Nye værktøjer kan operationalisere egenkapitalen i 239 e-scooter- og cykeldeleprogrammer i hele USA

Fælles mikromobilitetsprogrammer for e-scootere og cykeldele bliver mere almindelige hvert år. Hvordan kan vi sikre os, at de ikke kun bliver brugt for sjov, men at de også bliver prioriteret for dem, der har brug for en hurtig, overkommelig og tilgængelig måde at komme rundt på? Et team af forskere har indsamlet dokumentation om egenkapitalkrav fra 239 fælles mikromobilitetsprogrammer på tværs af USA og samlet alle data i et online dashboard, som byens embedsmænd kan bruge til at finde ud af, hvad andre lignende byer laver. Egenkapitalindsats i én by kan bane vejen for udvidede muligheder i en anden.

At holde fokus på lighed kan gøre denne nye teknologi tilgængelig og overkommelig og kunne forbedre livet for mennesker med handicap, folk med lave indkomster, dem, der ikke har adgang til en smartphone, og dem, der bor i kvarterer uden god adgang til transit. . Ledet af University of Oregon's Anne Brown og Amanda Howell, sammen med Hana Creger fra The Greenlining Institute, tog den seneste rapport fra National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) skridt mod operationalisering af egenkapital i disse programmer:Med andre ord, gør det enkelt for byer, agenturer og mobilitetsudbydere for at sikre, at deres e-scooter- og cykeldele-programmer tjener de samfund, der har mest brug for dem.

"Vores håb er, at virksomheder eller byer, der starter et nyt program, kan bruge dashboardet og finde et specifikt sprog til egenkapitalkrav i andre sammenlignelige byer. Mikromobilitetsvirksomheder går nu til mindre samfund, men deres personale har ofte ikke båndbredden til at studere i dybden, hvad andre steder gør," sagde Brown.

Filtre i dashboardet lader brugeren sortere efter tilstand, bybefolkningsstørrelse og specifikke programkrav. I stedet for at genopfinde hjulet, kan byer, der ønsker at introducere et nyt program eller genoverveje deres eksisterende mikromobilitetstjeneste, hurtigt scanne dashboardet og få detaljerede oplysninger om programmer til nedsat pris, geografisk distribution, adaptive køretøjer, kontantbetalingsmuligheder, smartphone-alternativer, målrettet markedsføring og opsøgende kontakt. og flersprogede tjenester.

Forskerne skabte også et Shared Micromobility Equity Evaluation Tool, som lader aktieprogramledere se deres egenkapitalscore på tre nøgleområder:proces, implementering og evaluering.

Så hvad gør byer for egenkapital lige nu?

Forskere fandt ud af, at krav om egenkapital var almindelige, men langt fra universelle. Af de 239 uddannelser, de studerede, havde 149 af dem (ca. 62 %) krav til egenkapital. Andre byer og agenturer havde sproganbefaling, opmuntring eller angivelse af, at aktiebaserede programelementer var ønskelige, men krævede ikke, at operatørerne implementerede dem.

De mest udbredte egenkapitalkrav, på tværs af både cykelandele og e-scooter-programmer, var dem, der målrettede implementeringsegenkapital som beskrevet i grafikken ovenfor, hvor proces- og evalueringskrav er mindre almindelige. Inden for implementeringslighed inkluderer byer oftest krav relateret til teknologiadgang, såsom krav om smartphone-alternativ adgang (findes i 35 % af programmerne), kontantbetalingsmuligheder (33 %) og en mulighed for reduceret billetpris (32 %) .

Det mindst almindelige krav, der findes i kun 5 % af programmerne, var kravet om at inkludere adaptive køretøjer til personer med handicap.

Egenkapitalkrav viste sig at være mere almindelige blandt e-scooterprogrammer end bikeshare, selvom fælles mikromobilitetsprogrammer (e-scooter plus bikeshare) mest sandsynligt havde krav om egenkapital. De fleste byer og agenturer, der vedtager egenkapitalkrav, fokuserer på at udvide adgangen til fælles mikromobilitetstjenester; fewer evaluate shared micromobility outcomes.

"Unfortunately, there is still a disconnect between goals, implementation, and outcomes. For example, cities want to expand access, so they will have a reduced fare requirement, but then they are not really collecting data to understand utilization of these programs. So, how effective are these programs? This is a question that's still very difficult to answer, because most places are not collecting the data they need to answer those questions," Howell said.

How can cities take micromobility equity further?

Cities and agencies vary greatly in their approach to advancing equity in shared micromobility programs. The research team identified some promising approaches, including:

• Link operational incentives to desired equity outcomes:It helps to ensure that there is a clear arc connecting specific goals with program requirements.
• Dedicate staff time and resources to manage shared micromobility programs:cities with staff dedicated to promoting equity in shared micromobility programs are instrumental in operationalizing robust equity offerings.
• Match each program requirement with targeted data collection:Data are needed to enable assessment of how successfully each requirement is meeting its goals.
• Conduct transparent evaluations:Clear evaluations will help measure progress and identify future paths of improvement or iteration.
• Define program goals and agree on a shared definition of equity:Cities, regardless of the robustness of their city or program-level goals, should bolster the connections between stated micromobility program goals, required equity components, and collected data.
• Move towards a model of community empowerment:By and large, cities and agencies surveyed in this project did not conduct mobility needs assessments prior to launching a shared micromobility program. These assessments help identify and understand unmet needs in the community, and develop solutions in partnership with those community members. An assessment could determine how a micromobility program would fit within the broader context of community priorities—or even if it was a priority. Significant change is needed in how they include community input, by dedicating resources to open-ended mobility needs assessments.

Finally, cities must pair program-specific efforts with broader efforts needed to truly advance equity. Even the most accessible shared micromobility programs cannot compensate for missing infrastructure or unsafe streets. In the words of one service provider the researchers spoke with:operators "can bring data to the table" but they "cannot provide the money or political will to make the big infrastructure changes that are needed." + Udforsk yderligere

Portland State University releases nationwide guidance on bike share equity programs