IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5591-d275177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders

Author

Listed:
  • Owain James

    (Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA 22203, USA)

  • J I Swiderski

    (Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA 22203, USA)

  • John Hicks

    (Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA 22203, USA)

  • Denis Teoman

    (Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA 22203, USA)

  • Ralph Buehler

    (Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA 22203, USA)

Abstract

Since 2018, pedestrians in many U.S. cities have been sharing sidewalk space with dockless shared e-scooters. The introduction of e-scooters has received pushback from pedestrians. Complaints reported in the media include e-scooters blocking walkways and sidewalks when parked illegally as well as safety concerns from pedestrians who do not feel safe around moving e-scooters. However, little is known beyond a few initial studies on e-scooter parking and anecdotes about pedestrian perceptions of e-scooter safety. Our case study from Rosslyn, Virginia, helps shed light on these two issues. First, we conducted a survey of 181 e-scooter riders and non-riders asking about their perceived safety around riders of e-scooters and experiences of sidewalks blocked by e-scooters. We found highly divergent responses about safety and sidewalk blocking perceptions from riders and non-riders. Second, we conducted an observational study of 606 parked e-scooters along three mixed-use corridors in Rosslyn to investigate the relationship between the built environment and e-scooter parking. We found that 16% of 606 observed e-scooters were not parked properly and 6% (36 e-scooters) were blocking pedestrian right-of-way. Moreover, our survey showed that e-scooter trips in Rosslyn replaced trips otherwise taken by Uber, Lyft, or a taxi (39%), foot (33%), bicycle (12%), bus (7%), or car (7%).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5591-:d:275177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5591/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5591/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eva Heinen & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Bicycle parking: a systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 630-656, September.
    2. repec:cdl:itsrrp:qt00k897b5 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Chan, Tommy Ho-Yin, 2025. "Socio-material perspectives on perceived accessibility of cycling: A sociological inquiry into practices, regulations and informal rules," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Yuhei Ito & Malcolm Morgan & Robin Lovelace, 2023. "Where to invest in cycle parking: A portfolio management approach to spatial transport planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(6), pages 1438-1454, July.
    3. Adsule, Poonam & Kadali, B Raghuram, 2024. "Analysis of contributing factors in decision to bicycle in developing countries context," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 50-58.
    4. Chan, Ho Yin & Tse, Wai-Yi & Chen, Anthony, 2025. "Unlocking the gates: Pedestrian route choice in transforming metro station paid areas into mobile public spaces," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    5. Liangpeng Gao & Yanjie Ji & Xingchen Yan & Yao Fan & Weihong Guo, 2021. "Incentive measures to avoid the illegal parking of dockless shared bikes: the relationships among incentive forms, intensity and policy compliance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 1033-1060, April.
    6. Nguyen, Minh Hieu & Pojani, Dorina, 2024. "The effect of fuel price fluctuations on utilitarian cycling rates: A survey of cyclists in Vietnam," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Zhu, Yalei & Wang, Yuankai & Li, Junxuan & Song, Qiwei & Chen, Da & Qiu, Waishan, 2025. "BikeshareGAN: Predicting dockless bike-sharing demand based on satellite image," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. Sakari Höysniemi & Arto O. Salonen, 2019. "Towards Carbon-Neutral Mobility in Finland: Mobility and Life Satisfaction in Day-to-Day Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-21, September.
    9. De Gruyter, Chris & Hooper, Paula & Foster, Sarah, 2023. "Do apartment residents have enough car parking? An empirical assessment of car parking adequacy in Australian cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Cannon, Russell & Zhao, Chunli & Winslott Hiselius, Lena, 2024. "Barriers to better bicycle parking for promoting intermodal journeys: An inter-organisational collaboration perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 65-73.
    11. De Gruyter, Chris & Butt, Andrew, 2024. "Determinants of bicycle ownership and use: A case study of apartment residents in Melbourne, Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. Shilpa Dogra & Nicholas O’Rourke & Michael Jenkins & Daniel Hoornweg, 2021. "Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Márquez, Luis & Soto, Jose J., 2021. "Integrating perceptions of safety and bicycle theft risk in the analysis of cycling infrastructure preferences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 285-301.
    14. Kohlrautz, David & Kuhnimhof, Tobias, 2025. "Cyclists’ heterogeneous parking preferences and their implications for bicycle parking facilities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Alexandros Nikitas & Stefanos Tsigdinos & Christos Karolemeas & Efthymia Kourmpa & Efthimios Bakogiannis, 2021. "Cycling in the Era of COVID-19: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice Policy Recommendations for a More Bike-Centric Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-25, April.
    16. Olaf Jonkeren & Roland Kager & Lucas Harms & Marco Brömmelstroet, 2021. "The bicycle-train travellers in the Netherlands: personal profiles and travel choices," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 455-476, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Kikoria Giga & Sanikidze Zezva & Sikora Marek & Gelashvili Simon, 2024. "What Factors Affect Bicycle Commuting? An Empirical Analysis in Tbilisi and Warsaw," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 24(1), pages 87-104.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5591-:d:275177. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.