literature review of transportation

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature searches and literature reviews for transportation research projects.

• Getting Started
• Where to Search
• Examples of an Annotated Bibliography

Crack and Concrete Deck Sealant Performance

Snow removal at extreme temperatures, development of a concrete maturity test protocol, quality of life: assessment for transportation performance measures.

• Tutorials on Writing Literature Reviews
• Zotero This link opens in a new window
• Data and Data Management Guides This link opens in a new window
• All Transportation Research Guides This link opens in a new window

Excerpted from  Literature Searches and Literature Reviews for Transportation Research Projects: How to Search, Where to Search, and How to Put It All Together: Current Practices .   

Crack and Concrete Deck Sealant Performance Karl Johnson, Arturo Schultz, Catherine French, Jacob Reneson Minnesota Department of Transportation Report No. MN/RC 2009-13, March 2009. http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200913.pdf 

The appendix of this report includes a thorough summary of each study cited in the literature review. The review itself, however, effectively synthesizes this raw information into a more useful form that supports the overall paper’s purpose of defining the current state of the art regarding bridge deck sealants and crack sealers.

The literature review addresses bridge deck sealants and crack sealers in turn. Regarding deck sealants, it defines the two categories of sealants, the four performance measures used to evaluate sealants, and variables that affect performance such as concrete parameters and environmental conditions. The section on crack sealers discusses different types of sealers, their properties and application methods, performance measures, general trends in their effectiveness and variables affecting performance.

While there isn’t a specific “Gaps in Findings” section, this literature review effectively notes these gaps throughout the review, identifying areas for nearly every topic that existing research has not investigated as well as noteworthy limits to specific research projects cited. Of particular note is how the review identifies a shortcoming with a widely used deck sealant evaluation procedure and a suitable method to compensate for it:

It should be noted that the NCHRP Series II procedure, which is commonly used by vendors and state highway agencies to evaluate sealer performance, does not implement abrasion or freeze–thaw exposure to which sealers on bridge decks are frequently subjected. However, in determining the absorption properties of concrete sealers, a test was developed by Alberta Department of Transportation and Utilities which is essentially a modification of the NCHRP 244 procedure that incorporates abrasion (Kottke, 1987). Absorption is measured before and after abrading 0.04 in. off the faces of treated, cubic specimens to measure quantitatively the effect of abrasion on the absorption characteristics of sealers (p. 5).

The report clearly identifies the deck sealants and crack sealers that performed best for each of the performance measures, while noting how differences in test procedures can affect results. This provides useful information to support the report’s overall conclusions and recommendations. 

Snow Removal at Extreme Temperatures Michelle Akin, Jiang Huang, Xianming Shi, David Veneziano, Dan Williams Clear Roads Program, Minnesota Department of Transportation, March 2013. http://www .clearroads.org/downloads/Snow-Removal-Extreme-Temps-Final-Report.pdf

This report is immediately noteworthy for the thoroughness of its literature review in Appendix A, which makes up more than two-thirds of the report: 47 of 72 pages. Moreover, it includes international research and research from fields such as airports where snow-removal practices are different but potentially relevant to the work of state DOTs. The literature review also represents a clear topical organization, first providing an overview of literature available on various deicing chemicals with a focus on their physical properties, and then reviewing various strategies for clearing snow and ice from roads at low temperatures. 

Development of a Concrete Maturity Test Protocol  

W. James Wilde Center for Transportation Research and Implementation, Minnesota State University, Mankato Report No. MN/RC 2013-10, April 2013. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2013/201310.pdf 

Field and laboratory studies were undertaken to evaluate the applicability of the concrete maturity method to establishing criteria for opening portland cement concrete pavements to traffic. The field study included visits to18 paving projects in Minnesota over a 3-year period. At these projects, different sensor types were evaluated. In the laboratory study, 2-in. mortar cubes were tested to develop sensitivity analyses related to the proportions of cementitious materials, water–cementitious materials ratio, and other mix components. The literature review chapter of the report summarizes and discusses the literature regarding (1) the maturity method in general and its use in concrete pavements in particular; (2) supplementary cementing materials; (3) maturity and flexural strength; and (4) various types of sensors for measuring maturity.

Quality of Life: Assessment for Transportation Performance Measures  

Ingrid Schneider, Tian Guo, Sierra Schroeder Minnesota Department of Transportation Report No. MN/RC 2013-05, January 2013. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2013/2013-05.pdf​

This report investigates a topic (the effect of transportation on quality of life) with relatively little published research and none that addresses the topic comprehensively. To provide context for the report, the researchers start with a broader assessment of research into quality of life. This assessment defines key terms relevant to the study as well as methodologies that have been used to measure and predict quality of life, with a number of demographic distinctions.

Connecting the literature to transportation requires something of a patchwork approach, collecting papers that illuminate some specific element of transportation’s effect on quality of life to give as complete a picture as possible. Chapter 2 reports on the limited assessments that have been conducted as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their methodologies, organized by the specific factor investigated. In doing so, the literature review clearly delineates what is known and what is not known about the subject. 

• << Previous: Where to Search
• Next: Tutorials on Writing Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 10:42 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/transportationliteraturereviews

An Open Access Journal

• Open access
• Published: 07 December 2021

A systematic literature review of ride-sharing platforms, user factors and barriers

• Lambros Mitropoulos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6185-1904 1 ,
• Annie Kortsari 1 &
• Georgia Ayfantopoulou 1  

European Transport Research Review volume  13 , Article number:  61 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

32 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Ride-sharing is an innovative on-demand transport service that aims to promote sustainable transport, reduce car utilization, increase vehicle occupancy and public transport ridership. By reviewing ride-sharing studies around the world, this paper aims to map major aspects of ride-sharing, including online platforms, user factors and barriers that affect ride-sharing services, and extract useful insights regarding their successful implementation.

A systematic literature review is conducted on scientific publications in English language. Articles are eligible if they report a study on user factors affecting ride-sharing use and/or barriers preventing ride-sharing implementation; ride-sharing online platforms in these articles are also recorded and are further explored through their official websites. A database is built that organizes articles per author, year and location, summarizes online platform attributes, and groups user factors associated with the likelihood to ride-share.

The review shows that the term “ride-sharing” is used in the literature for both profit and non-profit ride-sharing services. In total, twenty-nine ride-sharing online platforms are recorded and analyzed according to specific characteristics. Sixteen user factors related to the likelihood to ride-share are recorded and grouped into sociodemographic, location and system factors. While location and system factors are found to follow a pattern among studies, mixed findings are recorded on the relationship between sociodemographic factors and ride-sharing. Factors that may hinder the development of ride-sharing systems are grouped into economic, technological, business, behavioral and regulatory barriers.

Opportunities exist to improve the quality of existing ride-sharing services and plan successful new ones. Future research efforts should focus towards studying ride-sharing users' trip purpose (i.e., work, university, shopping, etc.), investigating factors associated to ride-sharing before and after implementation of the service, and perform cross-case studies between cities and countries of the same continent to compare findings.

1 Introduction

Ride-sharing aims to minimize negative impacts related to emissions, reduce travelling costs and congestion [ 20 , 40 ], and increase passenger vehicle occupancy and public transit ridership. During the last decade, innovative mobility solutions were introduced, including on-demand mobility services and Mobility as a Service (MaaS), that focused on daily travel needs to promote sustainable transport [ 20 ].

The literature uses the term “ride-sharing” to describe various mobility sharing concepts. Ride-sharing refers to the common use of a motor vehicle by a driver and one or several passengers, in order to share the costs (non-profit) or to compensate the driver (i.e., paid service) using billing information provided by the participants (for profit). In this study the term is used to describe the common use of a motor vehicle for cost compensation, in the context of a ride, that the driver performs for its own account (referred also as Carpooling); thus, it is not intended to result in any financial gain [ 20 ].

Practical experience shows that ride-sharing trips are usually pre-arranged through matching applications, that allow drivers and passengers to find potential rides. They often include community-based trust mechanisms, such as user-ratings and provide links to social networks to allow prospective sharers to check each other. Ride-sharing has demonstrated limited uptake so far, due to business, economic and technological barriers [ 37 , 38 , 48 , 50 ]. Past ride-sharing studies focused mainly on ride-matching algorithms for ride-sharing optimization [ 2 , 47 , 63 ], dynamic ride-sharing pricing [ 2 , 3 ], and the economic, social, transport, and environmental benefits of ride-sharing [ 19 , 20 , 83 , 95 , 111 ]. Studies on factors affecting ride-sharing use have been increased within the last decade (e.g., [ 11 , 13 , 14 , 23 ]) showing the challenges and diversity of results per case study. A synthesis of information about factors that affect ride-sharing use and implementation barriers, is required to inform interested stakeholders and planners. To the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies that review the user factors and barriers when implementing a ride-sharing service.

The aim of this systematic review is to understand, how successful ride-sharing services could be implemented and operated. This is achieved by recording and synthesizing data for online ride-sharing platforms, factors affecting users to ride-share (i.e., increase and decrease the likelihood to ride-share), and potential implementation barriers. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Sect.  2 outlines the methodological steps of this research and provides details for the publications that were collected and analyzed. Section  3 summarizes literature findings and results. More specifically, authors first review ride-sharing definitions and identify how the term is used in literature. Next, online ride-sharing platforms that were identified in literature are further explored in terms of operation status, starting year, location, and distance of service. User factors that are associated with the likelihood to ride-share are also recorded and presented. The third section synthesizes data from previous sections to discuss implementation barriers for ride-sharing services and make recommendations.

To provide a detailed understanding of ride-sharing it should be noted that users in this study are divided into drivers and passengers. Ride-sharing platforms refer to official providers or companies of ride-sharing services. Other topics, such as ride-sharing financial, economic or business models are not covered herein. Venues for further research are highlighted through the article.

2 Methodology

This research focuses on a state-of-the-art analysis of ride-sharing that constitutes the basis for understanding different aspects, including online platforms and user factors and discusses potential barriers that prevent the successful implementation of ride-sharing systems. To achieve its purpose, the methodological approach builds on the principles of systematic literature review. A systematic review method helps researchers to develop a high-level overview of knowledge on a particular research area [ 22 , 27 , 56 ]. A systematic review means adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent process, in other words a detailed process that minimizes bias, through exhaustive literature searches of published and unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail of the reviewers’ decisions, procedures and conclusions [ 27 ].

The methodology focuses on the content of the publications, the research per se, rather than on their metrics. Although, more information regarding local ride-sharing systems may exist in different languages, we have limited the scope of this study to English-speaking publications, and we focus only on papers published in academic journals and conference proceedings, excluding books, chapters of books, thesis and dissertations. Following Moustaghfir [ 69 ], the methodological approach adopted, comprises of six parts (Fig.  1 ), as follows:

Methodological structure

2.1 Identification of objectives

Adapting the paper’s goal and the steps for performing a systematic literature review, the research questions (RQ) are shaped before starting to perform the review [ 27 ]. These are:

RQ1: Does a universal definition for “ride-sharing” exist in literature, and how is ride-sharing defined?

RQ2: Do ride-sharing online platforms (i.e., in operation and inactive) share common attributes?

RQ3: What factors affect passenger and drivers to use ride-sharing?

RQ4: What prevents ride-sharing systems from being successful?

