The effects of micromobility modes on sustainability goals are mixed. A literature review by
McQueen et al [1] defined micromobility modes as “small, lightweight human-powered or electric vehicles operated at low speeds, including docked and dockless e-scooters and bike share systems,” and found mixed results of the modes’ effects across three key sustainability goals – reducing greenhouse gas emissions, equitable and reliable operations, and enhancement of the human experience. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the review concluded that micromobility modes have the potential to decrease emissions when serving as a substitute for automobile trips. One way this can occur is by complementing transit; making it more accessible and convenient and therefore more competitive with automobile trips. However, the review also found that micromobility trips often replace walking or transit trips, thus increasing emissions [2].

Municipalities see a human benefit to offering alternative modes. Research around perceptions of new mobility has found them to be a pleasant experience, especially for electrified mobility, although many of the studies are focused on e-bikes [3], [4]. Additionally, a significant amount of research focuses on the integration of micromobility with public transportation. The body of work related to this topic generally spans four study areas - policy, sustainability, interactions between shared micromobility and public transit, and infrastructure [5]. Improving first/last mile access and network efficiency is also a major focus area [6], [7]. Future research should focus on sustainability through business models analysis, comparing public and private operations and how best to navigate regulatory burdens surrounding the deployment of such services.

References

  1. M. McQueen, G. Abou-Zeid, J. MacArthur, and K. Clifton, “Transportation Transformation: Is Micromobility Making a Macro Impact on Sustainability?,” J. Plan. Lit., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 46–61, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1177/0885412220972696.

  2. C. S. Smith and J. P. Schwieterman, “E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago,” Dec. 2018, Accessed: May 13, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://trid.trb.org/View/1577726

  3. J. MacArthur, M. Harpool, Portland State University, D. Schepke, and C. Cherry, “A North American Survey of Electric Bicycle Owners,” Transportation Research and Education Center, Mar. 2018. doi: 10.15760/trec.197.

  4. A. A. Campbell, C. R. Cherry, M. S. Ryerson, and X. Yang, “Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 67, pp. 399–414, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.004.

  5. C. Cui and Y. Zhang, “Integration of Shared Micromobility into Public Transit: A Systematic Literature Review with Grey Literature,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 3557, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16093557.

  6. L. Liu and H. J. Miller, “Measuring the impacts of dockless micro-mobility services on public transit accessibility,” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., vol. 98, p. 101885, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101885.

  7. F. Barnes, “A Scoot, Skip, and a JUMP Away: Learning from Shared Micromobility Systems in San Francisco,” 2019, doi: 10.17610/T6QP40.

Related Literature Reviews

See Literature Reviews on Micromobility

See Literature Reviews on Transportation Systems Operations

Note: Mobility COE research partners conducted this literature review in Spring of 2024 based on research available at the time. Unless otherwise noted, this content has not been updated to reflect newer research.