共享电动滑板车项目如何影响受关注社区的停靠式共享单车乘客数量:两个城市的故事

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Si’an Meng, Anne Brown
{"title":"共享电动滑板车项目如何影响受关注社区的停靠式共享单车乘客数量:两个城市的故事","authors":"Si’an Meng, Anne Brown","doi":"10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49419,"journal":{"name":"Transportation","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How shared e-scooter programs affect docked bikeshare ridership in communities of concern: a tale of two cities\",\"authors\":\"Si’an Meng, Anne Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10473-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自 2017 年以来,美国各地的城市纷纷推出了共享电动滑板车计划,这些计划通常与有桩共享单车服务并存。以往的研究对电动滑板车和自行车共享服务的地理位置和出行模式进行了比较,但很少有研究探讨共享电动滑板车系统如何替代或补充停靠式自行车共享出行。为了填补这一研究空白,我们将芝加哥市和波士顿都会区共享电动滑板车试点项目的实施视为准自然实验,以评估电动滑板车如何影响停靠式自行车共享的乘客数量。我们获得了每个城市的停靠式自行车共享出行数据,并采用倾向得分匹配法建立了差分模型。具体而言,我们调查了电动滑板车共享对受关注社区的有桩共享单车骑行率的影响,强调了异质性处理效果以及对发展微型交通系统的潜在公平影响。结果显示,在试点项目期间,芝加哥和波士顿的微型交通出行总人次--共享单车加上共享电动滑板车--分别增加了50%和55%。尽管微型交通系统的总体情况良好,但在这两个城市中,共享电动滑板车普遍对停靠在路边的自行车共享的乘客量产生了负面影响,只有位于受关注社区的站点例外,这些站点对乘客量产生了积极影响。电动滑板车试点同样对自行车共享的使用方式和使用人群产生了影响。在共享电动滑板车投入使用后,单车共享出行时间超过 30 分钟的频率有所增加。虽然电动滑板车的引入减少了男性和女性用户的总出行次数,但男性用户在关注社区内的出行次数却有所增加。研究结果对决策者提高微型交通服务的使用率,尤其是在受关注社区的使用率具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transportation
Transportation 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.70%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: In our first issue, published in 1972, we explained that this Journal is intended to promote the free and vigorous exchange of ideas and experience among the worldwide community actively concerned with transportation policy, planning and practice. That continues to be our mission, with a clear focus on topics concerned with research and practice in transportation policy and planning, around the world. These four words, policy and planning, research and practice are our key words. While we have a particular focus on transportation policy analysis and travel behaviour in the context of ground transportation, we willingly consider all good quality papers that are highly relevant to transportation policy, planning and practice with a clear focus on innovation, on extending the international pool of knowledge and understanding. Our interest is not only with transportation policies - and systems and services – but also with their social, economic and environmental impacts, However, papers about the application of established procedures to, or the development of plans or policies for, specific locations are unlikely to prove acceptable unless they report experience which will be of real benefit those working elsewhere. Papers concerned with the engineering, safety and operational management of transportation systems are outside our scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信