Researchers Jennifer Dill, Jiahui Ma, Nathan McNeil, Joseph Broach and John MacArthur of Portland State University have published a new article in the November 2022 issue of Transportation Part D: Transport and Environment. The open-access article, "Factors influencing bike share among underserved populations: Evidence from three U.S. cities," examines bike share use and interest among lower-income residents and people of color in New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

There is evidence that lower-income and people of color (POC) in the U.S. do not use bike share as much as higher-income and white people. Using data from residents living near bike share stations in New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, the paper examines reasons for these disparities. Researchers looked at many factors that might explain bike share use and interest in lower-income, racially diverse, traditionally underserved neighborhoods. They focused on residents who live near bike share stations, so that proximity would not be a barrier.

A few key findings:

1. People who are not members, but are interested in using bike share, including POC, are motivated to use bike share for fun, recreation, and social reasons (as opposed to utility).
2. Knowledge of bike share and receiving information from interactive sources (for example, bike share ambassadors) are associated with bike share use.
3. Cost is a barrier for people who are interested in using bike share, but are not members. Discounted memberships are one solution, but survey results indicate that many people do know know about them.

Some reasons for not using bike share among people of color and lower-income people may also be related to reasons for not bicycling, generally. These include concerns about traffic safety as well as personal safety.

Some of the barriers to bike share reported by low-income respondents of color in a 2017 survey

This paper is an analysis of data collected in a "Breaking Barriers to Bike Share" project funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) and the Better Bike Share Partnership (BBSP). Read more about the original study and explore some of the products to come out of this research, including a set of ten bike share equity briefs to help operators establish equity programs based on what's been shown to work.

Portland State University's Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) is home to the U.S. DOT funded National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), PORTAL, BikePed Portal and other transportation grants and programs. We produce impactful research and tools for transportation decision makers, expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engage students and professionals through education and participation in research.

Researchers Rob Hemphill, John MacArthur, Jennifer Dill and Philip Longenecker of Portland State University; Garima Desai of the University of California, Santa Cruz; Lillie Nie of the University of Southern California; and Abbey Ibarra of California State Polytechnic University-Pomona have published an article in the August 2022 issue of the Journal of Transport and Land Use.

The article, "Congested sidewalks: The effects of the built environment on e-scooter parking compliance," offers recommendations for policymakers and future research around the impacts of the built environment on electric scooter (e-scooter) parking.

With the proliferation of e-scooters in cities across the world, concerns have arisen about users parking them on sidewalks and in other public spaces. Research has looked at e-scooter parking compliance and compared compliance to other mobility devices, but until now, research had not yet examined the impacts of the built environment on parking compliance. Using a field observation dataset in Portland, Oregon, and novel GIS data, the authors attempt to understand the spatial distribution of e-scooter parking and the impact of built features on parking compliance.

The results of the study show that 76% of e-scooters observed fail at least one of Portland’s parking compliance requirements and 59% fail at least two criteria. However, compliance varies spatially and by violation type, indicating that parking compliance (or non-compliance) is dependent on features of the built environment. In particular:

• Parking compliance is significantly higher on blocks with designated e-scooter parking than blocks without designated e-scooter parking.
• A statistically significant relationship is observed between the amount of legally parkable area on a city block and parking compliance.
• Parking compliance increases with larger percentages of legally parkable area. 

These findings can help policymakers prioritize dedicated e-scooter parking for blocks with limited legally parkable area.

Three of the paper's co-authors (Ibarra, Desai and Nie) were past fellows in the Transportation Undergraduate Research Fellowship (TURF) program at Portland State University.

Portland State University's Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) is home to the U.S. DOT funded National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), PORTAL, BikePed Portal and other transportation grants and programs. We produce impactful research and tools for transportation decision makers, expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engage students and professionals through education and participation in research.

Low-income residents, immigrants, seniors, and people with disabilities – these are people who stand to gain the most from new tools and services that reduce transportation costs and travel time. However, issues of affordability, technology adoption, banking access or other barriers can limit access to these new mobility opportunities.

