Hans, 2017. "Bicyclists’ preferences for route characteristics and crowding in Copenhagen – A choice experiment study of commuters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 53-64.
    16. Geoffrey Rose, 2012. "E-bikes and urban transportation: emerging issues and unresolved questions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 81-96, January.
    17. Rachel Aldred & James Woodcock & Anna Goodman, 2016. "Does More Cycling Mean More Diversity in Cycling?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 28-44, January.
    18. Jeffrey Glenn & Madeline Bluth & Mannon Christianson & Jaymie Pressley & Austin Taylor & Gregory S. Macfarlane & Robert A. Chaney, 2020. "Considering the Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Tim Althoff & Rok Sosič & Jennifer L. Hicks & Abby C. King & Scott L. Delp & Jure Leskovec, 2017. "Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality," Nature, Nature, vol. 547(7663), pages 336-339, July.
    20. Fitch, Dillon T. & Carlen, Jane & Handy, Susan L., 2022. "What makes bicyclists comfortable? Insights from a visual preference survey of casual and prospective bicyclists," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 434-449.
    21. Owain James & J I Swiderski & John Hicks & Denis Teoman & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-13, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Yuhang & Liu, Tao & Du, Bo, 2024. "Fleet sizing and static rebalancing strategies for shared E-scooters: A case study in Indianapolis, USA," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Chae, Kyung Soo & Kim, Sung Hoo & Yan, Xiang, 2025. "Exploring attitudinal group differences in preferences for shared e-scooter use and its integration with public transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Higuera-Mendieta, Diana & Uriza, Pablo Andrés & Cabrales, Sergio A. & Medaglia, Andrés L. & Guzman, Luis A. & Sarmiento, Olga L., 2021. "Is the built-environment at origin, on route, and at destination associated with bicycle commuting? A gender-informed approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Khashayar Kazemzadeh & Aliaksei Laureshyn & Lena Winslott Hiselius & Enrico Ronchi, 2020. "Expanding the Scope of the Bicycle Level-of-Service Concept: A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-30, April.
    5. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    6. Synek, Stefan & Koenigstorfer, Joerg, 2018. "Exploring adoption determinants of tax-subsidized company-leasing bicycles from the perspective of German employers and employees," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 238-260.
    7. Cai, Yangqian & Moreno, Ana Tsui, 2024. "Identifying non-universal heterogeneity of preferences of leisure cyclists for rural highway environments: A latent-class model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    8. Zhu, Siying & Zhu, Feng, 2019. "Cycling comfort evaluation with instrumented probe bicycle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 217-231.
    9. Mohiuddin, Hossain & Bunch, David S. & Fukushige, Tatsuya & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan L., 2025. "What factors influence the adoption and use of dockless electric bike-share? A case study from the Sacramento region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    10. Abouelela, Mohamed & Durán-Rodas, David & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2024. "Do we all need shared E-scooters? An accessibility-centered spatial equity evaluation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    11. Xu, Lurong & Luo, Shuli & Delbosc, Alexa & O’Hern, Steve & Chen, Zhuo, 2026. "Non-linear effects of built environment on cyclists’ perceived safety and comfort using online pairwise voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Liang, Xiao & Zhang, Tianyu & Xie, Meiquan & Jia, Xudong, 2021. "Analyzing bicycle level of service using virtual reality and deep learning technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 115-129.
    13. Lopes, Miguel & Mélice Dias, Ana & Silva, Cecília, 2021. "The impact of urban features in cycling potential – A tale of Portuguese cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. Jurgis Zagorskas & Marija Burinskienė, 2019. "Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Gerhard Hitge & Johan W. Joubert, 2025. "The survivability of cycling in a co-evolutionary agent-based model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 325-348, February.
    16. Vidal Tortosa, Eugeni & Lovelace, Robin & Heinen, Eva & Mann, Richard P., 2021. "Cycling behaviour and socioeconomic disadvantage: An investigation based on the English National Travel Survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 173-185.
    17. Martin, Adam & Morciano, Marcello & Suhrcke, Marc, 2021. "Determinants of bicycle commuting and the effect of bicycle infrastructure investment in London: Evidence from UK census microdata," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Bean, Richard & Pojani, Dorina & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2021. "How does weather affect bikeshare use? A comparative analysis of forty cities across climate zones," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Bram Boettge & Damon M. Hall & Thomas Crawford, 2017. "Assessing the Bicycle Network in St. Louis: A PlaceBased User-Centered Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Shiva Pourfalatoun & Jubaer Ahmed & Erika E. Miller, 2023. "Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:204:y:2026:i:c:s0965856425004537. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.