A spatiotemporal analysis of e-scooters’ relationships with transit and station-based bikeshare

Travel patterns of free-floating e-bike-sharing users before and during COVID-19 pandemic

“…Discovering factors such as type of travel and travel purposes are not easy to define despite their importance and less has been covered on bike-share systems as sustainable transportation means ( Kutela et al, 2021 ). Such characteristics also act in part to expect fast growth even during the COVID-19 pandemic and contribute to the resiliency of public transportation systems ( Christoforou et al, 2021 ; Yan et al, 2021 ). According to a case study done by New York's Citi Bike, the bike-sharing service proved to be more resilient than the subway system( Teixeira & Lopes, 2020 ).…”

“…According to a case study done by New York's Citi Bike, the bike-sharing service proved to be more resilient than the subway system( Teixeira & Lopes, 2020 ). The COVID-19 pandemic has caused virus-wary travelers to stay away from public transit and FFEBSS can act as an option to prevent conversion into using a private car or a taxi ( Liu et al, 2020 ; Nikiforiadis et al, 2020 ; Yan et al, 2021 ).…”

Modeling Dockless Shared E-Scooter Demand by Time of Day: A Case Study of Austin

“…Within the second stream of research, a number of studies compared docked bikes and dockless e-bikes or e-scooters in several US cities including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Louisville, Chicago, and Austin [7,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. In terms of the interaction between e-scooter and transit modes, previously published papers suggest that public transit and scooter complemented each other [25][26][27]. With regard to docked bikes and dockless e-bikes or e-scooters, research studies found that the main diference between the two modes is that the docked shared bikes are more likely to be used for commuting [28,29] while dockless e-scooters are less likely to be used for commuting [21].…”

Micromobility and Urban Space

“…With the current state of play, this includes (but not limited to) kick-bikes, kick-scooters, e-scooters, bicycles, e-bikes, skateboards, hoverboards, segways, electric wheelchairs/rollators, and electric unicycles. Shared as well as privately owned micromobility offers many promises to help solve a range of policy goals -including flexible, affordable, inclusive and accessible mobility; local and greenhouse gas emission reductions; congestion relief including on-board crowding relief for public transport; complementation of public transport services to increase their catchment area; health benefits; cost efficiency; and space efficiency (Ydersbond et al, 2020;Voi, 2021;Reardon, 2020;Ziedan et al, 2021;Luo et al, 2021;Fyhri et al, 2017;Yan et al, 2021;ITF, 2020b). As this Special Issue shall substantiate, and in line with some of the references cited, the achievement of such promises cannot be taken for granted.…”

“…While such visual intrusion in itself is problematic, it threatens the safety and accessibility of others-in particular those with various forms of mobility and sight impairments. On the positive side, dockless schemes tend to serve challenged and low-income communities better than their docked counterparts and thereby improve equity (Meng et al, 2021;Yan et al, 2021).…”