In the latest report funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), New Mobility For All: Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Residents of Affordable Housing in Portland, OR, Portland State University researchers Nathan McNeil, John MacArthur and Huijun Tan worked with the City of Portland’s Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to evaluate a local pilot program: the Transportation Wallet for Residents of Affordable Housing. This program provides a set of transportation incentives for low-income participants, including:

• a $308 pre-paid US Bank Visa card which could be applied to public transit or other transportation services,
• a free BIKETOWN bike share membership, and
• access to discounted rates on several services.

Researchers surveyed the program’s participants to understand how they used the Transportation Wallet and how it helped them use different modes to get around Portland, OR. The goal was to identify which aspects of "new mobility" services (e.g. Uber/Lyft, bike share and e-scooters) appeal to different underserved groups. Drawing on the survey results, the researchers developed potential strategies to expand the reach and value of these transportation services, and consider how to implement more programs to realize these benefits. 

"The research highlights a specific group of individuals and families who are historically underserved, who often have limited access to services and jobs, and lack mobility options. The Transportation Wallet program is an innovative approach to address their mobility needs. This research focuses on evaluating the pilot program, but there is still so much to learn and understand how cities, transit agencies and mobility providers can assist the people living in affordable housing communities," MacArthur said.

The research team shared insights from the findings in a February 2021 paper in Transportation Research Record: "Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents."

HOW DID PEOPLE USE THE WALLET?

"The Transportation Wallet provided funds for participants to use on transportation services, but it didn't prescribe specifically how they should use it. We ended up seeing a real variety. Some used it exclusively for public transit for daily needs, others for the occasional Uber or Lyft trip, and some people explored new services like our shared e-bike system or e-scooters. We also heard from a lot of participants that the program made them feel more independent in terms of being able to get around the city, as well as having less stress about if they or their children would be able to get home in the event of a missed bus or ride," McNeil said.

The research team found some key findings on how the Transportation Wallet was used:

• A majority of the low-income participants were already users of TriMet –Portland’s public transit agency. Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they tried to use new modes that they never used before with the Transportation Wallet, which was correlated with increased sign-ups and usage of ride-hail, e-scooter and bike share services.
• Participants appeared to use each mode more than they would have otherwise.
• The flexibility and convenience of the program were highlighted in survey comments by participants. Responses also indicate that the program reduced stress related to how people might meet their basic travel needs or get around in the case of unexpected or emergency travel needs, all while reducing financial stress as well.
• Although TriMet and ride-hail were the most used among the available services, it is still notable that 28% to 29% of participants signed up for e-scooter and bike share services, even if many did not proceed to use them. This highlights the potential of such a program, but also speaks to the need for programs to engage further in helping transition people from signing up for a service to actually using that service.

IMPLEMENTING A SIMILAR PROGRAM

RECRUITING PARTICIPANTS AT TRANSPORTATION FAIRS

"For anyone providing this type of service, keep in mind the value of Transportation Fairs. Attendees at these in-person events were much more likely to sign up for services, including discounted TriMet fares. Hosting the fairs near people’s homes was seen as very important by both the people we surveyed and the partner housing agencies," McNeil said.

To the extent possible, researchers recommend that participants should leave the Transportation Fairs "ready to walk out the door and start using the Transportation Wallet." Having activated cards to distribute at the fair (or providing credit to participants through a mobile app) could help to encourage program participation generally, and help in further promoting some of the services that participants may not have previously tried.

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

Input from participants suggests that several aspects of the Transportation Wallet can be improved:

• Improve the way information about the program and new mobility usage is conveyed, specifically for those who never use phone apps to travel around.
• Explore participants’ experiences when using different services. For instance, safety concerns about bike share and e-scooter share services and age-related barriers (e.g., physical ability) was a challenge. This is consistent with previous studies about safety concerns as a barrier for using new mobility. Transportation agencies may be limited in their promotion of these modes without further strategies to address the different perceptual and objective barriers.
• Address problems through an enhanced level of ongoing assistance. This could include help with activating their Transportation Wallet cards, transferring funds into their service accounts, and navigating the challenge of prepaid cards which were sometimes not an acceptable form of payment. This type of further assistance could also help to address the gap between the number of people who sign up for various services and those who actually use those services.
• Increased opportunities to actually test out services (use the apps, ride the e-scooters and bike share bikes). Some participants could benefit from lessons and practice in using e-scooters, bikes, ride-hail, and transit. Having tried it once in a supportive environment could be all it takes to give someone the confidence to use a new mode going forward.