Based on these four questions—four main objectives were identified as of high relevance to the understanding of ride-sharing services:

Definition of a ride-sharing;

State-of-the-art analysis of ride-sharing online platforms;

Identification of factors affecting current and potential ride-sharing passenger and drivers.

Synthesis and discussion of barriers for implementing a successful ride-sharing system.

2.2 Identification of data sources and databases

The purpose of data collection is to collect the most representing research material and use the most recent information available. This step is composed of three sub-steps: Primary studies, search keywords, search database. Primary studies refer to the identification of relevant studies, to ensure first that the set research questions-objectives are valid, avoid duplication of previous work, and ensure that enough material is available to conduct the analysis. An initial search in “Google Scholars” and “science direct” by using the term “ridesharing” AND “review” resulted to three relevant studies, that review dynamic ride-sharing concept [ 2 ], ridesharing and matching criteria [ 38 ], and a meta-analysis exploring the factors that affect ride-sharing, which included 19 papers in the analysis [ 73 ]; however, none of them includes a review on ride-sharing platforms, user factors and barriers.

As a first step the keywords were identified to enable the conceptualization of the research and helped to target relevant articles. Prior selecting keywords, a shortlist of sharing mobility services was made. The keywords were defined by the authors based on their professional experience. Keywords related to shared mobility definition included: ride-sharing, carpooling, mobility as a service, MaaS, innovative mobility. Car-sharing publications, which refer to short-term auto use [ 20 ], were excluded from this research to focus exclusively on on-demand transport for passengers.

The terms “Ride-hailing” and “on-demand ride” were also excluded, as these two terms returned publications relevant to ride-sharing services that aim to financial gain (e.g., Uber, Lyft, etc.).

In literature, carpooling is a synonym for ride-sharing for non-profit reasons. The keywords ride-sharing and carpooling were constructed into search strings by using other keywords relative to the objectives, such as factors, users, passengers, barriers, constraints, legal-framework, drivers; resulting to strings: ride-sharing factors, ride-sharing users, etc. These search strings were used to conduct searches for all geographical areas. Factors that decrease the likelihood to ride-share and thus prevent ride-sharing implementation may be considered as barriers or constraints. Thus, authors included both terms as separate search terms for performing a complete review and synthesizing results. It should be noted that keywords ride-sharing and carpooling were typed in all possible formats, as these were found in literature: with a dash (–), with a space and as single words. We limited our research to articles published in English language within the last 30 years, from 1990 to 2020. Concurrently, authors and year of publication were also identified to perform a second search based on their names.

The data sources that were used to collect the necessary information and data include published journal and conference papers (Science Direct, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library and Springer). Online platforms that were identified in these data sources, were further explored. The status and attributes of identified ride-sharing online platforms were not disclosed in the scientific manuscripts; therefore, a follow-up desk review conducted by focusing on online official websites and social-media of each provider.

2.3 Selection of publications

The first task was to merge publications and exclude potential duplicates, thesis or dissertations, and publications that were not related to ride-sharing, such as publications focusing on taxi ride-sharing services. All duplicate publications were deleted; the remaining ones were exported to an excel file for screening. Definitions for different and partially overlapping concepts have emerged in publications’ titles, including ride-hailing (commercial, organized by companies), ride-sourcing and ride-pooling (commercial, organized by public institutions) [ 29 , 35 ]. Publications not referring to ride-sharing or carpooling were eliminated by title screening. The second task was to identify if these publications refer to ride-sharing, carpooling or ride-hailing. This was achieved by reviewing each publication’s abstract. Abstract reviewing was performed by authors who are transportation experts. In some cases, the ride-sharing definition that was used in the study was not clear and authors had to review the introduction or/and the methodology of each publication (i.e., text review).

Each publication was recorded according to title, authors, year of publication and location of the study, and then it was reviewed to record specific features (when available) and build the database. These features refered to: (a) Ride-sharing definition, (b) Ride-sharing platforms (i.e., specific ride-sharing online platforms by name), (c) User factors—referring to factors affecting users (i.e., passengers and drivers) to use ride-sharing services, and (d) Barriers—referring to potential barriers and constraints that are faced in the implementation of ride-sharing services.

2.4 Development of tools for data collection

For facilitating the data collection process, a template was developed. The developed template aimed to collect and organize information relative to ride-sharing online platforms, which is provided on the websites and social media of ride-sharing companies or related services, according to the following characteristics:

Name of company/ride-sharing platform

Potential barriers and provided incentives

Country of operation

Company/provider website

Current status of ride-sharing platform (in/not in operation)

Period of operation of the ride-sharing platform

Provision of urban/interurban transport services (i.e., urban trips here are considered within the same city; interurban include all other trip types).

2.5 Analysis

Collected information is analyzed and used as input to support each of the four objectives. Data are tabulated when possible, to support the objectives and are presented in the following sections.

Figure  2 provides the flow diagram of publications included in the review [ 67 ]. The initial combined total number of publications was 363 articles. Following the first screening, 113 publications remained. The second screening identified if these publications refer to ride-sharing, carpooling or ride-hailing by reviewing their abstracts. Three articles that fulfilled the criteria, were not available in a database and thus were eliminated. Following the second screening, 84 publications remained. Following the text review, twenty-eight publications were found to use the term ride-sharing while referring to for-profit ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft (i.e., ride-hailing). Finally, 56 articles met the inclusion criteria for our review.

Number of publications in the review process

The majority of them use the term ride-sharing (n = 32) and carpooling (n = 23). It should be noted that one publication uses both the term ride-sharing and ride-hailing. Almost half of the studies were conducted in the US (n = 25) and one-quarter in EU and the UK (n = 19), with the rest being global (n = 2), in China (n = 4), in Canada (n = 3), in Australia, in New Zealand and in Asia (all n = 1). The majority of the studies focus on user factors (n = 32), while 15 of them discuss barriers related to planning and implementation of ride-sharing, and 18 mention at least one ride-sharing online platform.

2.6 Exploration and synthesis

For each of the four objectives a discussion and synthesis of information is provided in respective sections, as outlined in the introduction.

The results of the literature review are summarized in Table 1 .

3.1 Ride-sharing definition

Table 2 presents a sample of recent publications and ride-sharing definitions. A universally accepted definition for “ride-sharing” does not exist and the term “ride-sharing” is defined based on the context of each study.

Ride-sharing typically includes carpooling and vanpooling [ 20 ], while the term does not necessarily refer to consistent participation in the same ride-share service every day [ 20 ] neither to daily use of the service. Ride-sharing may be used by its passengers as a mode to complete their whole trip (i.e., origin to destination) or to complement public transport, with the focus of further incorporating public transport in the multimodal transport chain. In the latter context, ride-sharing aims to facilitate access for the first/last mile to public transport services, to optimize multimodality and on-demand mobility, thus reducing single-occupant trips, and finally to develop smart urban/rural transport areas. A ride-sharing definition that may be used for non-profit ride-sharing services is proposed according to Code of Virginia US [ 26 ] that defines “Ride-sharing” as the transport of persons in a motor vehicle when such transportation is incidental to the principal purpose of the driver, which is to reach a destination and not to transport persons for profit.

3.2 Ride-sharing platforms

In total 29 ride-sharing online platforms have been identified in the reviewed literature (Table 3 ). The platform recommends a ride fee and passengers decide to accept it or not; from the total fee the provider retain a fixed amount to cover the transaction cost. Although this is the most common practice, in very few occasions (only 2% of the cases), drivers may decide what to charge passengers after reviewing the platform’s recommendation and this occurs for interurban ride-sharing services.

In terms of geographical coverage, ride-sharing platforms operate in US, EU, Asia, and Latin America. Ride-sharing platforms that provide services to more than one of these geographic areas are classified as global. The majority of the ride-sharing platforms were found to operate in EU (48%) with 27% of them being in Italy; a high share compared to the rest of the EU countries, showing the attempts to promote ride-sharing in Italy. US- and Asia-based platforms accounted for 20% and 10% of all platforms, respectively, while 20% operate globally. Although, this geographic classification refers to countries or continents, rarely one service covers the totality of a country as in most cases, services operate in a specific city or several close-by cities.

Urban and interurban platforms cover roughly 42% and 20% of all platforms, respectively, while ride-sharing platforms that cover both urban and interurban trips account for 38% of all. Urban trips here are considered within the same city; interurban include all other trip types. Often, ride-sharing platforms that provide only interurban services provide booking access through a website platform, whereas access through a mobile application is not available. To our understanding this occurs because interurban ride-sharing platforms require low maintenance in terms of administration and matching algorithms. In these cases, drivers publish their trip in advance and passengers review trip details (i.e., trip cost, destination, time of departure, driver profile) and decide to join or not. Therefore, to avoid extra maintenance costs for the service, a mobile application is not available. Several ride-sharing platforms have ceased operations due to low demand; some of them have re-started operation under a different name or/and follow a different business model. Approximately, 62% of the surveyed ride-sharing platforms are currently in operation, whereas 38% have ceased their operation. The vast majority of ride-sharing platforms (93%) have started their operation in 2005 or after, while 62% were found to start operations in or after 2010, which might be explained by the rapid development of mobile applications and spread of smartphones. Smartphone annual sales doubled between 2007 and 2010 (i.e., 122.32 vs. 296.65 million units), and increased by a factor of 4.2 between 2010 and 2014 (i.e., 296.65 vs. 969.72 million units), to reach 1540.66 million sold units in 2019 [ 89 ].

An important aspect, to address safety and security concerns and improve the overall level of services, is users’ feedback, as all of the ride-sharing platforms allow users to provide “feedback” either through the provided platform, through the application, or both. The feedback platform allows users to comment and evaluate the seriousness and reliability of drivers and vice versa. To further increased sense of safety, some platforms provide the option to women to travel only with other women as co-passengers or even drivers (i.e., Avacar).

The procedure to access ride-sharing is the same in all cases: users enter the platform, register and then search for offered trips. Trips can be organized last-minute, however, some platforms (18%) offer the opportunity to pre-plan trips one to two days in advance (e.g., for interurban trips).

The matching mechanisms for 90% of the platforms are destination-based. Drivers, who offer a ride, insert the departure and arrival locations and wait for those looking for the ride to that destination or a location along the way. The passenger consults a list of available to find the one that best meets their needs (i.e., departure, arrival, time, crew members, etc.). Once the passenger selects the path of their interest, they may undertake the necessary agreements (e.g., meeting point, how to recognize themself, etc.). Ride-sharing platforms do not use a sophisticated algorithm with multiple criteria to find the perfect ride-match, opposed to ride-hailing platforms that incorporate more travel and user criteria [ 64 ]. Only one platform (i.e., TwoGo) was found to use an intelligent technology to analyze rides from all users to find the best fit for each user, and factor in real-time traffic data to calculate precise routes and arrival times.

Several incentives are used to promote ride-sharing, such as toll cost reduction [ 6 ], High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in US [ 18 , 43 ], free or discounted parking access in public or private areas [ 51 , 88 ], public transport ticket discounts and collection of points that may be redeemed in companies that collaborate with ride-sharing services [ 8 , 51 ]. For example, Autostrade [ 6 ] carpooling with at least 4 passengers pays 0.50 euros toll, instead of 1.70 euros, from Monday to Friday; or GoCarma [ 43 ] that uses Bluetooth to automatically detect if there are at least 2 people in the car so as to qualify for an HOV toll discount.

