IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2022i1p226-d1012768.html

An Exploration of the Decline in E-Scooter Ridership after the Introduction of Mandatory E-Scooter Parking Corrals on Virginia Tech’s Campus in Blacksburg, VA

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph Buehler

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

  • Andrea Broaddus

    (Ford Motor Company, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA)

  • Elizabeth White

    (VTTI, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

  • Ted Sweeney

    (Spin, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA)

  • Chris Evans

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

Abstract

We report shared e-scooter ridership and rider perceptions on Virginia Tech’s Blacksburg campus before and after introduction of mandatory e-scooter parking corrals in January 2022. The analysis relies on a panel of 131 e-scooter riders surveyed in Fall 2021 and Spring 2022. Although parking corrals were perceived favorably prior to implementation, perceptions became more negative afterwards. Respondents said corrals were not located where needed, difficult to find, fully occupied, and took too much extra time to use. After parking corrals were introduced, ridership declined 72% overall and also fell for all socio-economic subgroups. The heaviest user groups, like undergraduate males, were most likely to quit. The first study identifying desired and actual egress times for e-scooters, we found that roughly two-thirds of riders desired egress times under 2 min and one quarter under 1 min. Prior to the introduction of parking corrals, 82% of riders reported actual egress times under 2 min, and 43% under 1 min. Those who kept riding after the introduction of e-scooter corrals reported longer actual egress times and a stronger stated desire for egress times under 2 min. Communities should be careful when imposing e-scooter parking restrictions to ensure that e-scooter egress time is sufficiently low—ideally within an easy 2 min walk of popular origins and destinations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph Buehler & Andrea Broaddus & Elizabeth White & Ted Sweeney & Chris Evans, 2022. "An Exploration of the Decline in E-Scooter Ridership after the Introduction of Mandatory E-Scooter Parking Corrals on Virginia Tech’s Campus in Blacksburg, VA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:226-:d:1012768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/226/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/226/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Gebhardt & Christian Wolf & Robert Seiffert, 2021. "“I’ll Take the E-Scooter Instead of My Car”—The Potential of E-Scooters as a Substitute for Car Trips in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Clare Field & Ihnji Jon, 2021. "E-Scooters: A New Smart Mobility Option? The Case of Brisbane, Australia," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 368-396, May.
    3. Sanders, Rebecca L. & Branion-Calles, Michael & Nelson, Trisalyn A., 2020. "To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 217-227.
    4. Peter T. Dunn, 2020. "Participatory Infrastructures: The Politics of Mobility Platforms," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 335-346.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yunus Emre Ayözen, 2023. "Statistical Optimization of E-Scooter Micro-Mobility Utilization in Postal Service," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Colovic, Aleksandra & Prencipe, Luigi Pio & Giuffrida, Nadia & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2024. "A multi-objective model to design shared e-kick scooters parking spaces in large urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Brousseau, Eric & Côme, Etienne & Coulombel, Nicolas & Olave-Cruz, Isac, 2025. "Harmonizing dockless E-scooters: insights from Paris," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).

    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. Kimpton, Anthony & Loginova, Julia & Pojani, Dorina & Bean, Richard & Sigler, Thomas & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2022. "Weather to scoot? How weather shapes shared e-scooter ridership patterns," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Cannon Cloud & Simon He{ss} & Johannes Kasinger, 2022. "Do shared e-scooter services cause traffic accidents? Evidence from six European countries," Papers 2209.06870, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    5. Draženko Glavić & Ana Trpković & Marina Milenković & Sreten Jevremović, 2021. "The E-Scooter Potential to Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.
    6. 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).
    7. Kalina Grzesiuk & Dorota Jegorow & Monika Wawer & Anna Głowacz, 2023. "Energy-Efficient City Transportation Solutions in the Context of Energy-Conserving and Mobility Behaviours of Generation Z," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-28, August.
    8. Wei, Daqin & Zhang, Hongyang & Tang, Wei & Gong, Jinrui & Mei, Zhenyu, 2025. "Investigating the influencing factors of cooperation between shared e-bikes and subway systems: A multivariate data analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. Brousseau, Eric & Côme, Etienne & Coulombel, Nicolas & Olave-Cruz, Isac, 2025. "Harmonizing dockless E-scooters: insights from Paris," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    10. Krauss, Konstantin & Gnann, Till & Burgert, Tobias & Axhausen, Kay W., 2024. "Faster, greener, scooter? An assessment of shared e-scooter usage based on real-world driving data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    11. Abdullah Al Mamun & Noor Raihani Zainol & Naeem Hayat, 2025. "Electric scooter – intention and adoption of alternative mode of transportation for Malaysian youth," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(12), pages 30973-30993, December.
    12. Bergh, Andreas & Mehic, Adrian & Sandberg, David & Wernberg, Joakim, 2025. "E-scooters and Traffic Accidents: Evidence from Staggered Roll-Out in Swedish Municipalities," Working Paper Series 1520, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    13. Yang, Hongtai & Zheng, Rong & Li, Xuan & Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Linchuan & Zhu, Tong, 2022. "Nonlinear and threshold effects of the built environment on e-scooter sharing ridership," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Su, Lin & Yan, Xiang & Zhao, Xilei, 2024. "Spatial equity of micromobility systems: A comparison of shared E-scooters and docked bikeshare in Washington DC," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 25-36.
    15. Bartkowiak Paweł & Michalak Szymon & Młodzik Maciej, 2021. "Motives for and Barriers to the Use of Electric Moped Scooter Sharing Services," Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, Sciendo, vol. 42(4), pages 17-34, December.
    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. Adorean, Emanuel-Cristian & Nofre, Jordi & Moura, Filipe, 2026. "Clustering users and non-users of shared and private e-bikes and e-scooters across three European cities: Typologies, spatial patterns, and policy implications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    18. Roig-Costa, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme & Marquet, Oriol, 2024. "Shared bikes vs. private e-scooters. Understanding patterns of use and demand in a policy-constrained micromobility environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 116-125.
    19. Chen, Shuting & Cao, Zhejing & Zhang, Xiaohu, 2025. "Adaptive scootability index: Built environment, travel purpose and e-scooter preferred route," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    20. Yang, Hongtai & Huo, Jinghai & Bao, Yongxing & Li, Xuan & Yang, Linchuan & Cherry, Christopher R., 2021. "Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 23-36.

    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:15:y:2022:i:1:p:226-:d:1012768. 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.