IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v52y2025i4d10.1007_s11116-024-10473-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How shared e-scooter programs affect docked bikeshare ridership in communities of concern: a tale of two cities

Author

Listed:
  • Si’an Meng

    (University of Oregon)

  • Anne Brown

    (University of Oregon)

Abstract

Since 2017, cities across the US have introduced shared e-scooter sharing programs that often co-exist with docked bikeshare services. Previous research has compared e-scooter and bikeshare service geographies and travel patterns, but few studies examine how shared e-scooter systems might substitute or supplement docked bikeshare trips. To fill the research gap, we treated the implementation of pilot shared e-scooter programs in the City of Chicago and the Boston metro area as quasi-natural experiments to assess how e-scooters influence docked bikeshare ridership. We obtained docked bikeshare trip data in each city and applied a difference-in-difference model with a propensity score matching method. Specifically, we investigated the effects of e-scooter sharing on docked bikeshare ridership in communities of concern, emphasizing the heterogeneous treatment effects and potential equity implications for developing micromobility systems. Results show that total micromobility trips--bikeshare plus shared e-scooters--in Chicago and Boston rose by 50% and 55%, respectively, during the pilot program. Despite the overall positive story for micromobility, shared e-scooters generally exerting negative effects on docked bikeshare ridership in both cities, with the exceptions of stations located in communities of concern, which experienced positive impacts on ridership. E-scooter pilots likewise yielded effects on how and who utilized bikeshare. Following shared e-scooter implementation, bikeshare trips lasting over 30 min increased in frequency. While the introduction of e-scooters reduced the total number of trips by both male and female subscribers, the number of trips made by male riders within communities of concern experienced an upswing. Results yield implications for policymakers seeking to increase access to micromobility services, particularly in communities of concern.

Suggested Citation

  • Si’an Meng & Anne Brown, 2025. "How shared e-scooter programs affect docked bikeshare ridership in communities of concern: a tale of two cities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1767-1791, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:52:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s11116-024-10473-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Haojie & Zhang, Yingheng & Ding, Hongliang & Ren, Gang, 2019. "Effects of dockless bike-sharing systems on the usage of the London Cycle Hire," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 398-411.
    2. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero, 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 265-294.
    3. Goodman, Anna & Cheshire, James, 2014. "Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited: impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 272-279.
    4. Qian, Xiaodong & Jaller, Miguel & Niemeier, Debbie, 2020. "Enhancing equitable service level: Which can address better, dockless or dock-based Bikeshare systems?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    6. Campbell, Kayleigh B. & Brakewood, Candace, 2017. "Sharing riders: How bikesharing impacts bus ridership in New York City," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 264-282.
    7. Xiaolu Zhou, 2015. "Understanding Spatiotemporal Patterns of Biking Behavior by Analyzing Massive Bike Sharing Data in Chicago," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    8. 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).
    9. 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," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt96g9c9nd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. 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.
    11. Chen, Zhiwei & Guo, Yujie & Stuart, Amy L. & Zhang, Yu & Li, Xiaopeng, 2019. "Exploring the equity performance of bike-sharing systems with disaggregated data: A story of southern Tampa," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 529-545.
    12. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Mooney, Stephen J. & Hosford, Kate & Howe, Bill & Yan, An & Winters, Meghan & Bassok, Alon & Hirsch, Jana A., 2019. "Freedom from the station: Spatial equity in access to dockless bike share," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-96.
    14. repec:osf:socarx:su8wx_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Younes, Hannah & Zou, Zhenpeng & Wu, Jiahui & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2020. "Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 308-320.
    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. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    3. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Berke, Alex & Truitt, Walter & Larson, Kent, 2024. "Is access to public bike-share networks equitable? A multiyear spatial analysis across 5 U.S. Cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Ma, Xinwei & Zhang, Shuai & Wu, Tao & Yang, Yizhe & Yu, Jiajie, 2023. "Can dockless and docked bike-sharing substitute each other? Evidence from Nanjing, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    8. 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.
    9. Jin, Scarlett T. & Sui, Daniel Z., 2024. "Bikesharing and equity: A nationwide study of bikesharing accessibility in the U.S," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Namkung, Ok Stella & Park, Jonghan & Ko, Joonho, 2023. "Public bike users’ annual travel distance: Findings from combined data of user survey and annual rental records," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    12. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    13. Zhou, Zhaoqi & Schwanen, Tim, 2024. "Exploring the production of spatial inequality in dockless bicycle sharing in Shenzhen," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Gao, Kun & Yang, Ying & Li, Aoyong & Li, Junhong & Yu, Bo, 2021. "Quantifying economic benefits from free-floating bike-sharing systems: A trip-level inference approach and city-scale analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 89-103.
    15. 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.
    16. Duran-Rodas, David & Villeneuve, Dominic & Pereira, Francisco C. & Wulfhorst, Gebhard, 2020. "How fair is the allocation of bike-sharing infrastructure? Framework for a qualitative and quantitative spatial fairness assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 299-319.
    17. Wang, Jueyu & Lindsey, Greg, 2019. "Neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics and bike share member patterns of use," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Saud, Veronica & Thomopoulos, Nikolas, 2021. "Towards inclusive transport landscapes: Re-visualising a Bicycle Sharing Scheme in Santiago Metropolitan Region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    19. Maximilian Heumann & Tobias Kraschewski & Tim Brauner & Lukas Tilch & Michael H. Breitner, 2021. "A Spatiotemporal Study and Location-Specific Trip Pattern Categorization of Shared E-Scooter Usage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    20. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.

    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:kap:transp:v:52:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s11116-024-10473-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.