Comparing Micromobility with Public Transportation Trips in a Data-Driven Spatio-Temporal Analysis

Abstract

Micromobility service systems have recently appeared in urban areas worldwide. Although e-bike and e-scooter services have been operating for some time now, their characteristics have only recently been analyzed in more detail. In particular, the influence on the existing transportation services is not well understood. This study proposes a framework to gather data, infer micromobility trips, deduce their characteristics, and assess their relation to a public transportation network. We validate our approach by comparing it to similar approaches in the literature and applying it to data of over a year from the city of Aachen. We find hints at the recreational role of e-scooters and a larger commuting role for e-bikes. We show that micromobility services in particular are used in situations where public transportation is not a viable alternative, hence often complementing the available services, and competing with public transportation in other areas. This ambivalent relationship between micromobility and public transportation emphasizes the need for appropriate regulations and policies to ensure the sustainability of micromobility services.

A Tale of Two Divvys: The Bicycle Sharing System of Chicago

“…Environmental benefits: Reducing private car dependency is perhaps the most wellestablished environmental benefit associated in the literature on micromobility, but others include how micromobility generally and BSSs specifically promote more efficient and sustainable mobility options [7,47,49,[57][58][59][60], how environmental pollution and road congestion are mitigated [7,49,[61][62][63][64], how greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and thus contribute to carbon neutrality [6,58,65-67], and how environmental consciousness is promoted [6, 49,64,68]. The potential for Divvy to contribute to environmental benefits is best illustrated by the scale of the development of bicycle-related infrastructure in Chicago.…”

The Role of Micromobility in Mobility as a Service in Future Cities

“…It should also be said that technology and the use of electric propulsion has changed the value of the criteria. For example, the increase in distance and speed has been due to the increase in the level of technology and the emergence and expansion of the use of electronic devices (Schwinger et al (2022)). As it is clear from Table 3, 8 criteria have been speci ed for determining micro-mobility, but based on different de nitions, the amount of these criteria is different and there is no consensus in this eld.…”

“…Liao and Correi (2022) state that the impact of each shared e-transportation mode is expected to be in uenced by other e-sharing modes due to their complementarity. Schwinger et al (2022) showed that micromobility services are especially used in situations where public transport is not a good substitute, so they often complement public transport. This ambivalent relationship between micromobility and public transport emphasizes the need for appropriate regulations and policies to ensure the sustainability of micromobility services.…”

Co-evolution of Smart Small Vehicles and Human Spatial Experiences: Case Study on Battery-Sharing Electric Two-Wheelers Experiment

“…An SEV offers an affordable and sustainable transport alternative that can contribute to urban sustainability, ecofriendly landscapes, and the mitigation of traffic congestion. It bridges the flexibility gap between private and public transportation modes, adapting to dynamic changes in demand and mobility preferences [8]. Urban administrators have encouraged the use of SEVs as an effective and a sustainable means of transport, providing a viable substitute for personal car trips [9].…”