Cities interested in implementing similar transportation programs can use the insights from this report on the Portland pilot study. Overall, the message from the Transportation Wallet program is one of empowerment: it did make it easier for many transportation-disadvantaged participants to get around, and gave them a new freedom of choice between different modes they hadn't explored before. For those who want to replicate this experiment, this report offers detailed guidance and a positive model to build upon.

ABOUT THE PROJECT

New Mobility For All: Can Targeted Information And Incentives Help Underserved Communities Realize The Potential Of Emerging Mobility Options?

Nathan McNeil and John MacArthur, Portland State University

• Download the Final Report (PDF)
• Download the Project Brief (PDF)
• Watch a recording of the April 2021 Transportation Seminar
• Read the February 2021 journal article, Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents

This research was funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, with additional support from Metro, the Portland Bureau of Transportation, and Portland State University.

RELATED RESEARCH

To learn more about this and other NITC research, sign up for our monthly research newsletter.

• National Scan of Bike Share Equity Programs
• The Impact of Ride Hail Services on the Accessibility of Nonprofit Services
• Applying an Equity Lens to Automated Payment Solutions for Public Transportation

Photo by Cait McCusker

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) is one of seven U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation centers. NITC is a program of the Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. This PSU-led research partnership also includes the Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Oregon, University of Texas at Arlington and University of Utah. We pursue our theme — improving mobility of people and goods to build strong communities — through research, education and technology transfer.

In June 2019, the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) launched a new incentive package aimed at making transportation more accessible for low-income households. In the "Transportation Wallet for Residents of Affordable Housing" pilot program, people living in affordable housing developments received access to free transportation options like transit passes, bike or scooter share memberships, rideshare and carshare credits.

Portland State University researchers evaluated the pilot program to find out how participants used the Transportation Wallet and how it helped them use different transport modes to get around.

A February 2021 paper in Transportation Research Record by Huijun Tan, Nathan McNeil, John MacArthur and Kelly Rodgers presents insights into the implementation and effectiveness of a transportation financial incentive program for low-income populations. Access the paper: "Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents."

Main findings include:

1. The financial support of this program encouraged some participants to use new mobility services (including Uber/Lyft, bike share, and e-scooter) that they had never used before.
2. The program increased access for participants, helping them make more trips and, for some, get to places they otherwise could not have gone.
3. Transportation fairs, where participants could learn about services and talk to providers, promoted both mode sign-up and mode usage, particularly for new mobility services and a reduced fare transit program.

The article is part of a larger research effort underway, funded by the National Institute for Transportation & Communities, Metro, and PBOT: "New Mobility For All: Can Targeted Information And Incentives Help Underserved Communities Realize The Potential Of Emerging Mobility Options?" This project explores underserved communities' access to new mobility programs such as ride-hailing, car-sharing, and micromobility. Researchers surveyed participants of PBOT's Transportation Wallet pilot, as well as a program of Oregon Metro designed to provide personalized transportation planning services (trip planning, education, outreach) in combination with free ride or drive credits from ride-hail and car share services to help connect residents to travel opportunities. An update on the project will be given in an upcoming Friday Transportation Seminar:

Friday, April 16, 2021: Friday Transportation Seminar: Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents. 

In the seminar, Huiun Tan, Nathan McNeil and John MacArthur of PSU along with Roshin Kurian of PBOT will share findings from their survey of participants in PBOT's pilot program, and draw connections to how a transportation demand management program like the Wallet could be implemented to provide incentives and financial benefits to low-income populations.

ABOUT THE RESEARCH

New Mobility For All: Can Targeted Information And Incentives Help Underserved Communities Realize The Potential Of Emerging Mobility Options?

