IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v52y2025i5d10.1007_s11116-024-10478-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bike lanes and ability to summon an autonomous scooter can increase willingness to use micromobility

Author

Listed:
  • Tianqi Zou

    (University of Washington)

  • Don MacKenzie

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

This paper investigates factors affecting people’s preferences for shared micromobility when autonomous technology is available. Using combined stated and revealed preference data from an online choice experiment, focusing on vehicle availability, bike infrastructure, and first and last mile connection to transit, this study is one of the first explorations on the intersection of shared micromobility and autonomous technology. Results from a mixed logit mode choice model suggest that access and drop off walking time have higher disutility than micromobility riding time, and autonomous technology that allows riders to summon a micromobility vehicle has the potential to reduce that disutility. Model results also confirm that whether people choose to use micromobility modes depends strongly on bike lane coverage of the trip they are making. While there are still many uncertainties and concerns about autonomous technology, this study can serve as the foundation for analyzing autonomous shared micromobility demand and providing broader implications for service providers, transportation planners, and policy makers to define business models, design and implement infrastructure, and regulate system operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianqi Zou & Don MacKenzie, 2025. "Bike lanes and ability to summon an autonomous scooter can increase willingness to use micromobility," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 1887-1904, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:52:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-024-10478-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-024-10478-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-024-10478-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-024-10478-5?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. Greenblatt, Jeffery & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2015. "Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility and Environmental Impacts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt23r1h80t, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Zou, Tianqi & Aemmer, Zack & MacKenzie, Don & Laberteaux, Ken, 2022. "A framework for estimating commute accessibility and adoption of ridehailing services under functional improvements from vehicle automation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Peters, Luke & MacKenzie, Don, 2019. "The death and rebirth of bikesharing in Seattle: Implications for policy and system design," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 208-226.
    6. Yap, Menno D. & Correia, Gonçalo & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-16.
    7. Wang, Haoyun & Noland, Robert B., 2021. "Bikeshare and subway ridership changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 262-270.
    8. Joan L. Walker & Yanqiao Wang & Mikkel Thorhauge & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2018. "D-efficient or deficient? A robustness analysis of stated choice experimental designs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 215-238, March.
    9. Noland, Robert B. & Smart, Michael J. & Guo, Ziye, 2016. "Bikeshare trip generation in New York City," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 164-181.
    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. 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.
    2. Shahram Heydari & Garyfallos Konstantinoudis & Abdul Wahid Behsoodi, 2021. "Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on bike-sharing demand and hire time: Evidence from Santander Cycles in London," Papers 2107.11589, arXiv.org.
    3. Gong, Mengjie & Xin, Rui & Yang, Jian & Wang, Jiaoe & Li, Tingting & Zhang, Yujuan, 2024. "Spatio-temporal dynamics and recovery of commuting activities via bike-sharing around COVID-19: A case study of New York," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    4. Bi, Hui & Gao, Hui & Li, Aoyong & Ye, Zhirui, 2024. "Investigation on the joint travel behavior in bike sharing systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    5. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    6. Zgheib, Najib & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Kaysi, Isam, 2020. "Modeling demand for ridesourcing as feeder for high capacity mass transit systems with an application to the planned Beirut BRT," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 70-91.
    7. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(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. Elnert Coenegrachts & Joris Beckers & Thierry Vanelslander & Ann Verhetsel, 2021. "Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    10. Xiaojia Guo & Chengpeng Lu & Dongqi Sun & Yexin Gao & Bing Xue, 2021. "Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Sobrino, Natalia & Gonzalez, Juan Nicolas & Vassallo, Jose Manuel & Baeza, Maria de los Angeles, 2023. "Regulation of shared electric kick scooters in urban areas: Key drivers from expert stakeholders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-18.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Tang, Zhe-Yi & Tian, Li-Jun & Wang, David Z.W., 2021. "Multi-modal morning commute with endogenous shared autonomous vehicle penetration considering parking space constraint," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Kumar Dey, Bibhas & Anowar, Sabreena & Eluru, Naveen, 2021. "A framework for estimating bikeshare origin destination flows using a multiple discrete continuous system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 119-133.
    19. Daniela Arias-Molinares & Juan Carlos García-Palomares & Gustavo Romanillos & Javier Gutiérrez, 2023. "Uncovering spatiotemporal micromobility patterns through the lens of space–time cubes and GIS tools," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 403-427, July.
    20. Lane, Bradley W., 2019. "Revisiting ‘An unpopular essay on transportation:’ The outcomes of old myths and the implications of new technologies for the sustainability of transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).

    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:kap:transp:v:52:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-024-10478-5. 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.