3.3 User factors

Several studies in the literature focused on the exploration of users’ factors when using ride-sharing services (Table 1 ). User factors may be associated in a positive or negative way with ride-sharing. In the latter case they may also be considered as barriers to ride-sharing implementation. The literature shows that the strongest identified barriers for ride-sharing users are mainly psychological [ 1 , 52 , 91 ] with the most common ones being personal security, comfort and privacy [ 1 , 52 , 91 ]. This section summarizes these findings and identifies the factors that are associated with the likelihood of ride-sharing for passengers and drivers. The following subsections summarize factors and results for ride-sharing passengers and drivers, and Table 4 summarizes the studies and factors that are associated with the likelihood of ride-sharing.

3.3.1 Ride-sharing passengers

Ride-sharing research on passengers’ behavior tend to refer to identical factors, which can be grouped in various ways; for example, Buliung et al. [ 13 ] classified ride-sharing factors as socio-demographic, spatial, temporal, automobile availability, and attitudinal, whereas Neoh et al. [ 73 ] grouped them into internal (i.e., individual characteristics and reasons to ride-share) and external (i.e., policy measures to facilitate ride-sharing, location-based factors). Our study adapts Neoh et al. [ 73 ] approach with some minor adjustments, and groups factors into sociodemographic, location and system factors. Sociodemographic factors are factors associated with the passenger’s demographic and socioeconomic status, and beliefs such as environmental concerns; location factors refer to spatial characteristics of travelling, such as trip distance and time, and area density. System factors refer to the ride-sharing service environment, such as policies and incentives; system factors may be adjusted by the ride-sharing service provider. The factors per study that are reported in Table 4 were found to be statistically significant.

Several studies (e.g., [ 13 , 14 ]) concluded that socio-demographic characteristics, such as marital status, gender, age and educational level are not significant; whereas behavioral factors are. Other studies, however, concluded that some socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, income and age, are associated to ride-sharing [ 28 ]. Females, younger workers, and those who live with others were found to be more likely to ride-share [ 58 , 73 ]. Delhomme and Gheorghiu [ 31 ] found that women are almost three times more likely to use ride-sharing compared to men, while Lee [ 58 ] concluded that females who are younger than 55 years old are more likely to ride-share than older males. However, Ciari and Axhausen [ 25 ] concluded that female individuals in Switzerland are less attracted to ride-sharing, maybe for security concerns.

Education level was not a significant factor in the majority of the studies, while just a few found that education is related to ride-sharing, and more specifically, users that do not hold a degree are more likely to ride-share [ 58 ]. In terms of marital status, passengers between the ages of 25 and 34 were more likely to make commute trips (96%) versus non-commute trips (80%) by using ride-sharing services, and they were more likely to be single or married without children [ 92 ]. Specifically, a propensity towards ride-sharing is demonstrated among unmarried and divorced commuters.

The user or household income was not associated with increased likelihood to ride-share for the majority of the studies. Monchambert [ 65 ] used discrete mixed logit models to estimate the probability of mode choice and found that the ride-share value of travel time correlates with socio-economic variables. In other words, wealthier individuals seem to be willing to pay more to save travel time. Also, Ciari and Axhausen [ 25 ] concluded that persons with higher income and shorter trips tend to have a higher value of travel time savings, and thus, prefer ride-sharing compared to car, suggesting that it is also preferred to the other available modes.

Recent data, however, from the National Household Travel Survey in the US [ 72 ] indicated that ride-sharing passengers that have generally lower incomes, and minorities (typically Hispanics and African Americans) tend to ride-share more than other racial and ethnic groups [ 83 ]. Similarly, other studies concluded that lower income passengers are more likely to ride-share [ 14 ] or that ride-sharing maintains mobility for low-income passengers [ 4 ]. Ferguson [ 37 ] found that income has only an indirect impact on the choice to ride-share in lower income households, as income influences auto ownership and use. Higher vehicle ownership does not favor the utilization of ride-sharing services [ 37 ]; though, a study in China showed that the ride-sharing adoption rate was similar between households with cars and those without [ 100 ].

A strong relation was found between having ride-sharers among family/friends and colleagues, and engaging in ride-sharing [ 14 , 33 ]. The tendency to adopt ride-sharing services is higher for multi-person households and households having more licensed drivers than vehicles [ 58 ]. The presence of children, elderly persons, or both, in the household is likely to have a negative effect on the adoption and frequency of use.

Findings on sociodemographic factors show that while these may be limited in their effect, when combined with system factors they may reveal a more stable status. As Olsson et al. [ 75 ] stated, other factors become more important for mode choice and are the focus of transport research.

In terms of trip characteristics, commuters who travel longer distances were found to be more willing to use ride-sharing services [ 58 ]. However, the in-vehicle time for public transport services was found to have a marginal impact on passengers’ propensity toward ride-sharing [ 64 ]. Based on transport mode shares for US, Australia, UK and Canada, there is some evidence that in the absence of adequate public transport services, commuters opt for ride-sharing [ 11 , 33 , 42 , 58 , 61 , 104 ]. The purpose of the trip also plays a role, as ride-sharing is more likely to be used for work trips [ 24 , 61 ] and for persons that have a full working or studying day. People who work full time and with flexible schedules are more likely than other workers and non-workers to adopt and frequently use ride-sharing.

Travel cost and travel time are associated with ride-sharing and are two of the main reasons for participating in ride-sharing services [ 14 , 20 , 61 , 73 , 105 ]. Commuters who travel short distances of a mile or two are less interested in dynamic ride-sharing than those who travel further because for short distances, the time required to arrange a ride is excessive [ 30 ]. For student passengers the desire to save on gasoline costs, followed by a preference to do other things during travelling, the reduced stress and travel time savings, increase the likelihood to ride-share [ 92 ].

Although, density employment centers in suburban areas were found to benefit public transit and nonmotorized modes more than ride-sharing [ 37 ], building and population density seem to increase the likelihood of ride-sharing [ 31 , 58 , 73 ].

Using microsimulation, Dubernet et al. [ 34 ] found that behavioral factors are the most limiting factor of ride-sharing; behavioral barriers, attitudes and perceptions were found to affect more the decision to use ride-sharing services than socio-demographics [ 97 ]. Research showed that enjoying travel with others, environmental considerations [ 31 , 42 ] and socializing [ 39 ] affect at a significant level the choice to use ride-sharing services [ 61 ]. Other important factors for ride-sharing include security and trust [ 28 , 48 ].

Several incentives have been provided occasionally to ride-sharing passengers, including reward programs that may provide money or gift cards for ride-sharing, access to green zones, (i.e., commuter rewards programmes that may provide money or gift cards for ride-sharing), etc. Such incentives showed that may attract ride-sharing participants from either single occupancy vehicles and/or public transit [ 28 , 75 , 82 ].

Although, the most prevailing results are summarized in this section, the literature review showed that factors affecting travellers to use ride-sharing services in some cases may differ among studies. For example, “income” is associated negatively [ 4 , 13 , 14 , 82 , 91 ] and positively [ 73 , 103 ] with ride-sharing; “education” is associated negatively [ 58 ] and positively [ 73 ]; and “age” is associated negatively [ 58 , 73 ] and positively [ 91 ]. Similarly, the location factor “area density” is associated negatively [ 4 ] and positively [ 31 , 58 , 73 ] with ride-sharing. Readers are strongly recommended to follow-up the study they are interested in, since different methods and statistics may have been used; thus, resulting to different factor results (i.e., not statistically significant) for specific cases.

3.3.2 Ride-sharing drivers

Ride-sharing users can offer a ride as a driver or request transport as a passenger. Drivers provide ride-sharing services and thus they are considered independent private entities. This approach is different from most traditional forms of passenger transport, where an authority or company owns vehicles and/or employs drivers. If the driver and the passenger agree on the proposed arrangement, the driver picks up the passenger at the agreed time and location.

Several surveys have been conducted to study the passenger’s behavior, however, few of these focused on the driver’s behavior. Respondents with a preference for driving only accounted nearly for 50% [ 13 ]. Approximately, 33% of the respondents stated that they would rather not offer a ride in the evening (18:00–24:00), while more than 52% of passengers stated that they would not accept a ride in the evening (18:00–24:00) [ 28 ]. Drivers indicated that departure time flexibility is the primary reason for driving instead of riding, as the highest share of them (74%) agrees that reducing flexibility is among reasons not offering a ride [ 33 ]. It is worth mentioning that other studies concluded that younger and older people tend to be passengers, while middle-aged people tend to be drivers [ 92 ]. Drivers appear to avoid ride-sharing as passengers as they feel anxious and stressed (usually studied as ‘locus of control’) when delegating the driving task to others [ 73 , 97 ].

For drivers, a passenger’s profile is an important factor. Passengers, whose social network profile appears unattractive, incomplete or has low rating, have a lower chance of finding a ride offer [ 92 ]. Therefore, it becomes essential for potential passengers to have a trustworthy profile, including a picture, profile details, and contact information on a social network (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook or Ride-sharing application). Similarly, the driver’s profile plays the most significant role in one’s decision to accept an offered ride [ 91 ]. This challenge has been largely addressed through the development of increasingly sophisticated ride-matching platforms. Another factor that differs between passengers and drivers is the payment method. Drivers prefer to receive the reimbursement in cash but passengers prefer to pay through a mobile payment platform, revealing drivers’ concerns over the certainty of the reimbursement [ 39 ].

4 Discussion

Following the results of ride-sharing definitions, online platforms and user factors, this section synthesizes findings with barriers identified in literature (Table 1 ). Factors that prevent the successful implementation of ride-sharing services are grouped into economic, business, technological, behavioral and regulatory, to stimulate a discussion for implementing successful ride-sharing services.

4.1 Economic barriers

Cost and convenience are important factors associated with the intention to start ride-sharing [ 1 ]. Time costs include the time that is required to set up an account in the ride-sharing application/website, the time it takes to find and book a ride through the application and the waiting time to join a ride. Booking time be insignificant when interurban rides are arranged but for daily rides this cost may seem significant to potential users [ 1 ]. Booking trips in advance is not convenient and may not suit to users that prefer instant arrangements and flexibility in their schedule [ 48 ]. Similarly, ride-sharing drivers are unwilling to experience more than 5–10 min delay in order to pick-up and drop-off passengers [ 64 ], suggesting time delay is a significant factor for joining a ride-sharing service as a driver. Ride-sharing platforms should try to minimize the time that it takes for different users to register, book and wait for a ride. Different users (e.g., based on trip purpose) show different sensitivity to waiting time, and the time range that each user may accepts should be investigated. The outcome of such research should be incorporated in the matching algorithm of the ride-sharing platform to address the needs for each user group. In this way it will be more likely these users to use more often ride-sharing services.

Also, fuel prices and fuel efficiency improvements for internal combustion engine vehicles seem to affect ride-sharing; in 1990s the decline in oil prices matched the decline in ride-sharing [ 37 ] from 20 to 13% [ 20 ]. Personal travel is less sensitive to gasoline price fluctuations than vehicular travel is, due to the ready availability of empty seats, which means that increased fuel prices will likely reduce vehicles on the roads, but not passenger travel. As fuel prices are not expected to decrease significantly in the short term and vehicle fuel efficiency improves in the meantime, ride-sharing may offer personal travelling until a cheaper alternative fuel replaces internal combustion engine vehicles [ 48 ].