Nathan McNeil and John MacArthur, Portland State University

• Read the Transportation Research Record journal article
• Register for the April 16 Seminar

Photo by Cait McCusker

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University is home to the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), and other transportation programs. TREC produces research and tools for transportation decision makers, develops K-12 curriculum to expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engages students and professionals through education.

A new paper in the Journal of Planning Literature by Michael McQueen, Gabriella Abou-Zeid, John MacArthur and Kelly Clifton of PSU took a look at micromobility. The article focuses on the role of new modes like shared e-scooters in the efforts to cultivate a more sustainable transportation system by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing a reliable and equitable transportation service, and enhancing the human experience. Their review of the literature shows that the sustainability impacts of these modes are at present mixed, and are likely to remain so without more targeted interventions by local stakeholders. Yet, the operations and use of micromobility systems are quickly evolving and hold promise for contributing to a more sustainable transportation system.

Read the online journal article, or access the free author version (PDF) here.

A review of equity and vehicle sharing, by Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil of PSU, appears this month in a special issue of the Journal of Planning Literature (click here for access to a free author's edition). They investigated whether shared vehicle systems – carsharing, bikesharing, and e-scooter sharing – are equitable. Overall, they did not find much evidence that they are improving accessibility for disadvantaged populations. Equity programs in carsharing are notably understudied. Given that many cities lack safe bicycle infrastructure and trip distances can be long, there may be more immediate potential for improving accessibility through carsharing. The benefits of access to a vehicle for low income people are well documented.

Read Dr. Dill's blog here.

Photo by Cait McCusker

Comparing the Promise and Reality of E-Scooters: A Critical Assessment of Equity Improvements and Mode-Shift

Michael McQueen, Portland State University

Is shared micromobility the ideal first/last mile supplement to transit? Can electric scooters make it easier for historically disadvantaged populations to get around? In just three years, brand-new fleets of e-scooters have substantially disrupted and altered the urban mobility landscape. For proponents, it's tempting to view them as a new answer to old problems. A just-released study finds however, that while there is potential for improved mobility if they are paired with other interventions, the shiny rows of e-scooters parked around cities aren't a catchall solution for our longstanding issues.

Portland State University (PSU) graduate Michael McQueen surveyed nearly 2,000 PSU students in his masters thesis, "Comparing the Promise and Reality of E-Scooters: A Critical Assessment of Equity Improvements and Mode-Shift," to learn about their travel behaviors, preferences and barriers to using e-scooters. 

WHAT DOES A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS REVEAL ABOUT E-SCOOTER USAGE IN THE CITY?

PSU students offer an easily-accessible large population with the shared experience of frequently traveling to a specific urban location–the PSU campus in downtown Portland. The survey sample closely represented the university’s full student population by racial makeup. The sample was more racially diverse than the Portland metro area and it captured twice as many female respondents as male respondents, which resulted in models that contained smaller margins of error for racial minority and female coefficients. This is critical to understanding the equity impacts. Given the university setting, it was largely skewed towards younger and lower-income respondents. The upside is that this demographic is typically considered more progressive in their transportation choices, which renders McQueen’s findings about their use and perceptions of non-car modes as conservative when compared to the Portland metro area as a whole. 

Students were asked how they currently use and perceive e-scooters, and which mode they would choose (between a car, bike, or e-scooter + light rail combination) to get to PSU in a stated choice experiment. Respondents chose their preferred mode in several hypothetical scenarios where the travel times and costs varied. McQueen then developed a model from the experiment which controlled for travel time, cost, sociodemographics, health, travel behavior, and latent attitudes towards the travel modes. 

PRIMARY FINDINGS: WHAT INFLUENCES MODE CHOICE?

The statistical model revealed that e-scooters in combination with MAX light rail were not regarded as the most preferred mode for getting to campus anywhere in the metro region, given current pricing and travel times. McQueen concluded that cities should not depend on e-scooters as a de facto first-mile/last-mile solution without targeted management interventions. 

So which factors influenced mode choice for traveling to PSU? Some findings that stood out:

• Car "friction" (increased drive time and parking cost) positively influenced choosing e-scooter + MAX (Portland's light rail transit system).

