IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v139y2020icp217-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sanders, Rebecca L.
  • Branion-Calles, Michael
  • Nelson, Trisalyn A.

Abstract

E-scooters are rapidly changing transportation in US cities and university campuses. Hailed as a convenient, inexpensive solution for “last mile” and other short trips, e-scooters are available in over 100 US cities and were used for nearly forty million trips in 2018. Yet relatively little is known about e-scooter use, including who uses them, for which types of trips, and the perceived benefits and barriers related to e-scooters. This information is particularly important in light of concerns about safety and the loss of physical activity (PA) due to replacing walking and biking with e-scooting.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:139:y:2020:i:c:p:217-227
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856420306522
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009?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. Sanders, Rebecca L., 2016. "We can all get along: The alignment of driver and bicyclist roadway design preferences in the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 120-133.
    2. Branion-Calles, Michael & Nelson, Trisalyn & Fuller, Daniel & Gauvin, Lise & Winters, Meghan, 2019. "Associations between individual characteristics, availability of bicycle infrastructure, and city-wide safety perceptions of bicycling: A cross-sectional survey of bicyclists in 6 Canadian and U.S. ci," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 229-239.
    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. Wang, Yacan & Douglas, Matthew & Hazen, Benjamin, 2021. "Diffusion of public bicycle systems: Investigating influences of users’ perceived risk and switching intention," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Qiang Liu & Toshiaki Yamada & Hang Liu & Li Lin & Qiaoling Fang, 2022. "Healthy Behavior and Environmental Behavior Correlate with Bicycle Commuting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Bialkova, Svetlana & Ettema, Dick & Dijst, Martin, 2022. "How do design aspects influence the attractiveness of cycling streetscapes: Results of virtual reality experiments in the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 315-331.
    4. von Stülpnagel, Rul & Rintelen, Heiko, 2024. "A matter of space and perspective – Cyclists’, car drivers’, and pedestrians’ assumptions about subjective safety in shared traffic situations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    5. Khashayar Kazemzadeh & Aliaksei Laureshyn & Lena Winslott Hiselius & Enrico Ronchi, 2020. "Expanding the Scope of the Bicycle Level-of-Service Concept: A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-30, April.

    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:eee:transa:v:139:y:2020:i:c:p:217-227. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.