移动为民:美国共享微型交通项目中的公平要求

Anne Brown , Amanda Howell
{"title":"移动为民:美国共享微型交通项目中的公平要求","authors":"Anne Brown ,&nbsp;Amanda Howell","doi":"10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Shared micromobility services including bikeshare and shared e-scooters have proliferated in the U.S., but barriers continue to limit their use by some travelers. Cities and transportation agencies have attempted to overcome access disparities by establishing equity-oriented policy requirements for shared micromobility programs. Yet no clear picture exists of either their prevalence or specific components. To address this gap, we asked and answered two questions: 1) What equity requirements do shared micromobility programs include? and 2) to what extent are programs monitored and evaluated? We collected policy data for 239 shared micromobility programs across the U.S. We focused on equity requirements across three dimensions: process, implementation, and evaluation. We found that 62% of shared micromobility programs had at least one equity requirement, although fewer than half (46%) included more than one, suggesting potential challenges for travelers facing intersectional barriers. Less than one-third of programs (29%) included process-equity requirements for targeted outreach to marginalized or underserved communities. Implementation requirements included smartphone alternative (36% of programs), cash payment compatibility (33%), reduced rates (32%), multilingual services (26%), adaptive vehicles for users with disabilities (5%), and mandated geographic service areas (30%). Finally, while most programs (83%) required data reporting from private companies, far fewer published public-facing evaluation reports (27%) or specified compliance language related to equity (15%). The language and conditions of requirements varied dramatically across programs. Findings reveal implications for transportation policy, including a need for micromobility programs to focus on access and outcomes during program evaluation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100771,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100020"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000111/pdfft?md5=c9b575ec87898ab992ff99847c95934b&pid=1-s2.0-S2950105924000111-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mobility for the people: Equity requirements in US shared micromobility programs\",\"authors\":\"Anne Brown ,&nbsp;Amanda Howell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Shared micromobility services including bikeshare and shared e-scooters have proliferated in the U.S., but barriers continue to limit their use by some travelers. Cities and transportation agencies have attempted to overcome access disparities by establishing equity-oriented policy requirements for shared micromobility programs. Yet no clear picture exists of either their prevalence or specific components. To address this gap, we asked and answered two questions: 1) What equity requirements do shared micromobility programs include? and 2) to what extent are programs monitored and evaluated? We collected policy data for 239 shared micromobility programs across the U.S. We focused on equity requirements across three dimensions: process, implementation, and evaluation. We found that 62% of shared micromobility programs had at least one equity requirement, although fewer than half (46%) included more than one, suggesting potential challenges for travelers facing intersectional barriers. Less than one-third of programs (29%) included process-equity requirements for targeted outreach to marginalized or underserved communities. Implementation requirements included smartphone alternative (36% of programs), cash payment compatibility (33%), reduced rates (32%), multilingual services (26%), adaptive vehicles for users with disabilities (5%), and mandated geographic service areas (30%). Finally, while most programs (83%) required data reporting from private companies, far fewer published public-facing evaluation reports (27%) or specified compliance language related to equity (15%). The language and conditions of requirements varied dramatically across programs. Findings reveal implications for transportation policy, including a need for micromobility programs to focus on access and outcomes during program evaluation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000111/pdfft?md5=c9b575ec87898ab992ff99847c95934b&pid=1-s2.0-S2950105924000111-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

包括共享单车和共享电动滑板车在内的共享微型交通服务在美国如雨后春笋般涌现,但仍有一些障碍限制了一些旅行者的使用。城市和交通机构试图通过为共享微型交通项目制定以公平为导向的政策要求来克服使用上的差异。然而,对于这些项目的普遍性或具体内容,目前还没有清晰的描述。为了弥补这一不足,我们提出并回答了两个问题:1)共享微型交通项目包括哪些公平要求?我们收集了全美 239 个共享微型机动性项目的政策数据,重点关注流程、实施和评估三个方面的公平要求。我们发现,62% 的共享微型交通项目至少有一项公平要求,但只有不到一半(46%)的项目包含一项以上的公平要求,这表明面临交叉障碍的旅行者可能面临挑战。不到三分之一的项目(29%)包含了针对边缘化或服务不足社区的过程公平要求。实施要求包括智能手机替代方案(36% 的项目)、现金支付兼容性(33%)、降低费率(32%)、多语言服务(26%)、残疾用户自适应车辆(5%)以及规定的地理服务区域(30%)。最后,虽然大多数项目(83%)要求私营公司提供数据报告,但发布面向公众的评估报告(27%)或指定与公平相关的合规语言(15%)的项目要少得多。不同项目的要求语言和条件差异巨大。研究结果揭示了对交通政策的影响,包括微型交通项目需要在项目评估过程中重点关注获取途径和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mobility for the people: Equity requirements in US shared micromobility programs

Shared micromobility services including bikeshare and shared e-scooters have proliferated in the U.S., but barriers continue to limit their use by some travelers. Cities and transportation agencies have attempted to overcome access disparities by establishing equity-oriented policy requirements for shared micromobility programs. Yet no clear picture exists of either their prevalence or specific components. To address this gap, we asked and answered two questions: 1) What equity requirements do shared micromobility programs include? and 2) to what extent are programs monitored and evaluated? We collected policy data for 239 shared micromobility programs across the U.S. We focused on equity requirements across three dimensions: process, implementation, and evaluation. We found that 62% of shared micromobility programs had at least one equity requirement, although fewer than half (46%) included more than one, suggesting potential challenges for travelers facing intersectional barriers. Less than one-third of programs (29%) included process-equity requirements for targeted outreach to marginalized or underserved communities. Implementation requirements included smartphone alternative (36% of programs), cash payment compatibility (33%), reduced rates (32%), multilingual services (26%), adaptive vehicles for users with disabilities (5%), and mandated geographic service areas (30%). Finally, while most programs (83%) required data reporting from private companies, far fewer published public-facing evaluation reports (27%) or specified compliance language related to equity (15%). The language and conditions of requirements varied dramatically across programs. Findings reveal implications for transportation policy, including a need for micromobility programs to focus on access and outcomes during program evaluation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Designing an E-Bike City: An automated process for network-wide multimodal road space reallocation Scooting into place: How comfort on different infrastructure types influences shared e-scooter trip making A deep reinforcement learning solution to help reduce the cost in waiting time of securing a traffic light for cyclists Bike users’ route choice behaviour: Expectations from electric bikes versus reality in Greater Helsinki Overtaking on rural roads – Cyclists' and motorists' perspectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1