Shared micromobility (e.g., e-scooters, bikes, e-bikes) offers moderate-speed, space-efficient, and “carbon-light” mobility, promoting environmental sustainability and healthy travel. While the popularity and use of shared micromobility has grown significantly over the past decade, it represents a small share of total trips in urban areas. To better understand shared micromobility ridership, researchers from across the U.S. and the world have analyzed statistical associations between shared micromobility usage and various explanatory factors, including socio-demographic and -economic attributes, land use and built environment characteristics, surrounding transportation options (e.g., public transit stations), geography (e.g., elevation), and micromobility system characteristics (e.g., station capacity). To understand what these studies collectively mean in terms of expanding shared micromobility usage, we conducted a meta-analysis of 30 empirical studies and then developed robust estimates of factors that encourage ridership across different markets.
Considerable advancements have been made in traffic management strategies to address highway congestion over the past decades; however, the continuous growth of metropolitan regions has impeded such progress. In response, transportation planners have given special attention to integrated corridor management (ICM), an approach that coordinates various traffic control units (e.g., ramp metering) to optimize their operations along the entire freeway. Emerging connected vehicle (CV) technology is expected to substantially benefit ICM, where vehicles can communicate with each other and surrounding roadway infrastructure. The combined potential of ICM strategies and CVs could be even greater if combined with strategies that leverage underutilized infrastructure (specifically park-and-ride facilities) to reduce the total number of vehicles on the roadway.
Economists have long argued in favor of congestion pricing, under which drivers pay a fee or toll to enter roadways during peak times. An increasing number of global cities have adopted or are considering pricing programs. Even so, these regimes remain relatively rare and controversial. One key concern with congestion pricing is fairness. Road pricing can pose a substantial burden for low-income drivers, many of whom have little option to avoid travel during peak times and limited opportunity to choose other modes of travel. Prior research has shown that congestion pricing regimes tend to be regressive in terms of their initial burden, that is, in terms of who ends up paying more to use the roads.1 But, the ultimate effect of a road pricing program depends also on how its revenue is used. Some or all of the revenue from a congestion pricing program can be returned to households, and this can fundamentally change the program’s fairness.
Increasing numbers of people experiencing homelessness in California cities have prompted some transit agencies to address the needs of unhoused people and riders more comprehensively in their service plans. Some of these efforts respond to the presence of transit riders who are visibly homeless and seek shelter on transit vehicles, at transit stops, and on other agency property. Many people experiencing homelessness, however, are also active users of public transit, relying on buses and trains to access services, get to work, visit family, and more. Public transit is especially critical for those working to exit homelessness who do not have access to a personal vehicle.
Curb space has been traditionally designed for private vehicle parking, public transit, and passenger and commercial loading. However, in recent years, a growing number of newservices and activities have increased the demand for limited curb space, including passenger pick-up and drop-off; last-mile delivery (e.g., courier network services, personal delivery devices); electric vehicle (EV) charging; micromobility parking and use (e.g., personally owned and shared bikes and scooters); and carsharing services. The curb serves a variety of functions such as vehicle and device storage (including personally owned and shared vehicles and devices), outdoor dining and retail, greenspace, and other uses. These changes are contributing to a notable shift in how people access and use the curb, and how public agencies plan, prioritize, and manage curbside interactions.
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs, also known as ridehailing and ridesourcing) have expanded across California over the past decade and changed the way people travel. Using a smartphone, travelers can quickly summon a vehicle from almost anywhere and know what the estimated wait time, travel time, and cost will be before stepping into the vehicle. While TNCs are clearly addressing an unmet need for travelers, their growing popularity has raised a number of policy questions, including if TNCs are shifting people away from public transit and other travel modes (e.g., carshare, walking, biking).
Congestion pricing is a vehicle tolling system that imposes fees to drive within a congested area, typically a downtown district. Cities that already have congestion pricing policies in place have been studied extensively. Notable examples are Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, and Gothenburg. These cities have appreciated a range of benefits from congestion pricing, including reductions in peak traffic, vehicle miles traveled, and emissions, as well as increased revenues for transportation investments.
Researchers at the University of California, Davis developed a logistics decision-support tool that facilitates the joint routing of pick-ups and deliveries for cooperating entities to reduce environmental impacts and transport costs. The researchers implemented the tool in several hypothetical case studies to better understand the impact of joint routing and zero-emission vehicle policies on transport companies. The tool quantifies the cost and emissions savings from coordinated operations (pick-up and delivery) by estimating reduced fleet requirements and improved utilization factors. Additionally, the tool can consider the technical specifications (e.g., payload, range) and requirements (e.g., charging/fueling) of zero-emission vehicles.