• E-scooter and MAX "friction" (increased walk time to e-scooter, e-scooter ride time, e-scooter cost, and MAX ride time) negatively influenced choosing e-scooter + MAX.

• Black respondents were 45% less likely to choose e-scooter + MAX compared to white respondents.

• Female respondents were 27% less likely to choose e-scooter + MAX compared to male respondents.

• More entrenched drivers were less likely to choose e-scooter + MAX (both those who took more car trips and those who felt more positively about cars).

• Those who already perceived bikes, e-scooters and MAX more positively were more likely to choose e-scooter + MAX.

McQueen applied the model spatially to Portland, to understand catchment areas where the average respondent would prefer which mode given realistic travel times and prices. The below maps illustrate the catchment areas. In these maps, the color indicates the most likely mode choice at that location, and the intensity of the color indicates the probability that it would be chosen among the three modes. 

Test: Current Conditions

Currently, there is no place in the metro area where using e-scooter + MAX is the most preferable mode choice, on average (note there is no yellow): 

Test: Free E-Scooters

Making e-scooters free does not make e-scooters + MAX preferable anywhere new (note there is still no yellow): 

Test: Several Targeted Management Interventions

Combining several interventions (in this example: increased parking cost, free e-scooter rides, and PR for MAX and e-scooters) could have the desired effect of encouraging more students to choose e-scooter + light rail transit to get to campus. Note this approach results in e-scooter + MAX being the preferred choice in a large area (lots of yellow):

BARRIERS TO RIDING E-SCOOTERS

At the time of the survey (the week of Mar 2, 2020), only 6% of the nearly 2,000 respondents had taken at least one e-scooter ride in the previous 7 days. They were asked about barriers that prevented them from riding e-scooters more frequently: 

• 52% have never tried riding an e-scooter before 

• 49% don't feel comfortable riding in traffic 

• 45% don't want to ride when the weather is bad 

• 39% can't count on an e-scooter being around when they need it 

• 35% can't afford to ride an e-scooter regularly 

• 21% not enough dedicated lanes

A significantly larger portion of women than men cited e-scooter inexperience, discomfort riding in traffic, and bad weather as barriers. The model did not reveal any significant difference among race/ethnicities for citing these barriers. 

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The results of this research can offer the following general guidance for practitioners: 

• Transportation professionals should not depend on e-scooters to be used as a first-mile/last-mile solution without targeted management interventions. 

• One possible solution is to limit e-scooter service exclusively to the suburbs, as these are the first areas where e-scooter + MAX begins to become the most preferable mode once parking cost increases. 

• We need to rethink how we encourage equity in transportation, as e-scooters do not inherently bring about greater racial or gender equity. 

• Consider that policies that help make e-scooters + MAX more preferable also encourage more bike use (increased parking cost, for example).

MORE ABOUT THE RESEARCHER 

Michael McQueen graduated from PSU in summer 2020 with a masters of civil and environmental engineering degree. During the course of his masters program he has been selected as a YPT Streetlight Fellow, a two-time Eisenhower Fellow, and a National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) Scholar. He has served as a graduate research assistant on several TREC research projects, including a set of white papers about e-bike potential, an exploration of e-bike travel behavior, a project on "Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Methodology of Benchmarking Transportation System Performance" for the City of Portland, and a study on trip generation at multifamily housing. 

Mike was instrumental in the development of an innovative electric vehicle cost and impact tool, launched in June 2020. He was lead author on the October 2020 paper "The E-Bike Potential: Estimating regional e-bike impacts on greenhouse gas emissions," published in Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. He also contributed to "Transportation Transformation: Is Micromobility Making a Macro Impact on Sustainability?", a literature review led by PSU's Kelly Clifton that has just been accepted to the Journal of Planning Literature. To hear directly from Mike about his research on how e-bike incentives could expand the market, watch a video interview with him, recorded during the 2019 Transportation & Communities Summit.

RELATED RESEARCH

To learn more about this and other TREC research, sign up for our monthly research newsletter.

