IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v179y2024ics0965856423003506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An E-scooter route assignment framework to improve user safety, comfort and compliance with city rules and regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Zakhem, Myriam
  • Smith-Colin, Janille

Abstract

The rapid expansion of dockless shared micromobility systems, particularly dockless e-scooters, presents major opportunities along with challenges that have led some cities to ban these services within their jurisdiction. The safe reintroduction of dockless shared micromobility services requires support through enhancement of e-scooter service implementation, improvement of rider behavior, and enforcement of rules and regulations. This paper develops the micromobility guidance tool (MGT) that guides a shared micromobility user going from a defined origin to a defined destination to a route that meets multiple criteria, including safety, comfort, and compliance. Thus, this tool emphasizes two network features, the type of infrastructure and the condition of infrastructure. Moreover, the tool locates shared micromobility parking that is closest to a user’s destination and sends alerts to avoid prohibited infrastructure types. For each trip, the proposed tool uses a shortest path routing algorithm to assign its route and the Euclidean distance to assign closest parking. A generalized cost function was developed to estimate the time needed to cross a link while considering e-scooter accessibility, user routing preferences, and ordinance restrictions. The effectiveness of MGT was tested through a case study of tens of thousands of dockless shared e-scooter trips within the City of Dallas, TX. As a validation step, several experiments were carried out to examine the developed tool under various scenarios. Routes generated by MGT were compared to actual routes taken by users and to scenarios corresponding to models previously published in the literature. When compared to actual routes taken by riders, case-study findings showed a notable increase in the use of preferred types of infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, one-way roads, etc.), the use of bike infrastructure (bike lanes and bike trails), and the use of better conditions (i.e., less deficient infrastructure). Additionally, a marked reduction in regulatory violations was exhibited. The methodological approach presented here could be generalized to any city network or shared micromobility system. The proposed tool could be required by cities and adopted by shared micromobility providers seeking to improve rider safety, comfort, and compliance. This tool could be integrated into the provider application guiding the user to micromobility-friendly routes and designated parking, a feature not yet available to micromobility users. Finally, this paper has offered policy recommendations and guidance for practice, where the reintroduction of shared e-scooters is being considered by cities and expansion considered in new markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Zakhem, Myriam & Smith-Colin, Janille, 2024. "An E-scooter route assignment framework to improve user safety, comfort and compliance with city rules and regulations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003506
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423003506
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103930?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. Maximilian Heumann & Tobias Kraschewski & Tim Brauner & Lukas Tilch & Michael H. Breitner, 2021. "A Spatiotemporal Study and Location-Specific Trip Pattern Categorization of Shared E-Scooter Usage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    2. Kevin Krizek & Ahmed El-Geneidy & Kristin Thompson, 2007. "A detailed analysis of how an urban trail system affects cyclists’ travel," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 611-624, September.
    3. Jomehpour Chahar Aman, Javad & Smith-Colin, Janille, 2020. "Transit Deserts: Equity analysis of public transit accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Su, Duan & Wang, Yacan & Yang, Nan & Wang, Xianghong, 2020. "Promoting considerate parking behavior in dockless bike-sharing: An experimental study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 153-165.
    5. 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.
    6. Mooney, Stephen J. & Hosford, Kate & Howe, Bill & Yan, An & Winters, Meghan & Bassok, Alon & Hirsch, Jana A., 2019. "Freedom from the station: Spatial equity in access to dockless bike share," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-96.
    7. Felix Schwinger & Baran Tanriverdi & Matthias Jarke, 2022. "Comparing Micromobility with Public Transportation Trips in a Data-Driven Spatio-Temporal Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-27, July.
    8. Younes, Hannah & Zou, Zhenpeng & Wu, Jiahui & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2020. "Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 308-320.
    9. Owain James & J I Swiderski & John Hicks & Denis Teoman & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Javad J. C. Aman & Myriam Zakhem & Janille Smith-Colin, 2021. "Towards Equity in Micromobility: Spatial Analysis of Access to Bikes and Scooters amongst Disadvantaged Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Yang, Hongtai & Huo, Jinghai & Bao, Yongxing & Li, Xuan & Yang, Linchuan & Cherry, Christopher R., 2021. "Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 23-36.
    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. 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.
    2. Samira Dibaj & Aryan Hosseinzadeh & Miloš N. Mladenović & Robert Kluger, 2021. "Where Have Shared E-Scooters Taken Us So Far? A Review of Mobility Patterns, Usage Frequency, and Personas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.
    3. Maximilian Heumann & Tobias Kraschewski & Tim Brauner & Lukas Tilch & Michael H. Breitner, 2021. "A Spatiotemporal Study and Location-Specific Trip Pattern Categorization of Shared E-Scooter Usage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    4. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    5. Alexandra König & Laura Gebhardt & Kerstin Stark & Julia Schuppan, 2022. "A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Abouelela, Mohamed & Durán-Rodas, David & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2024. "Do we all need shared E-scooters? An accessibility-centered spatial equity evaluation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    7. Krauss, Konstantin & Gnann, Till & Burgert, Tobias & Axhausen, Kay W., 2024. "Faster, greener, scooter? An assessment of shared e-scooter usage based on real-world driving data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Yang, Hongtai & Zheng, Rong & Li, Xuan & Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Linchuan & Zhu, Tong, 2022. "Nonlinear and threshold effects of the built environment on e-scooter sharing ridership," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Javad J. C. Aman & Myriam Zakhem & Janille Smith-Colin, 2021. "Towards Equity in Micromobility: Spatial Analysis of Access to Bikes and Scooters amongst Disadvantaged Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Su, Lin & Yan, Xiang & Zhao, Xilei, 2024. "Spatial equity of micromobility systems: A comparison of shared E-scooters and docked bikeshare in Washington DC," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 25-36.
    12. Kimpton, Anthony & Loginova, Julia & Pojani, Dorina & Bean, Richard & Sigler, Thomas & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2022. "Weather to scoot? How weather shapes shared e-scooter ridership patterns," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Abouelela, Mohamed & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Shiva Pourfalatoun & Jubaer Ahmed & Erika E. Miller, 2023. "Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Jin, Scarlett T. & Sui, Daniel Z., 2024. "Bikesharing and equity: A nationwide study of bikesharing accessibility in the U.S," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Jin, Scarlett T. & Wang, Lei & Sui, Daniel, 2023. "How the built environment affects E-scooter sharing link flows: A machine learning approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    20. Tyndall, Justin, 2022. "Complementarity of dockless mircomobility and rail transit," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    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:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003506. 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.