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. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2019. "Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt00k897b5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. 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.
    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. Nikolaos-Fivos Galatoulas & Konstantinos N. Genikomsakis & Christos S. Ioakimidis, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Trends of E-Bike Sharing System Deployment: A Review in Europe, North America and Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Fuller, Sam & Fitch, Dillon & D'Agostino, Mollie C., 2021. "Local Policies for Better Micromobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8mw5j82x, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. Virginie Boutueil & Luc Nemett & Thomas Quillerier, 2021. "Trends in Competition among Digital Platforms for Shared Mobility: Insights from a Worldwide Census and Prospects for Research," Post-Print hal-03388213, HAL.
    4. Ying Ni & Jiaqi Chen, 2020. "Exploring the Effects of the Built Environment on Two Transfer Modes for Metros: Dockless Bike Sharing and Taxis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Álvaro Aguilera-García & Juan Gomez & Natalia Sobrino & Juan José Vinagre Díaz, 2021. "Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Monika Hamerska & Monika Ziółko & Patryk Stawiarski, 2022. "A Sustainable Transport System—The MMQUAL Model of Shared Micromobility Service Quality Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. Arias-Molinares, Daniela & Romanillos, Gustavo & García-Palomares, Juan Carlos & Gutiérrez, Javier, 2021. "Exploring the spatio-temporal dynamics of moped-style scooter sharing services in urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Samadzad, Mahdi & Nosratzadeh, Hossein & Karami, Hossein & Karami, Ali, 2023. "What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 70-82.
    11. Chen, Peng & Yang, Xiankui, 2023. "Revisit employer-based travel demand management: A longitudinal analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 22-31.
    12. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    13. Shah, Nitesh R. & Guo, Jing & Han, Lee D. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Why do people take e-scooter trips? Insights on temporal and spatial usage patterns of detailed trip data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Hu, Songhua & Chen, Mingyang & Jiang, Yuan & Sun, Wei & Xiong, Chenfeng, 2022. "Examining factors associated with bike-and-ride (BnR) activities around metro stations in large-scale dockless bikesharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    16. Abouelela, Mohamed & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    17. Jihun Oh & Jeongseob Kim, 2021. "Where to Ride? An Explorative Study to Investigate Potential Risk Factors of Personal Mobility Accidents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Xavier Bach & Carme Miralles-Guasch & Oriol Marquet, 2023. "Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    20. 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.

    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.