• Friday Transportation Seminar (PBOT Edition): The Portland E-Scooter Experience

• The E-Bike Potential: How E-Bikes Can Improve Sustainable Transportation

• Can Incentivizing E-bikes Support GHG Goals? Launching the New EV Incentive Cost and Impact Tool

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University is home to the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), and other transportation programs. TREC produces research and tools for transportation decision makers, develops K-12 curriculum to expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engages students and professionals through education.

Photo by Cait McCusker

In our previous posts about Portland, Oregon bike travel and the pandemic from April and May, we observed bridge crossing stagnation and decline across the Hawthorne and Tilikum Crossing bridges during normal commute hours. To expand on these findings, we took a look at how Portland’s bike share system – BIKETOWN – has been impacted by the global pandemic.

Claims of a worldwide boom in bike share usage were reported during the early days of COVID-related closures. However, a few months have gone by and it’s now apparent that these findings were misleading due to limited sample selection. For example, some of the reported US bike share ridership outlooks were based on data collected over a very short period, just a week and a half in early March for Chicago and NYC. In the same article, Seattle and San Francisco were actually shown to have experienced a decrease in bike share ridership. In contrast, the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), using data from March, April, and May, has actually found between a 7% and 60% overall decrease in bike share ridership across several US cities compared to 2019 levels. But what about Portland?

Unfortunately, Portland’s bike share system has not fared much differently from the rest of the country, when compared to the BTS report. Controlling for seasonal ridership trends, we fit a regression curve (R2 = 0.63, which means it accounts for 63% of the variation in the data) to all of BIKETOWN’s pre-COVID trip data, and compared it with the post-COVID closure data we have through the end of August, 2020 (Fig. 1). (Data anomaly: The spike in trips observed mid-2018 were a result of all rides being free during the May Bike to Work Challenge.)

Fig 1.: Daily observed trips since the start of BIKETOWN. Blue curve: seasonally adjusted predicted daily trips. Solid orange: schools closed (Mar 12, 2020). Dashed orange: stay-at-home order issued (Mar 23, 2020)

Looking closer at 2020 (Fig 2.):

Fig 2.: Daily observed trips, 2020 only. Blue curve: seasonally adjusted predicted daily trips. Solid orange: schools closed (Mar 12, 2020). Dashed orange: stay-at-home order issued (Mar 23, 2020)

We found that so far during the pandemic, on average, BIKETOWN ridership is down 72.7% (standard deviation 8.7%) compared to the expected ridership for that day of the year according to our model.

We were also curious to understand how this manifests spatially using rough trip origin and destination coordinates provided by BIKETOWN. We followed a similar method to An et al. (2019) for building the flow maps presented below. These maps show Portland split into census tracts, areas defined by the Census Bureau that contain similar numbers of residents. We arrange the maps to show average trip origins and destinations between and within census tracts, for three-hour intervals for dates before and after the implementation of COVID restrictions. The total average trips per day during the time period is also displayed on each map. First, looking at weekdays (Fig 3 & 4):

Fig 3. Flow maps depicting trip origins and destinations between and within census tracts for the average weekday morning, pre- and post-COVID closures.

Fig 4. Flow maps depicting trip origins and destinations between and within census tracts for the average weekday afternoon, pre- and post-COVID closures.

We notice an unmistakable drop in total trips at all hours of the day - in particular, we see a reduction in trips to and from downtown and between other census tracts during normal commute and happy hours. There is a lesser drop in trips remaining within the downtown census tracts, except during the noon to 3 PM period. Yet, the number of trips that remain within census tracts outside of downtown is similar to pre-COVID times. This tells us that riders are maintaining a similar number of trips to local destinations while reducing the number of longer-distance inter-census tract trips.

Next, let’s look at weekends (Fig 5 & 6):

Fig 5. Flow maps depicting trip origins and destinations between and within census tracts for the average weekend day morning, pre- and post-COVID closures.

Fig 6. Flow maps depicting trip origins and destinations between and within census tracts for the average weekend day evening, pre- and post-COVID closures.