4.2 Business barriers

Ride-sharing platforms may integrate different business models to generate revenue. The two most used models are a commission fee based on the overall ride cost or a flat rate fee. The third alternative does not integrate any direct fee, and may rely solely on revenues from advertisements on the platform. In our data, only 7% of the platforms appear to charge a direct fee by either way [ 8 , 91 ]. This implies that 26 platforms are neither set up as enterprises that aim to be economically sustainable in the future, nor they focus on growing their user base, thus they do not currently generate any profit. The level of success of these practices is questionable as several ride-sharing platforms stopped operating as outlined in Sect.  3.2 or they were transformed to ride-hailing services (e.g., Zimride became Lyft).

A solution proposed by Olsson et al. [ 75 ] to integrate ride-sharing platforms into the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) concept, where users shift from privately owned vehicles to monthly subscriptions for mobility services. Another recommendation is to integrate ride-sharing services with public transport in locations, where access to public transport is limited or frequency is low. Research showed that in these locations the likelihood to use ride-sharing services increases [ 64 , 102 ]. In this way ride-sharing services should be partially subsidized to transfer travellers to public transport hubs.

Kelly [ 54 ] proposed to add ride-sharing to the list of modalities (currently public transit or vanpools) that are eligible for tax benefits. In this case the largest source of funds should come from the Regional Transportation Boards and state and federal agencies (in the case of US) that have as their mandate the construction and operation of transport systems.

Business models should focus on the community goals (e.g., reduce single occupancy vehicles, provide last mile rides) and users’ needs for each location. More experimentation is needed for designing and testing different types of incentives for different travel activities (work and non-work) to customize solutions per case [ 64 , 75 ]. Incentives and subsidies should take into consideration the ride-sharing impacts to avoid under-subsidizing public transport modes or modes that generate less emissions (i.e., bike and micromobility). Unwanted barriers to ride-sharing such as taxation and insurance issues should be regulated to provide trust and confidence to its users. Analogously, ride-sharing parking and park and ride facilities should be carefully planned since they may generate additional traffic [ 97 ].

4.3 Technological barriers

Ride-sharing platforms are supported by a mobile application or/and website to match potential drivers with passengers. The level of sophistication of the matching algorithm affects the ride-sharing participation either for existing or potential users. Also, even if drivers and passengers can be successfully matched, little is known about each individual participant regarding their driving history, annoying habits to co-passengers while ride-sharing (e.g., eating, smoking), criminal record, etc. [ 1 ]. People are significantly less willing to share a ride with strangers than with direct or indirect friends [ 102 , 103 ]. The majority of the ride-sharing platforms rely on the user’s feedback to provide a secure ride to their participants. Therefore, imprecise or imperfect information to participants may hinder significantly ride-sharing.

A solution to this barrier could be the development of a greater ride-sharing database with collaborating capabilities with other databases, that can aggregate user data to increase the probability of matching up a driver and a passenger. As such, the integration of users’ information with other criminal or identification databases is an important step towards encouraging greater ride-sharing participation. Other social networking platforms like Google and Facebook can be incorporated in the ride-sharing platform to add extra credibility, and enable them as platforms to match ride-share users [ 57 ]. People with active profiles on social networking websites are less affected by trust issues when it comes to sharing a ride with people they have never met [ 39 ].

However, there are several emerging ethical concerns in big data analytics applications in public transport systems and ethical frameworks are required to provide a careful balance of benefits and risks driven by disruptive technologies [ 21 ]. A range of ethical impacts are identified relative to the implementation of data-driven transport systems, that constitute barriers to the development of smart mobility. Including but not limited to: trust, surveillance, privacy (including transparency, consent and control), free will, personal data ownership, data-driven social discrimination and equity [ 59 ]. The massive amount of information collected about people, privacy and security are reported as the main concern [ 77 ]. Concerning transport network companies, such as Uber or Lyft, significant evidence of racial and gender discrimination was documented in various experiments [ 41 ]. Additionally, elderly, people with low education and/or physical or mental problems are facing difficulties adopting emerging technologies, and may be excluded from a data-driven transportation system [ 21 ]. A recent study [ 88 ] noted the importance of social equity in smart cities and the need to address elderly people needs across various dimensions, including transportation.

Additionally, the outdated algorithms that are used in traditional ride-sharing platforms make difficult any last-minute schedule changes that a user would like to make [ 38 ]. One of the main reasons that ride-sharing, has fallen off dramatically over the past decade, at least in the US, is largely due to the inflexible nature of pre-arranged ride-sharing [ 68 ]. The maturing of internet adoption and more sophisticated algorithms allow internet-based ride-sharing platforms to overcome problems with schedule inflexibility [ 73 ]. Correia et al. [ 28 ] proposed that for managing schedule variations, a ride-sharing platform can be set to manage both traditional stable groups and a dynamic ride matching service. Dynamic ride matching services have proved to be very ineffective when applied independently; their success, however, strongly depends on the participants’ willingness to share a ride with a possible stranger [ 28 , 102 ].

Despite multiple algorithmic improvements for ride-sharing, including real-time en-route planning, the mainstream ride-sharing applications are almost all trip-based, with specified fixed origin/destination pairs and thus low flexibility for destination choices. Frequently cited barriers to ride-sharing formation and use include: rigid scheduling and lack of matches between drivers and travellers [ 49 , 66 ]. A gap that can be bridged by advanced software and algorithms, to provide enhanced matching. A new ride-sharing algorithm, called collaborative activity-based ride-sharing to address the barriers of trust and flexibility in ride-sharing was proposed [ 103 ], to increase favorable rides without sacrificing more detour time, which potentially encourages public acceptance of ride-sharing.

Lastly, acknowledgment of users' preferences will help service providers to build customized services to meet their travelling and behavioral needs. For example, older adults may require more space for wheelchairs [ 58 ] or students for special equipment, such as cameras or drawing equipment. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of matching algorithms by integrating more travelling and personal criteria to transform ride-sharing into a safe and entertaining mode.

Other major barriers that can be faced by enhanced mobile applications, include lack of information [ 4 ], belief that “nobody is going my way” [ 92 ], and aversion to handle direct money transactions [ 30 ].

4.4 Behavioral barriers

Behavioral barriers have found to affect more the decision to use ride-sharing services than socio-demographics [ 97 ]. Research showed that enjoying travel with others, environmental and social consideration, trust and security affect at a significant level the choice to use ride-sharing services [ 48 , 61 ]. Participation in activities such as reading a book, texting, or surfing the internet on their smartphone during the commute may be another influential factor relating to ride-sharing demand [ 92 ].

Ride-sharing systems that fail to provide the conditions for secure travelling pose barriers to a successful implementation of a ride-sharing system. The feeling of unsecure travelling may grow either by not sharing user profiles, user matching not based on user criteria, or lack of mobile applications that enhance security, for example not sharing your location. Research showed that the more information shared by users (i.e., time and place of the ride and information on interests and preferences), the more likely a matched ride could occur [ 65 ]. Poor flexibility is associate negatively with ride-sharing [ 28 ] and is also the main reason against sharing rides as passenger, with 66% supporting this argument [ 33 ]. Lee [ 58 ] suggests that having work schedule flexibility is associated with those who are more likely to use a non-rideshare mode, and most likely to telecommute, than to rideshare.

Also, ride-sharing services are more likely to be successful when an organization, resembling small communities, such as a company or a university provides these services in its premises [ 92 ]. Commuting with colleagues is probable increasing the levels of security, and provides an opportunity for socializing by sharing common topics of discussion.

Sharing roles, as opposed to drive-only or travel-only, has shown to affect success of ride-sharing, and appears to be the preferred approach by users, as they look to acquire both the economic advantages of driving some of the time, and the perceived psychological/comfort benefit of being a passenger [ 60 ].

As mentioned, and presented, the literature offers mixed findings on the relationship between demographic, behavioral characteristics and ride-sharing. Some relationships might exist between ride-sharing, specific users and their characteristics. However, after a specific user group adopts ride-sharing services, the practice may vary greatly within the user group, hence more complex relationships may ultimately describe the interactions that lead to such decisions [ 13 ]. A further analysis, will be able to explore the user characteristics for specific locations and travel purposes, and reveal clusters of users having similar characteristics, behavior and needs, to customize ride-sharing services, and to target specific users.

4.5 Regulatory barriers

The European Union transport policy aims to ensure the movement of people and goods throughout the EU by means of integrated networks using all modes of transport (road, rail, water and air). However, within the existing transport legislation a common directive, among EU countries, for ride-sharing is not shared [ 36 ]. To best understand the ride-sharing, it becomes essential to understand the regulatory environment in which the services operate. The majority of EU-Members do not define or regulate ride-sharing; however, only 5 out of the 28 countries (i.e., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) provide a ride-sharing definition for non-commercial reasons (i.e., use of a motor vehicle with a driver and one or more passengers as part of a journey; the driver performs the trip on their own account and no remuneration is involved except the costs for the driver). Similarly, in US and Canada ride-sharing is not regulated as it operates on a non-profit basis. Setting an adequate legislative framework for innovative transport solutions is a prerequisite for their successful integration and implementation in existing transport systems. For example, countries that failed to set such a legislative framework for ride-hailing services (e.g., Uber in Denmark and Bulgaria) or for electric-scooters (e.g., Hive in Greece) were forced to cease the operation of these companies.

4.6 Exploring users’ perceptions to develop a ride-sharing system

Limited information exists on the trip purpose of ride-sharing users, compared to the exploration of factors for passengers. Only a few studies in the literature review focused on travelling for work or educational purposes (i.e., travel to campus/university), while leisure/recreation and shopping trips are usually not considered. Similarly, Wilkowska et al. [ 107 ] suggested that little analysis is performed on trip purposes other than work. Teal [ 94 ] identified three types of ride-share users based on how they ride-share: (1) Household (travel only with household members), (2) External (travel with unknown individuals), and (3) Passengers. Gheorghiu and Delhomme [ 42 ] identified ride-sharing trips for work, children (picking up and/or taking other children to school and for children’s leisure activities), leisure, and shopping. The same study concluded that the longest ride-sharing trips were attributed to work purposes, the shortest to shopping, while leisure and children-related trips had approximately the same reported average length. Vanoutrive et al. [ 97 ] investigated the influential factors for pre-organized ride-sharing and found that different travel purposes (e.g., to home versus to workplace) bounded with their corresponding travel directions, yielded different ride-sharing rates. Also, the spatial distribution of travel demands and social networks affected matching rates [ 103 ].

Aforementioned barriers show that an understanding of the users’ behavior has the potential to provide insights and result to customized user recommendations for developing a successful ride-sharing services. A grouping of ride-sharing users is suggested on the basis of trip purpose, based on literature findings as presented above. Four user types are considered to cover the majority of trip activities, thus the majority of users:

Household work user (Trip to work with at least one person from the same household),

Solo work user (Trip to work with unrelated individuals),

University and college user (Trip for educational purposes with or w/o unrelated individuals)

Entertainment/shopping user (Trip for recreation and entertainment purposes (shopping is included here) with or w/o unrelated individuals).

