Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-r5qjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T10:21:52.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FACILITATING MICROMOBILITY FOR FIRST AND LAST MILE CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN: A CASE STUDY OF CALIFORNIA BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Beth Ferguson  and
Angela Sanguinetti
Beth Ferguson*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Angela Sanguinetti
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
*
Ferguson, Beth, University of California, Davis, Design, United States of America, bferguson@ucdavis.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Micromobility has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestion, and air pollution, particularly when replacing private vehicle use in conjunction with public transit for first- and last-mile travel. The design of the built environment in and around public transit stations plays a key role in the integration of public transit and micromobility. This research presents a case study of rail stations in the California Bay Area, which are in the operation zone of seven shared micromobility operators. Nineteen stations and their surroundings were surveyed to inventory design features that could enable or constrain use of micromobility for first- and last-mile access. Shared mobility service characteristics, crime records, and connections to underserved communities were also documented. Key design solutions were identified based on the findings, including protected bike lanes, increased shared bike and scooter fleet size and service area, and clear signage indicating parking corral and docking points.

Keywords

MicromobilityUrban DesignSocietal consequencesSocial responsibilityEcodesign

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1577 - 1586
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bachand-Marleau, J., Lee, B.H. and El-Geneidy, A.M. (2012), “Better understanding of factors influencing likelihood of using shared bicycle systems and frequency of use”, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2314(1), pp. 66–71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2314-09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
City of Oakland (2020), City of Oakland Announces 2021 E-Scooter Service Providers, Safety Improvements to Overall Program [online]. Available at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/city-of-oakland-announces-2021-e-scooter-service-providers-safety-improvements-to-overall-program (April 23, 2021)Google Scholar
Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A.L., Badland, H., Foster, S., Lowe, M., Sallis, J.F., Stevenson, M. and Owen, N. (2016), “City planning and population health: a global challenge”, The Lancet, Vol. 338(10062), pp. 2912–2924. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30066-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallett, W.J. (2018), Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy, Congressional Research Service (No. R45144). Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45144.pdf (April 23, 2021)Google Scholar
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) (2014), Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2nd edition), Island Press, Washington/Covelo/London.Google Scholar
Portland Bureau of Transportation (2018), 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report. Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland. Available at: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/pbot_escooter_report_final.pdf (April 23, 2021)Google Scholar
Shaheen, S. and Chan, N. (2016), “Mobility and the sharing economy: Potential to facilitate the first-and last-mile public transit connections”, Built Environment, Vol. 42(4), pp. 573–588. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.42.4.573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaheen, S. and Cohen, A. (2018), “Is it time for a public transit renaissance?: navigating travel behavior, technology, and business model shifts in a brave new world”, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 21(1), p. 8. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.21.1.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaheen, S.A., Zhang, H., Martin, E. and Guzman, S. (2011), “China's Hangzhou public bicycle: understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bikesharing”, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2247(1), pp. 33–41. https://doi.org/10.3141/2247-05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shared Micromobility. Retrieved from NACTO: https://nacto.org/sharedmicromobilityguidelines/Google Scholar
Zhao, P. (2014), “The impact of the built environment on bicycle commuting: Evidence from Beijing”, Urban Studies, Vol. 51(5), pp.1019–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013494423CrossRefGoogle Scholar