Micromobility options such as electric bike-share and scooter-share services are a fundamental part of the existing shared mobility landscape. Research has shown that micromobility use can reduce car dependence. This is accomplished through trip-level mode replacement and adjustments in mode-use configurations in daily travel. Understanding the full potential of micromobility services as a car replacement can help cities better plan for the services to meet environmental sustainability goals. Researchers at the University of California, Davis collected GPS-based travel diary data from individual micromobility users from 48 cities in the US and examined their travel behavior and micromobility use patterns. They found that micromobility services can displace car use. To achieve environmental sustainability goals, cities must pursue options that will deliver benefits, such as micromobility services. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.
View the NCST Project Webpage
Open-loop fare payment systems are an emerging technology that allows customers to pay with credit cards, debit cards, smartphone applications, and digital wallets when boarding transit vehicles or entering platform areas. The California Integrated Travel Program (Cal-ITP) aims to foster the implementation of open-loop payments among California’s transit agencies. What do transit agencies have to say about this goal and the challenges it might pose for them and their travelers? Researchers from the University of California, Davis gathered surveys from a small sample of transit agencies (N = 21) and found that agencies are interested in open-loop payments, agencies and passengers would likely support it, but that it also presents challenges for agencies and passengers. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.
Transportation systems provide vital connections to essential destinations including jobs, healthcare services, education, and recreational opportunities. However, people living in rural communities face unique transportation challenges, including greater distances to destinations and few high quality transportation options. Barriers to mobility can lead to transportation burdens, such as high transportation costs or unmet transportation needs—whereby trips cannot be made. These transportation burdens can adversely affect well-being. Differences between rural and nonrural areas in the built environment and population characteristics are well documented and studied. However, little is known about the differences in who experiences transportation burdens in rural versus nonrural areas, the factors that drive these differences, and how to improve mobility and access in rural populations.
Researchers from the University of Vermont analyzed national survey data on transportation burdens. Then, guided by a community advisory board, the researchers interviewed two groups of Vermont residents with limited or no access to a vehicle: 42 people living in small and rural communities and 14 Latin American migrant workers. The interviews focused on transportation experiences and barriers to mobility. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.
Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation poses a significant challenge in rural communities and at the edges of metropolitan areas where rural and urban populations meet, otherwise known as exurban fringe. Populations living in these areas rely more heavily on personal vehicle travel than nonrural populations do and are more likely to have trouble getting to and from important destinations. One approach to curtailing transportation GHG emissions is through land use planning, for example by directing population growth into compact, walkable communities with access to transit. However, nearly all research to date on this topic has focused on urban and suburban areas, leaving decision-makers in exurban and rural communities with little guidance for how to effectively reduce GHGs through changes to land use and development in their communities.
Researchers at the University of Vermont sought to answer the question: is the relationship between travel and the built environment the same in urban and rural areas? They analyzed nationwide data from the United States Federal Highway Administration on nearly 110,000 people and detailed information on land use and development from the United States Environmental Protection Agency Smart Location Database. They determined what aspects of the built environment in different types of locations (urban, rural, etc.) were associated with sustainable travel behaviors such as greater rates of walking and biking, less reliance on automobile travel, and fewer vehicle miles traveled or VMT, which is the number of miles driven in a car. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.
Finding ways to boost transportation access for underserved populations can unlock broad social benefits. Micromobility programs, including bikesharing, offer scalable solutions. National, state, and regional housing and urban development agencies promote affordable housing and transit-accessible developments by funding programs such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Community Development Block Grants. However, these efforts are not always coordinated and the physical distance between affordable housing and transit access continues to grow. The problem is compounded by low car ownership rates in lower income urban communities. These circumstances have led to inequitable mobility access. To correct course, pairing affordable housing developments with reliable transit services is essential. This practice can increase equity and accessibility. A team at the University of California, Davis, conducted a case study in Sacramento, California, to explore bikesharing as an option for connecting affordable housing residents with transit services. This brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides implications for the field.
Micromobility—including bicycles, electric bicycles, and electric scooters—is well-suited to address first- and last-mile connectivity with public transit by bridging the gaps of service for riders. This extends the geographic region where residents are likely to access and exit a transit station, facilitating access to more jobs, services, and recreation. However, public use of micromobility depends on a variety of factors. These include availability of secure parking facilities or other environmental design features at and around public transit stations. UC Davis researchers and urban design experts considered these issues in a case study of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) heavy rail system. The study included environmental audits at 18 BART stations. The study also hosted an online survey of BART and micromobility users and included interviews with government, industry, and community stakeholders. This policy brief summarizes the findings from this study and provides policy implications.
Effective policy tools are urgently needed to enable the United States to keep pace with international climate goals. “Feebates”—fees applied to the purchase of vehicles with higher emissions and rebates for clean ones—have become an effective and increasingly common strategy for shaping vehicle markets in European countries. A holistic policy framework that will accelerate the transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in the US will likely include strong federal policies such as sales mandates, purchase fees for higher emission vehicles, and purchase incentives for ZEVs. Researchers from the University of California, Davis examined what makes a feebate policy work and how this strategy can be leveraged to shift US vehicle markets. The research included a review and analysis of feebate mechanisms in European countries. This policy brief summarizes research findings and provides policy implications.
Senate Bill (SB) 743 (2013) and its related regulations eliminated automobile level of service (LOS) and replaced it with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary transportation impact metric for land development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. Actual implementation of the LOS-to-VMT shift was left up to lead agencies, primarily local governments. The LOS-to-VMT shift was expected to create many challenges, given the often-limited resources of local governments, the entrenched use of LOS, and the perceived lack of established practice regarding VMT estimation, mitigation, and monitoring. With those concerns in mind, researchers at the University of California, Davis investigated how local governments have been implementing the LOS-to-VMT shift for land development projects. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that investigation.
In the United States, mileage fees, or road user charges, are being explored as an alternative to motor fuel taxes, often called “gas taxes.” The search for alternatives is motivated by rising fuel efficiency standards and the increasing number of electric vehicles on the road. These factors have diminished the revenue-generating capacity of gas taxes. While mileage fees are a more stable and fuel-agnostic transportation funding source, they face criticism and low levels of public support due to concerns about costs, protection of drivers’ location and privacy, and perceptions that they would raise taxes on low-income and rural households.
Researchers from the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center used data from over 360,000 Vermont vehicles to assess the financial and equity impacts of replacing the Vermont state gas tax with a revenue-neutral mileage fee of 1.5 cents per mile. The researchers then surveyed 623 car drivers in northern New England and 2,114 drivers around the US, before and after offering them an educational experience about mileage fees. The educational experience included videos and quiz-style questions. It covered reasons for a switch to mileage fees, fairness across income and community types, and a personalized cost comparison between the gas tax and mileage fee, based on each respondent’s vehicle and travel information. This brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides implications for the field.
To reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector, government programs and regulations are encouraging a transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), collectively referred to as plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). California has targets of having 5 million PEVs and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles on the road by 2030, and 100% of new vehicle sales being zero-emission by 2035. An increasing diversity of vehicle types, paired with a growing demand for PEVs, has major implications for vehicle miles traveled (VMT), air pollution, and emissions. To better understand what is likely to happen, researchers predict household vehicle preference and VMT by vehicle body and fuel type. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.