Work users are divided into household and solo driving as several studies have focused on ride-sharing and commuting to work [ 30 , 42 , 97 ], and recent data suggested that household ride-sharing likely represent the largest share of arrangements [ 66 ]. Solo drivers appear not to be so favorable about using ride-sharing services [ 1 ], thus, the research findings (i.e., increased work-based ride-sharing shares and low penetration upon solo drivers), stress the need to consider and study this user type separately in order to design and form customized initiatives to promote ride-sharing. Ride-sharing should be also considered for recreation/entertainment activities, since some of these activities are fixed in terms of time, day and place (e.g., grocery shopping, training)”. The user types apply to both passengers and drivers, as there is no evidence that role preferences (i.e., passenger or driver) are associated with specific trip purposes.

Finally, further research to accommodate the needs of passengers that may combine ride-sharing with public transport (i.e., bus, rail, metro) is required to explore and determine the factors that affect use of ride-sharing. Apart from factors discussed in earlier sections, other factors may be considered, such as travelling time when using ride-sharing with public transport, and travel preferences (e.g., seat preferences, accessibility needs) when travelling with public transport.

4.7 Practical implications

Our review findings are used to summarize and propose practical recommendations to service providers to enhance the popularity of ride-sharing systems; thus, increase ride-sharing demand. Economic factors, including time, appear to affect the willingness of users to use ride-sharing systems. The time to register in a platform and the process to find and book a ride either instantly or in advance, and the economic benefits of using ride-sharing are dominant factors for potential users. Ride-sharing service providers should develop and release an easy-to-use mobile application to support their services, which will be linked to a web-based platform to provide access for all travellers complying with local accessibility regulations; in this way a one-time registration will be required. Pre-booking rides is also perceived inconvenient by some users [ 48 ], which prohibit them from ride-sharing. Real-time ride-sharing [ 2 ] which brings together travellers with similar itineraries and time schedules on short-notice should be considered and adopted. Minimization of drop-off/pick up locations through optimization of meeting points and routes is also proposed to relax time constraints for potential passengers that appear to be sensitive to time delay.

Although, the studied ride-sharing systems do not offer financial benefits for the driver and the passengers, incentives are essential towards attracting more users. The service provider through the application should provide various financial incentives to increase the number of people who are eager to provide ride-sharing services (i.e., drivers); such incentives may include booking of parking spots, parking discounts and/or free passes in parking lots. Additionally, ride-sharing incentive programs for passengers may be developed to integrate cash or/and reward incentives. Direct cash incentives may be offered by companies to their employees in exchange for their parking space at work, while public authorities may also provide short-term cash incentives to new ride-sharing users. Georgia’s Cash for Commuters program offered a $3 USD per day incentive per new user for 90-days to try ride-sharing. It was found that 57% continued to ride-share 18 to 21 months after the initial incentive period [ 86 ]. Awarding points for ride-sharing trips that may redeemed in collaborative green-businesses and public transport schemes will also attract more users and highlight the relationship between ride-sharing and sustainability.

Marketing and promotion of ride-sharing services and their benefits will likely introduce the concept of ride-sharing to new users. The mobile applications and platforms may highlight the benefits to environment when travelling with others, while also disclosing that this mobility solution complies with national regulations related to COVID-19 passenger restrictions. Mobile applications, in the trip booking page, should provide a comparison of carbon dioxide and cost savings between private vehicle and ride-sharing to provide instant comparisons.

Mobility by public transport, railway, airplanes and ferries has been characterized as of high-risk activity that enables COVID-19 transmission, due to limited space that users have to share. As a result, ridership in public transport systems has decreased, while use of private vehicles has increased [ 64 ]. However, the share of travellers before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown period remained approximately constant. Ride-sharing provides a transport alternative that has the potential to provide mobility in a safe and controlled environment, that public transport may not be capable of guarantying. For example, the mobile application may ask users to provide their vaccine certificate in order to use the service.

Enhancing security by using several methods should be a priority for all ride-sharing services, since it affects the willingness of users to ride-share [ 48 , 61 ]. The option to users to share their location in real-time with their contacts or other ride-sharing users should be implemented in the mobile application. A rating system, for both passengers and drivers, should be developed to provide feedback for all ride-sharing users. Such a mechanism will allow users to judge whether to accept or decline the offered ride, based on their perception. In this way, users may feel in control of their ride, and enjoying a sense of security. A list of regulations to ensure a safe and secure ride should be also provided to potential travellers, including abusive language, physical contact, unsafe driving, etc. Finally, an alarm button in the application could be added to notify the service provider in case of emergency by recording and forwarding the location and travellers’ information at the time of the incident.

5 Limitations and strengths

The present systematic literature review focused on ride-sharing online platforms, factors and barriers, and did not include impacts or ride-matching algorithms. While these aspects are equally significant to the design of a successful ride-sharing service, the present study was conducted by recognizing that: (a) studies in the field of optimization and matching algorithm should be studied separately to focus on programming and technology aspects, and (b) studies on impacts of innovative transport systems, such as for ride-sharing, are challenging since the methods and tools to perform exhaustive life cycle assessments are limited.

We performed an extensive literature review that included 56 publications, while for 32 of them the factors that affect ride-sharing were extracted. Our results may help ride-sharing providers and transport planners to design and implemented successful ride-sharing services. However, the study suffers from certain limitations. The exclusion of grey literature and project reports could have been a limiting factor, in that it is possible that significant new findings might have been overlooked related to ride-sharing services. However, it should be noted that official websites of identified ride-sharing platforms were reviewed to collect specific data per platform. Also, the small number of ride-sharing platforms that was identified might led to not sufficient interpretation of the situation. In this aspect the informal character of ride-sharing should be considered, which leads to platforms that are not recorded or are not possible to target them as they operate in local social media and languages. Similarly, exploring regulatory barriers per country is hindered by language restrictions; likely local governmental documents may contain more information. Aspects of automated vehicles in ride-sharing were not considered either, which is an emerging field of discussion. Whether automated vehicles will be used for ride-sharing, as privately owned cars or in the form of service by ride-hailing services (e.g., Uber or Lyft) remains unknown [ 75 ]. The vague definition of ride-sharing might has also limited our findings. We are aware that there exist other forms of ride-sharing such as vanpooling, hitchhiking or slugging, that have not been considered.

Acknowledging these limitations, we do believe that this review provides important insights about official online platforms, what barriers exist, and who is likely to ride-share. Considering these aspects, transportation planners could be assisted and guided when planning a ride-sharing service, and choose more wisely which parameters should be customized and what users should target for, to implement a successful ride-sharing service.

6 Conclusion

The systematic literature review of ride-sharing studies allowed us to have a comprehensive overview of academic publications dealing with ride-sharing platforms, user factors and barriers. These publications were selected using keywords that refer to ride-sharing, carpooling, barriers and factors. The systematic and comprehensive approach in this review adds strength to the research of economic, technological, business, behavioral and regulatory barriers on ride-sharing operation and success. Improving ride-sharing online platforms and applications and providing more features to users to customize their ride will likely generate positive impacts for ride-sharing.

Findings from this study provide insights and aspire to provide a comprehensive understanding of barriers and factors in decision-making process about ride-sharing. These findings could have important implications for urban and transport planners and policy makers to implement tailored solutions to users’ needs and socio-demographic characteristics. The results can be used as input to transport planning, policy-making and ride-sharing providers: revealing the potential barriers, enabling user-centered design environment, and providing recommendations for a successful ride-sharing service.

It appears to be a norm for location and system factors that affect users’ willingness to ride-share, however in some cases mixed findings exist between socio-demographic factors and ride-sharing. A limitation in existing research is the time of the study or the absence of studies before and after implementing a ride-sharing service. After a specific user group adopts ride-sharing, the practice may vary greatly within this user group, resulting to more complex relationships [ 14 ]. An ex-post evaluation of new introduced ride-sharing services has the potential to study and capture these relationships.

Additionally, it becomes important to examine the factors related to solo driving in each society for all travel activities and design customized interventions to target the behavior of solo drivers. Initiatives that aim to encourage solo drivers to start ride-sharing, could address some of the perceptions around the comfort and the convenience of driving alone versus ride-sharing. Public transport, walking, and biking are strong alternatives for passengers that avoid travelling alone, reducing the potential market for ride-sharing. For this reason, the estimates of participation rates must be considered case-specific, and decision makers have to consider whether to open and market the service to all or to focus on solo drivers. Continuous collection of user feedback through the ride-sharing platforms, and periodic reports from ride-sharing users is an important aspect in developing and improving ride-sharing programs.

The provision of ride-sharing policy is a rather interesting and complicated task that should take into account local and regional characteristics (i.e., demographics, economy, users, geography, transport). Further research is required to evaluate the relationship that exist between users and ride-sharing for existing (i.e., revealed experience) and potential (i.e., stated preference) users. Future directions will be towards exploring the user factors related to specific user-activities and ride-sharing. Additional system factors (e.g., ride safety, information regarding the vehicle condition, feedback method, etc.) should be explored to assess their impact on using ride-sharing services, while the most significant ones should be further investigated (e.g., to explore ride safety in terms of user identification method, sharing the ride online and payment method, etc.) to provide customized criteria that may be implemented within ride-sharing algorithms to optimize user-matching and experience.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are partly publicly available due to contractual restrictions. These can be found in Deliverable 2.2. State-of-the-art of ride-sharing in target EU countries, Horizon EU funded project Ride2Rail.

Abrahamse, W., & Keall, M. (2012). Effectiveness of a web-based intervention to encourage carpooling to work: A case study of Wellington, New Zealand. Transport Policy, 21 , 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.005

Article   Google Scholar  

Agatz, N. A. H., Erera, A. L., Savelsbergh, M. W. P., & Wang, X. (2011). Dynamic ride-sharing: A simulation study in metro Atlanta. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45 (9), 1450–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2011.05.017

Agatz, N., Erera, A., Savelsbergh, M., & Wang, X. (2012). Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 223 (2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.028

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Amey, A. M., Attanucci, J., & Mishalani, R. (2011). Real-time ridesharing: opportunities and challenges in using mobile phone technology to improve rideshare services: Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2217 (1), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.3141/2217-13

Autoincomune. (2017). Auto in comune. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from http://www.autoincomune.it .

Auto Strade Carpooling. (2020). Official website. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from http://www.autostradecarpooling.it .

Avacar. (2013). Avacar carpooling -Information technology and services. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/company/avacar.it/about/ .

Blablacar (2020). Blablacar official website. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from www.blablacar.com .

Bring-me (2014). Jojob carpooling. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from http://www.bring-me.it/carpooling .

Bicocchi, Ν, & Mamei, M. (2014). Investigating ride sharing opportunities through mobility data analysis. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 14 , 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2014.05.010

Brownstone, D., & Golob, T. F. (1992). The effectiveness of ridesharing incentives. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 22 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(92)90023-T

Buliung, R. N., Soltys, K., Habel, C., & Lanyon, R. (2009). Driving factors behind successful carpool formation and use: Transportation research record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2118 (1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.3141/2118-05

Buliung, R. N., Soltys, K., Bui, R., Habel, C., & Lanyon, R. (2010). Catching a ride on the information superhighway: Toward an understanding of internet-based carpool formation and use. Transportation, 37 , 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9266-0

Bulteau, J., Feuillet, T., & Dantan, S. (2019). Carpooling and carsharing for commuting in the Paris region: A comprehensive exploration of the individual and contextual correlates of their uses. Travel behavior and Society, 16 , 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.04.007

Car2go - Daimler. (2010). Car2gether: Daimler AG starts second "ride sharing 2.0" pilot project in Germany. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/car2gether-Daimler-AG-starts-second-ride-sharing-20-pilot-project-in-Germany.xhtml?oid=9908652 .

