论文标题
微型操作系统的空间平等：华盛顿特区共享电子示波器和基于车站的自行车的比较
Spatial Equity of Micromobility Systems: A Comparison of Shared E-scooters and Station-based Bikeshare in Washington DC
论文作者
论文摘要
近年来，世界上许多城市都引入了无码头的微型旅行服务，并见证了它们的快速增长。共享的无码头电子示波器有可能使无法获得基于车站的自行车服务的社区受益，但它们也可能加剧现有的空间差异。尽管一些研究检查了基于车站的自行车系统的权益，但有关Dockless E-Scooter Services的知识有限。这项研究使用华盛顿特区作为一个案例研究，这是一个具有码头无电子式驾驶室和基于车站的自行车系统的城市，以对两种类型的微型运动选项进行公平分析。我们开发了一个分析框架，以研究跨不同社会经济类别的社区之间的一组与股权相关的结果（即可用性，可访问性，用法和空闲时间）在一组与股权相关的结果（即可用性，可访问性，使用时间和空闲时间）上有何不同。结果表明，码头的电子示波器服务增加了对处境不利的社区共享微型驾驶选项的可访问性，但也扩大了整个社区的访问差距。与Bikeshare相比，由于供应量更大，共享的电子示波器总体上具有更高水平的空间可访问性。但是，更大的供应在很大程度上导致了共享电子示波器的平均空闲时间更长，而不是更多的旅行。最后，看来Bikeshare System的权益计划有效地促进了低收入的使用，但电子诉讼的权益计划却没有。我们的发现表明，仅增加车辆供应可能不会导致处境不利的社区使用微型速度。取而代之的是，政策制定者应将各种策略结合在一起，例如促进股权计划的入学率，并将访问障碍（例如智能手机和银行要求）与微型企业服务相结合。
Many cities around the world have introduced dockless micromobility services in recent years and witnessed their rapid growth. Shared dockless e-scooters have the potential to benefit neighborhoods that lack access to station-based bikeshare services, but they may also exacerbate the existing spatial disparities. While some studies have examined the equity of station-based bikeshare systems, limited knowledge is available regarding dockless e-scooter services. This study uses Washington DC as a case study, a city with both dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare systems, to conduct equity analysis of the two types of micromobility options. We develop an analytical framework to examine how dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare differ on a set of equity-related outcomes (i.e., availability, accessibility, usage, and idle time) across neighborhoods of different socioeconomic categories. Results reveal that dockless e-scooter services increase accessibility to shared micromobility options for disadvantaged neighborhoods but also widen the access gap across neighborhoods. Compared to bikeshare, shared e-scooters have a higher level of spatial accessibility overall due to greater supply; however, the greater supply largely leads to longer average idle time of shared e-scooters rather than a greater number of trips. Finally, it appears that the bikeshare system's equity program effectively promotes low-income use but e-scooters' equity programs do not. Our findings suggest that increasing vehicle supply alone would probably not lead to higher micromobility use in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Instead, policymakers should combine a variety of strategies such as promoting the enrollment of equity programs and reducing access barriers (e.g., smartphone and banking requirements) to micromobility services.
