Spatial Equity of Micromobility Systems: A Comparison of Shared E-scooters and Station-based Bikeshare in Washington DC

TL;DR

This study compares the spatial equity of dockless e-scooters and station-based bikeshare in Washington DC, revealing differences in accessibility, usage, and equity program effectiveness, with implications for policy strategies.

Contribution

It introduces an analytical framework to evaluate equity outcomes of dockless e-scooters versus bikeshare, highlighting their distinct impacts on neighborhood accessibility and usage.

Findings

E-scooters increase overall accessibility but widen access gaps.

E-scooters have longer idle times despite higher supply.

Bikeshare's equity programs effectively promote low-income usage.

Abstract

Many cities around the world have introduced dockless micromobility services in recent years and witnessed their rapid growth. Shared dockless e-scooters have the potential to benefit neighborhoods that lack access to station-based bikeshare services, but they may also exacerbate the existing spatial disparities. While some studies have examined the equity of station-based bikeshare systems, limited knowledge is available regarding dockless e-scooter services. This study uses Washington DC as a case study, a city with both dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare systems, to conduct equity analysis of the two types of micromobility options. We develop an analytical framework to examine how dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare differ on a set of equity-related outcomes (i.e., availability, accessibility, usage, and idle time) across neighborhoods of different socioeconomic categories. Results reveal that dockless e-scooter services increase accessibility to shared micromobility options for disadvantaged neighborhoods but also widen the access gap across neighborhoods. Compared to bikeshare, shared e-scooters have a higher level of spatial accessibility overall due to greater supply; however, the greater supply largely leads to longer average idle time of shared e-scooters rather than a greater number of trips. Finally, it appears that the bikeshare system's equity program effectively promotes low-income use but e-scooters' equity programs do not. Our findings suggest that increasing vehicle supply alone would probably not lead to higher micromobility use in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Instead, policymakers should combine a variety of strategies such as promoting the enrollment of equity programs and reducing access barriers (e.g., smartphone and banking requirements) to micromobility services.