Carriva. (2008). CARRIVA ridesharing club. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278700690_Flexible_Ridesharing .

Carticipate. (2012). Official website. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://www.carticipate.com .

Casual Carpool. (2020). Casual carpool 511 San Francisco Bay. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://511.org/carpool/casual .

Caulfield, B. (2009). Estimating the environmental benefits of ride-sharing: A case study of Dublin. Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment, 14 , 527–531.

Chan, N., & Shaheen, S. A. (2012). Ridesharing in North America: Past, present, and future. Transport Reviews, 32 (1), 93–112.

Chang, V. (2021). An ethical framework for big data and smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165 , 120559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120559

Chandler, J., & Hopewel, S. (2013). Cochrane methods: Twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Systematic Reviews . https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-76

Chaube, V., Kavanaugh, A. L., & Perez-Quinones, A. P. (2010). Leveraging social networks to embed trust in rideshare programs. In: 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences . 5–8 Jan., Honolulu, United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.07.008 .

Ciari, F. (2012). Why do people carpool: Results from a Swiss survey. In: Swiss transport research conference May 2–4, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000041315 .

Ciari, F., & Axhausen, K. (2012). Choosing carpooling or car sharing as a mode Swiss stated choice experiments. In: Transportation Research Board, 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, United States .

Code of Virginia. (1989). Title 43.2. Retrieved from Motor vehicle Chapter 14. http://leg1.state.va.us .

Cook, D. J., Murlow, C., & Haynes, B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126 (5), 376–380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

Correia, G., Silva, J. A., & Viegas, J. M. (2013). Using latent attitudinal variables estimated through a structural equations model for understanding carpooling propensity. Transportation Planning and Technology, 36 (6), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2013.830894

Crozet, Y., Santos, G., & Coldefy, J. (2019). Shared mobility, MaaS and the regulatory challenges of urban mobility . Center on Regulation in Europe (CERRE). https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/cerre_sharedmobility_maas_report_2019.pdf .

Deakin, E., Frick, K. T., & Shively, K. M. (2010). Markets for dynamic ridesharing? Case of Berkeley, California. Transportation research record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2187 , 131–137. https://doi.org/10.3141/2187-17

Delhomme, P., & Gheorghiu, A. (2016). Comparing French carpoolers and non-carpoolers: Which factors contribute the most to carpooling? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.014

DiDi Hitch. (2020). Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://www.didiglobal.com .

Dorner, F. & Martin, B. (2016). Community-based mobility: A transport option for rural areas? In: Proceedings of 7th Transport Research Arena TRA 2018 , April 16–19, 2018, Vienna, Austria.

Dubernet, T., Schussler N. R., & Axhausen K. W. (2013). Using a multi-agent simulation tool to estimate the car-pooling potential. In: 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC . https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000052402 .

Electromobility. (2019). Transport sharing . https://electromobility.gov.mt/en/Pages/Transport-Sharing.aspx .

EU-DG Directorate. (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and ride-sharing in the EU . General for Mobility and Transport https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-09-26-pax-transport-taxi-hirecar-w-driver-ridesharing-final-report.pdf .

Ferguson, E. (1995). The demographics of carpooling. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1496 , 142–150.

Google Scholar  

Furuhata, M., Dessouky, M., Ordóñezc, F., Brunet, M. E., Wang, X., & Koeniga, S. (2013). Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art and future directions. Transportation Research Part B Methodological, 57 , 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.08.012

Gargiulo, E., Giannantonio, R., Guercio, E., Borean, C., & Zenezini, G. (2015). Dynamic ride sharing service: Are users ready to adopt it? Procedia Manufacturing, 3 , 777–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.329

Garling, T., & Steg, L. (2007). Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life: Problems, causes, and solutions . Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1108/9780080481449 .

Ge, Y., Knittel, C., MacKenzie, D., & Zoepf, S. (2016). Racial and gender discrimination in transportation network companies. National Bureau of Economic Research . https://doi.org/10.3386/w22776

Gheorghiu, A., & Delhomme, P. (2018). For which types of trips do French drivers carpool? Motivations underlying carpooling for different types of trips. Transportation Research Part A: Policy, 113 , 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.002

GoCarma. (2007).Official website. Retrieved February 24, 2020, from https://www.gocarma.com .

Gomore.dk. (2005). Official website. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from www.gomore.dk .

Guidotti, R., Nanni, M., Rinzivillo, S., Pedreschi, D., & Giannotti, F. (2017). Never drive alone Boosting carpooling with network analysis. Information Systems, 64 , 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2016.03.006

Gurumurthy, K. M., & Kockelman, K. (2020). Modeling Americans’ autonomous vehicle preferences: A focus on dynamin ride-sharing privacy and long-distance mode choices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119792

Hansen, E. G., Gomm, M. L., Bullinger, A. C., & Moslein, K. M. (2010). A community–based toolkit for designing ride–sharing services: the case of a virtual network of ride access points in Germany. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 5 (1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2010.034559

Hartwig, S. & Buchmann, M. (2007). Empty seats traveling - Next-generation ridesharing and its potential to mitigate traffic- and emission problems in the 21st Century . Nokia Research Center.

Heinrichs, D., Thomaier, S., & Parzonka, R. (2016). Give me a ride: users, uses and the potentials of dynamic ridesharing. In: ETC Conference, Barcelona Spain .

Hwang, K., & Giuliano, G. (1990). The determinants of ridesharing: Literature review.

JoJob. (2014). Official website. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.jojob.it .

Javid, A. M., Mehmood, T., Asif, A. H., Vaince, A. U., & Raza, M. (2017). Travelers’ attitudes toward carpooling in Lahore: Motives and constraints. Journal of Modern Transport, 5 (4), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-017-0135-9

Jiang, W., Dominguez, C. R., Zhang, P., Shen, M., & Zhang, L. (2018). Large-scale nationwide ridesharing system: A case study of Chunyun. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 7 , 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.10.002

Kelly, K. L. (2007). Casual carpooling: Enhanced. Journal of Public Transportation, 10 (4), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.10.4.6

Kladeftiras, G., & Antoniou C. (2015). Social networks' impact on carpooling systems performance: Privacy vs. Efficacy. In: Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, January 11–15, Washington DC, United States .

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering . https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf .

Lee, A., & Savelsbergh, M. (2015). Dynamic ridesharing: Is there a role for dedicated drivers? Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 81 (2), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2015.02.013

Lee, B., Aultman-Hall, L., Coogan, M., & Adler, T. (2016). Rideshare mode potential in non-metropolitan areas of the northeastern United States. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9 (3), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.669

LeMo. (2018). Leveraging big data for managing transport operations. Report on Ethical and Social Issues. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59f9cdc2692ebebde4c43010/t/5b88f069352f53395f7814c5/1535701109734/20180829_D2.3_Report+on+Ethical+and+Social+Issues_LeMO.pdf .

Levin, I. (1982). Measuring tradeoffs in carpool driving arrangement preferences. Transportation, 11 , 71–85.

Li, J., Embry, P., Mattingly, S., Sadabadi, K. F., Rasmidatta, I., & Burris, M. W. (2007). Who chooses to carpool and why? Examination of Texas carpoolers: Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2021 (1), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.3141/2021-13

Liftshare. (2020). Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://liftshare.com/uk .

Masoud, N., & Jayakrishnan, R. (2017). A real-time algorithm to solve the peer-to-peer ride-matching problem in a flexible ridesharing system. Transportation Research Part B Methodological, 106 , 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.10.006

Mitropoulos, L., & Kortsari, A. (2020). Recommendations and criteria for a successful ride-sharing in the IP4 Ecosystem. Deliverable 2.5. Ride2Rail project.

Monchambert, G. (2017). Why do (or don’t) people carpool for long distance trips? A discrete choice experiment in France. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132 , 911–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.033

Morency, C. (2007). The ambivalence of ridesharing. Transportation, 34 (2), 239–253.

Motar (2020). Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.motar.eu .

Mote, J. E., & Whitestone, Y. (2010). The social context of informal commuting: Slugs, strangers and structuration. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 45 (4), 258–268.

Moustaghfir, K. (2008). The dynamics of knowledge assets and their link with firm performance. Measuring Business Excellence, 12 (2), 10–24.

MyLifts. (2020). Retrieved February 26, 2020, from www.mylifts.com .

Nourinejad, M., & Roorda, M. J. (2016). Agent based model for dynamic ridesharing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 6 , 117–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.07.016

National Household Travel Survey - Summary of Travel Trends. (2017). Federal Highway Administration.

Neoh, J. G., Chipulu, M., & Marshall, A. (2017). What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis. Transportation, 44 , 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9661-7

Nikitas, A., Kougias, I., Alyavina, E., & Njoya Tchouamou, E. (2017). How can autonomous and connected vehicles, electromobility, BRT, hyperloop, shared use mobility and Mobility-as-a-Service shape transport futures for the context of smart cities? Urban Science, 1 , 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1040036

Olsson, L. E., Maier, R., & Friman, M. (2019). Why do they ride with others? Meta-analysis of factors influencing travelers to carpool. Sustainability, 11 (8), 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082414

Payyanadan, R. P., & Lee, J. D. (2017). Understanding the ridesharing needs of older adults. Travel Behaviour and Society, 13 , 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.08.002

Pérez-Martínez, P., Martínez-Ballesté, A., & Solanas, A. (2013). Privacy in smart cities: A case study of smart public parking . PECCS.

PoolMyRide. (2020). Official website. Retrieved February 26, 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/PoolMyRide/ .

Poparide. (2020). Official website. Retrieved February 26, 2020, from https://www.poparide.com .

RideShark (2020). Official website. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://www.rideshark.com .

Roadsharing (2020). Official website. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://www.roadsharing.com .

Shaheen, S., & Cohen, A. (2019). Shared ride services in North America: Definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling. Transport Reviews, 39 (4), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1497728

Shaheen, S. A., Mallery, M. A., & Kingsley, K. J. (2012). Personal vehicle sharing services in North America. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 3 , 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.005

Shaheen, S., Stocker, A., & Mundler, M. (2017). Online and app-based carpooling in France: Analyzing users and practices—A study of BlaBlaCar. In: TRB 95th Annual meeting compendium of papers, 1–14 January, Washington DC, United States .

Shen.J. Blog. (2017). Ride joy: Lessons learned. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.jasonshen.com/2017/ridejoy-lessons-learned .

Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Bayen, A. (2018). The Benefits of carpooling: The environmental and economic value of sharing a ride. UC Berkeley. Retrieved August 25, 2020, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7jx6z631 .

sRide. (2020). Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://sride.co .

Skouby, K., Kivimäki, A., Haukiputo, L., Lynggaard, P., & Windekilde, I. (2014). Smart cities and the ageing population.

Statista. (2021). Number of smartphones sold to endusers worldwide from 2007 to 2021 (in million units). Retrieved August 20, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users-since-2007 .

Stiglic, M., Agatz, N., Savelsbergh, M., & Gradisar, M. (2016). Making dynamic ride-sharing work: The impact of driver and rider flexibility. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 91 , 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.04.010

Talele, T., Pandit, G., & Deshmukh, P. (2012). Dynamic ridesharing using social media. http://airccse.org/journal/ijans/papers/2412ijans03.pdf .