Similar to weekday trips, weekend trips are also down at all hours of the day. This manifests most prominently in inter-census tract and downtown trips. Again, intra-census tract trip levels remain similar to pre-COVID times, except early in the morning and late in the evening.

Interestingly, there appear to be more trips occuring in a few new north and east census tracts compared to pre-COVID times, but this could be showing up due to added system area coverage since the initial launch of BIKETOWN. (Read more about BIKETOWN’s system area expansions in their blog posts from June 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018.) Since these areas were not originally part of the system for several years, the census tracts around the edges of the current system area have artificially lower pre-COVID average trips.

To better contextualize these results, we hope to compare Portland’s bike share trends with those in other cities soon. Additionally, it will be interesting to track how BIKETOWN ridership behavior changes as the new electrified fleet rolls out this month. Stay tuned!

LEARN MORE about Portland State University research on bike share and e-bikes.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michael McQueen

Graduate Research Assistant

Mike McQueen is a second year master's student working with John MacArthur of TREC and Kelly Clifton of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Currently Mike is researching e-bike travel behavior and micromobility as an Eisenhower Fellow. In the past he has studied e-bike purchase incentive programs, potential positive environmental impact of e-bikes in Portland, BIKETOWN, and the demographics of zero car households.

 
Tammy Lee, Ph.D.

Transportation Data Program Administrator

Tammy is working on a variety of projects for TREC, including documentation, data synthesis, analysis, and visualization supporting ongoing work with PORTAL and Bike-Ped Portal. Prior to joining TREC, she worked as a data scientist for a political digital media consulting firm.

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University is home to the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), and other transportation programs. TREC produces research and tools for transportation decision makers, develops K-12 curriculum to expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engages students and professionals through education. For resources and tools for remote teaching during the quarantine period, check out our TREC and COVID-19 resource page.

National Scan of Bike Share Equity Programs

John MacArthur, Nathan McNeil and Joseph Broach, Portland State University

• Download the ten technical briefs (PDF)
• Register for the September 16, 2020 webinar

Last year, Portland State University’s Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) released a 130 page evaluation comparing equity-oriented programs from over 70 U.S. bike share systems across the U.S. Bike share being a relative newcomer to the transportation system, the research team was not surprised to find that approaches to equity programs ranged widely. In the latest installment, funded by the Better Bike Share Partnership and the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, the research team synthesized these findings into a series of ten 2-page briefs highlighting best practices and lessons learned in bike share equity policies, data collection, metrics, marketing, and more.

• Learn more in a free webinar September 16, 2020: A National Scan of Bike Share Equity Programs: Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Lead researcher Nathan McNeil shares further, "We set out to document the current state of equity programming for bike share systems in the U.S., and in the process create a road map for cities and operators navigating questions of equity. We wanted to make this information quick and easily accessible for them in these briefs. Important decisions and conversations around equity are happening now, that could have impacts for years to come on bike share systems.”

Across the U.S. there is a nationwide call for centering equity in all industries, and bike share is no exception. As some cities and companies are seeing significant drops in ridership during the global pandemic, it calls into question - can they afford investments in equity programming?

“One of the core questions we need to be asking is whether bike share is meant to serve the community or the companies? Is this a public good and worthy of municipal investment?” asks McNeil. “Bike share systems offer a flexible mobility option for people who stand to gain the most from more options. One of the potential benefits of a bike share system that centers equity along with some form of municipal support is that it can probably be more resilient in riding out the broader economic ups and downs rather than being at the mercy of venture capitalism.” 

Laying the foundation for a bike share program starts with articulating a specific equity policy to establish goals, build in accountability, and provide an opportunity to assess. Asking questions like, “Who currently is excluded from the benefits of bike share?” and “What past injustices and current circumstances necessitate current action?” will shape how operators, agency staff, and partners make decisions as well as who is at the table making those decisions for the community.

The two-page briefs are intended as a resource for bike share professionals and community partners. They highlight key findings and offer simple, effective guidance on how to get the most effective and meaningful results from equity programming.

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University is home to the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), and other transportation programs. TREC produces research and tools for transportation decision makers, develops K-12 curriculum to expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engages students and professionals through education.