Tahmasseby, S., Kattan, L., & Barbour, B. (2016). Propensity to participate in a peer-to-peer social-network-based carpooling system. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 50 , 240–254.

Tavory, S. S., Trop, T., & Shiftan, Y. (2019). Self-organizes ridesharing: Multiperspective annotated review. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 14 (4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1542758

Teal, R. (1987). Carpooling: Who, how and why. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21 (3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.1326

Teubner, T., & Flath, C. M. (2015). The economics of multi-hop ride sharing. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 57 (5), 311–324.

TwoGo (2020). Official website. Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://www.twogo.com/en .

Vanoutrive, T., Van Vijver, E., Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., Thomas, I., Verhetsel, A., & Witlox, F. (2017). What determines carpooling to workplaces in Belgium: Location, organisation, or promotion? Journal of Transport Geography, 22 , 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.006

Viaggiainsieme. (2016). Official website. Retrieved March 3, from https://sites.google.com/site/ilvitellozzo/viaggiainsieme .

Ville Fluide. (2015). Official website. Retrieved March 3, from http://wedrivecarpool.com .

Wang, R. (2011). Shaping carpool policies under rapid motorization: The case of Chinese cities. Transport Policy, 18 (4), 631–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.03.005

Wang, T., & Chen, C. (2019). Attitudes, mode switching behavior, and the built environment: A longitudinal study in the Puget Sound Region. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46 (10), 1594–1607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.08.001

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wang, Y., Winter, S., & Ronald, N. (2017). How much is trust: The cost and benefit of ridesharing with friends. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 65 , 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.06.002

Wang, Y., Winter, S., & Tomko, M. (2018). Collaborative activity-based ridesharing. Journal of Transport Geography, 72 , 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.08.013

Wang, Y., Gu, J., Wang, S., & Wang, J. (2019). Understanding consumers’ willingness to use ride-sharing services: The roles of perceived value and perceived risk. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 105 , 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.044

Wang, Z., Chen, X., & Chen, X. (2019). Ridesplitting is shaping young people’s travel behavior: Evidence from comparative survey via ride-sourcing platform. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 75 , 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.017

Waze Carpool. (2018). Retrieved March 4, 2020, from https://www.waze.com/carpool .

Wilkowska, W., Farrokhikhiavi, R., Ziefle, M., & Vallée, D. (2014, 19–23 July). Mobility requirements for the use of carpooling among different user groups. In: 5th International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics AHFE 2014 , Kraków, Poland.

Xu, H., Ordonez, F., & Dessouky, M. (2015). A traffic assignment model for a ridesharing transportation market. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 49 , 793–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.1300

Yin, B., Liu, L., Coulombel, N., & Viguie, V. (2017). Appraising the environmental benefits of ride-sharing: The Paris region case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177 , 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.186

YouTrip. (2020). Official website. Retrieved March 4, 2020, from https://www.youtrip.it/viaggiamo_insieme .

Yu, B., Ma, Y., Xue, M., Tang, B., Wang, B., Yan, J., & Wei, Y. M. (2017). Environmental benefits from ridesharing: A case of Beijing. Applied Energy, 191 , 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.052

Zimride. (2020). Official website. Retrieved March 4, 2020, from https://zimride.com .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

This research was funded by the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 881825.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Hellenic Institute of Transport, 52 Egialias Street, 15125, Marousi, Greece

Lambros Mitropoulos, Annie Kortsari & Georgia Ayfantopoulou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LM developed the study methodology, collected the data for ride-sharing systems, and users, analyzed the data and made a major contribution to writing the manuscript. AK collected the data for ride-sharing systems, analyzed the data, and corrected the manuscript. GA analyzed the data for ride-sharing definitions and corrected the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lambros Mitropoulos .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mitropoulos, L., Kortsari, A. & Ayfantopoulou, G. A systematic literature review of ride-sharing platforms, user factors and barriers. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 13 , 61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00522-1

Download citation

Received : 17 July 2020

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 07 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00522-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ride-sharing
• User factors

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 09 April 2024

Impacts of remote work on vehicle miles traveled and transit ridership in the USA

• Yunhan Zheng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5114-7561 1 , 2 ,
• Shenhao Wang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4374-8193 3 ,
• Lun Liu 4 ,
• Jim Aloisi 5 &
• Jinhua Zhao 5  

Nature Cities ( 2024 ) Cite this article

308 Accesses

225 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Civil engineering

The potential of remote work as a sustainable mobility solution has garnered attention, particularly due to its widespread adoption during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study systematically examines the impacts of remote work on vehicle miles traveled and transit ridership in the USA from April 2020 to October 2022. Here we find that, using the prepandemic levels as the baselines, a mere 1% decrease in onsite workers corresponds to a 0.99% reduction in state-level vehicle miles traveled and a 2.26% drop in metropolitan statistical area-level transit ridership. Notably, a 10% decrease in onsite workers compared with the prepandemic level could yield a consequential annual reduction of 191.8 million metric tons (10%) in CO 2 emissions from the transportation sector, alongside a substantial US$3.7 billion (26.7%) annual loss in transit fare revenues within the contiguous USA. These findings offer policymakers crucial insights into how different remote work policies can impact urban transport and environmental sustainability as remote work continues to persist.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

COVID-19 and the value of safe transport in the United States

Kenneth B. Medlock III, Ted Temzelides & Shih Yu (Elsie) Hung

Urban access across the globe: an international comparison of different transport modes

Hao Wu, Paolo Avner, … David Levinson

California’s zero-emission vehicle adoption brings air quality benefits yet equity gaps persist

Qiao Yu, Brian Yueshuai He, … Yifang Zhu

Data availability

The data used for this study are sourced from publicly available databases and detailed information about each variable’s source can be found in the ‘Data’ section of Methods . The compiled datasets can be accessed on GitHub at https://github.com/zhengyunhan/remote_work_mobility (ref. 61 ).

Code availability

The code used for conducting the analysis is accessible on GitHub at https://github.com/zhengyunhan/remote_work_mobility (ref. 61 ).

State carbon dioxide emissions data. EIA https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/ (2020).

Creutzig, F. et al. Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 260–263 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dubois, G. et al. It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 52 , 144–158 (2019).

Axsen, J., Plötz, P. & Wolinetz, M. Crafting strong, integrated policy mixes for deep CO 2 mitigation in road transport. Nature Clim. Change 10 , 809–818 (2020).

Bistline, JohnE. T. et al. Economy-wide evaluation of CO 2 and air quality impacts of electrification in the United States. Nat. Commun. 13 , 1–12 (2022).

Hook, A. et al. A systematic review of the energy and climate impacts of teleworking. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 093003 (2020).

Kwan, Mei-Po Mobile communications, social networks, and urban travel: hypertext as a new metaphor for conceptualizing spatial interaction. Prof. Geogr. 59 , 434–446 (2007).

O’keefe, P., Caulfield, B., Brazil, W. & White, P. The impacts of telecommuting in Dublin. Res. Transp. Econ. 57 , 13–20 (2016).

Balepur, P. N., Varma, K. V. & Mokhtarian, P. L. Transportation impacts of center-based telecommuting: interim findings from the neighborhood telecenters project. Transportation 25 , 287–306 (1998).

Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P. L. & Salomon, I. Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the US. Transportation 32 , 37–64 (2005).

Niles, J. S. Beyond Telecommuting: A New Paradigm for the Effect of Telecommunications on Travel (USDOE Office of Energy Research, 1994).

Asgari, H. & Jin, X. An evaluation of part-day telecommute impacts on work trip departure times. Travel Behav. Soc. 12 , 84–92 (2018).

Saxena, S. & Mokhtarian, P. L. The impact of telecommuting on the activity spaces of participants. Geogr. Anal. 29 , 124–144 (1997).

de Abreu e Silva, João & Melo, PatríciaC. Does home-based telework reduce household total travel? A path analysis using single and two worker british households. J Trans. Geogr. 73 , 148–162 (2018).

Lachapelle, U., Tanguay, G. A. & Neumark-Gaudet, L. éa Telecommuting and sustainable travel: reduction of overall travel time, increases in non-motorised travel and congestion relief? Urban Stud. 55 , 2226–2244 (2018).

Horner, N. C., Shehabi, A. & Azevedo, InêsL. Known unknowns: indirect energy effects of information and communication technology. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 103001 (2016).

Rietveld, P. Telework and the transition to lower energy use in transport: on the relevance of rebound effects. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1 , 146–151 (2011).

Zhu, P. Are telecommuting and personal travel complements or substitutes? Ann. Reg. Sci. 48 , 619–639 (2012).

Kim, Seung-Nam, Choo, S. & Mokhtarian, P. L. Home-based telecommuting and intra-household interactions in work and non-work travel: a seemingly unrelated censored regression approach. Transp. Res. Part A 80 , 197–214 (2015).

Google Scholar  

Chakrabarti, S. Does telecommuting promote sustainable travel and physical activity? J. Transp. Health 9 , 19–33 (2018).

Erhardt, G. D. et al. Why has public transit ridership declined in the United States? Transp. Res. Part A 161 , 68–87 (2022).

Mokhtarian, P. L. & Varma, K. V. The trade-off between trips and distance traveled in analyzing the emissions impacts of center-based telecommuting. Transp. Res. Part D 3 , 419–428 (1998).

Job flexibilities and work schedules summary. US Bureau of Labor Statistics . https://www.bls.gov/news.release/flex2.nr0.htm (2019).

Workers who worked at home and how often they worked exclusively at home by selected characteristics, averages for the period 2017–2018. US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/news.release/flex2.t03.htm (2019).

Burrows, M., Burd, C. & McKenzie, B. Home-based workers and the COVID-19 pandemic. US Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/acs/acs-52.pdf (2023).

Lund, S. et al. The future of work after COVID-19. McKinsey Global Institute https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19 (2021).

Barrero, Jose Maria, Bloom, N. & Davis, S. J. 60 million fewer commuting hours per day: how Americans use time saved by working from home. Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper (University of Chicago, 2020).

White house will end most covid vaccine mandates. New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/us/politics/us-covid-vaccine-mandates.html (2023).

Household pulse survey microdata. US Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html (2023).

Rioveros, G. M. et al. The impact of work from home set-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Worldwide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development http://wwjmrd.com/upload/the-impact-of-work-from-home-set-up-during-the-covid-19-pandemic_1631623804.pdf (2021).

Kim, Seung-Nam Is telecommuting sustainable? An alternative approach to estimating the impact of home-based telecommuting on household travel. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11 , 72–85 (2017).

Zhu, P. & Mason, S. G. The impact of telecommuting on personal vehicle usage and environmental sustainability. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 , 2185–2200 (2014).

Iqbal, M. Uber revenue and usage statistics. Business of Apps https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/ (2024).

Iqbal, M. Lyft revenue and usage statistics. Business of Apps https://www.businessofapps.com/data/lyft-statistics/ (2024).

Berrebi, S. J. & Watkins, K. E. Who’s ditching the bus? Transp. Res. Part A 136 , 21–34 (2020).

Dua, A. et al. Americans are embracing flexible work—and they want more of it. McKinsey Research https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it (2022).

The return to office revolt. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/briefing/the-return-to-office-revolt.html (2022).

US Department of Transportation announces increased flexibility to help transit agencies respond to coronavirus. Federal Transit Administration https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department-transportation-announces-increased-flexibility-help-transit-agencies (2020).

US Department of Transportation announces the availability of $2.2 billion in american rescue plan funding to help transit agencies with additional service needs. Federal Transit Administration https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department-transportation-announces-availability-22-billion-american-rescue-plan (2021).

President Biden, USDOT announce more than $20 billion for communities of all sizes to support transit this year. Federal Transit Administration https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/president-biden-usdot-announce-more-20-billion-communities-all-sizes-support-transit (2022).

The pandemic wasn’t supposed to hurt New York transit this much. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/15/nyregion/mta-nyc-budget.html?smid=tw-share (2022).

Without commuters, US transit agencies are running out of options. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-16/public-transportation-braces-for-fewer-commuters-amid-work-from-home (2022).

For mass transit agencies, a fiscal cliff looms. Governing https://www.governing.com/now/for-mass-transit-agencies-a-fiscal-cliff-looms (2022).

COVID-19 community mobility reports. Google LLC https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/ (2022).

Quarterly census of employment and wages. US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/cew/downloadable-data-files.htm (2021).

Traffic volume trends. FWHA https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm (2022).

NTD data. Federal Transit Administration https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data (2022).

Teleworking and lost work during the pandemic: new evidence from the CPS. US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/teleworking-and-lost-work-during-the-pandemic-new-evidence-from-the-cps.htm#BLStable_2021_7_6_15_1_footnotes (2021).

Global COVID-19 Tracker. Kaiser Family Foundation https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/global-covid-19-tracker/ (2024).

Change of Address Stats. The United States Postal Service https://about.usps.com/who/legal/foia/library.htm (2022).

We’re sharing coronavirus case data for every US county. The New York Times https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data (2022).

Covid-19 vaccinations in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccinations-in-the-United-States-Jurisdi/unsk-b7fc (2022).

Menegale, F. et al. Evaluation of waning of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open 6 , e2310650–e2310650 (2023).

State population totals and components of change: 2020–2022. US Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html (2023).

Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas population totals: 2020–2022. US Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html (2023).

Census regions and divisions of the United States. US Census Bureau https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf (2013).

Highway statistics series, table mf-21, 2020–2021a. FHWA https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm (2022).

Greenhouse gases equivalencies calculator—calculations and references. EPA https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references (2023).

Highway statistics series, table vm-2, 2020–2021b. FHWA https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm (2022).

2022 traffic monitoring guide. FWHA https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/2022_TMG_Final_Report.pdf (2022).

Zheng, Y. Data and code for remote work paper. GitHub https://github.com/zhengyunhan/remote_work_mobility (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative and the Barr Foundation, and by the National Research Foundation (NRF), Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore, under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) program. The Mens, Manus, and Machina (M3S) is an interdisciplinary research group (IRG) of the Singapore MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) Centre. S.W. acknowledges the support from the Research Opportunity Seed Fund 2023 from the University of Florida. L.L. acknowledges the support from Beijing Social Science Foundation (20GLA003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Yunhan Zheng

Singapore–MIT Alliance for Research and Technology Centre, Singapore, Singapore

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Shenhao Wang

School of Government, Peking University, Beijing, China

Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Jim Aloisi & Jinhua Zhao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, data curation, modeling, visualization, formal analysis, result interpretation, writing—original draft and writing—review and editing. S.W. contributed to formal analysis, result interpretation and writing—review and editing. L.L. contributed to formal analysis and result interpretation. J.A. contributed to result interpretation, supervision, project administration and funding acquisition. J.Z. contributed to formal analysis, result interpretation, supervision, project administration and funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shenhao Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Cities thanks Tao Tao, Sung Hoo Kim and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary discussion, Figs. 1–4 and Tables 1–16.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zheng, Y., Wang, S., Liu, L. et al. Impacts of remote work on vehicle miles traveled and transit ridership in the USA. Nat Cities (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00057-1

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2023

Accepted : 11 March 2024

Published : 09 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00057-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

A systematic review of COVID-19 transport policies and mitigation strategies around the globe

Affiliation.

• 1 Research Group "Models, Analysis and Simulation (MAS) Applied to Transport Systems", Computer Science Department, University of Cuenca, Ecuador.
• PMID: 35873107
• PMCID: PMC9289094
• DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100653

This paper reports a Scopus-based systematic literature review of a wide variety of transportation policies and mitigation strategies that have been conducted around the world to minimize COVID-19 contagion risk in transportation systems. The review offers a representative coverage of countries across all continents of the planet, as well as among representative climate regions - as weather is an important factor to consider. The readership interested in policies and mitigation strategies is expected to involve a wide range of actors, each involving a particular application context; hence, the literature is also characterized by key attributes such as: transportation mode; actor (users, operators, government, industry); jurisdiction (national, provincial, city, neighborhood); and area of application (planning, regulation, operations, research, incentives). An in-depth analysis of the surveyed literature is then reported, focusing first on condensing the literature into 151 distinct policies and strategies, which are subsequently categorized into 25 broad categories that are discussed at length. The compendium and discussion of strategies and policies reported not only provide comprehensive guidelines to inform various courses of action for decision-makers, planners, and social communicators, but also emphasize on future work and the potential of some of these strategies to be the precursors of meaningful, more sustainable behavioral changes in future mobility patterns.

Keywords: COVID-19; Policies; Risks; SARS-CoV-2; Strategies; Transportation.

© 2022 The Author(s).

Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination (2024)

Chapter: chapter 2 - literature review.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

10 This chapter summarizes a review of the existing literature, federal legislation and regula­ tions, agency guidance, and other sources about DOT practices for coordinated planning and programming with MPOs. The purpose is to identify and document factors that contribute to effective coordination, strategies for coordination in the planning and programming processes, and common issues or impediments to effective coordination. Relevant documents were identi­ fied through the Transportation Research Information Documentation database and supple­ mented with internet searches. Additional sources include the following: • Recent NCHRP synthesis studies and research reports on coordination and other related topics, • Relevant NCHRP planning snapshots, • A 2021 survey on memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, • A 2015 transportation research synthesis on coordination between state transportation agen­ cies and MPOs in Multi­State Metropolitan Planning Areas by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, • Various state manuals and relevant documents, and • Other documents recommended in the project scope. The review describes the current state of knowledge and practice on how DOTs coordinate with MPOs in their state. See the References section of this report for a full list of sources consulted. Federal Legislation and Regulation The Federal Highway Act of 1962 required states and local communities to participate in the continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process, also known as the 3Cs. To address the need for coordination within metropolitan areas and to ensure that federal transportation funding was based on the 3C metropolitan planning process, the Federal Highway Act of 1973 formally created MPOs to coordinate with states (Griffith 2021; Sciara 2017; Zoller and Capizzano 1997). Once MPOs were created, federal legislation continued to expand the role of MPOs by including additional language for coordination and cooperation between states and MPOs. For example, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) expanded the authority of MPOs to plan and implement projects in their regions and required states to coordinate planning and programming activities identified under 23 U.S. Code § 134 with MPO governing boards. Subsequent reauthorization of ISTEA (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA­21); Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Trans­ portation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA­LU); and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21) continued the framework that places MPOs at the forefront of regional plan ning with a requirement for coordination with the state and other entities central to C H A P T E R   2 Literature Review

Literature Review 11   regional transportation planning. It is for this reason that FHWA et al. (n.d.) describe MPOs as “the engine driving regional collaboration and coordination” (Planning for Transportation section). Since the passage of ISTEA, several studies have examined inter­jurisdictional collaboration, roles, responsibilities, and relationships between state and regional agencies (Taylor and Schweitzer 2005; Zoller and Capizzano 1997). Although these studies are somewhat dated (2005 and 1997), they add a historical perspective on the effects of ISTEA on the relationship between state DOTs and MPOs. ISTEA mandated, among other requirements, states and MPOs to develop transporta­ tion plans and programs cooperatively (H.R. 2950, 1991). It was reported that after ISTEA, state DOTs “increased their efforts at inter­agency coordination” (Lockwood 1998 as cited by Taylor and Schweitzer 2005, p. 501). Interviews conducted in a study by Taylor and Schweitzer revealed that close coordination with MPOs was considered a necessity for statewide planning. The study also reported that a significant amount of collaboration between states and MPOs was through more informal coordination strategies, “unrelated to mandated collaborative planning processes” (Taylor and Schweitzer 2005, p. 507). These and other strategies for coordination are described later in this chapter. Subsequent authorizations continued the legislative intent for coordination between state DOTs and MPOs within the state. This remains true for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was passed in 2021. Requirements for and definitions related to coordination and cooperation included in the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are described in this section of this synthesis report. 23 U.S.C. § 135, Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning, requires the statewide transportation plan and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Pro­ gram (STIP) to be developed through a 3C process in cooperation with the MPOs for affected metropolitan areas in the state. States are required to coordinate statewide planning activities with the metropolitan planning activities specified in 23 U.S.C. § 134. The code also specifies required coordination for the selection of performance targets between states and the MPOs within the state. Title 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart B (2017), Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Plan­ ning and Programming, implements the requirements of 23 U.S.C. § 135 and other relevant codes. The CFR requires states to work cooperatively with affected MPOs when developing the long­range statewide transportation plan and the STIP. It requires that states coordinate with MPOs on the following: • “Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with the metropolitan transportation planning activities carried out under subpart C of this part for metropolitan areas of the State” [23 CFR 450.208(a)(1)]. • “Coordinate data collection and analyses with MPOs and public transportation operators to support statewide transportation planning and programming priorities and decisions” [23 CFR 450.208(a)(7)]. • “Each State shall select and establish performance targets in coordination with the relevant MPOs to ensure consistency to the maximum extent practicable” [23 CFR 450.206(c)(2)]. Coordination is defined as “the cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate” (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A does not specifically define collaboration, but this term is used throughout the literature on this topic and is discussed later in this chapter. Other related terms defined in the CFR include consultation and cooperation, (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017): • Consultation – One or more parties confer with other identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken.

12 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination • Cooperation – The parties involved in carrying out the transportation planning and program­ ming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective. As it specifically relates to cooperation, 23 CFR Part 450 (.324 and .308) requires that MPOs develop the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) in cooperation with the state(s) and any other affected public transportation operator(s). Title 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart C (2017), Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, directs MPOs to coordinate with the state on selecting targets to ensure consistency. It requires coordina­ tion between the metropolitan transportation planning process and the statewide transportation planning process. Additionally, MPOs are required to develop a participation plan that describes, among other requirements, the procedures, strategies, and requirements for “[c]oordinating with the statewide transportation planning public involvement and consultation processes” as provided in Title 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart B (2017). MPOs are also subject to the requirements for coordination established in state law, where the state has provided them, thus enhancing coordination between the state DOT and the MPOs in the state. For example, Florida statutes require each MPO in the state to execute an agreement with the Florida DOT “clearly establishing the cooperative relationship essential to accomplish the transportation planning requirements of state and federal law” (§339.175, Florida Statutes, 2022). Federal legislation requires states and MPOs to work collaboratively to achieve the 3C metro­ politan transportation planning process and identify their “mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan planning process” in written agreements [as provided in Title 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart C (2017)]. However, federal legislation does not specify the level of detail in the agree­ ments, how to implement the agreement, or how states and MPOs should coordinate beyond this agreement. Existing literature and relevant documents describe state guidance on the various strategies used for coordination throughout the United States. Select state guidance and find­ ings from the literature relevant to coordination between states and MPOs are described in the following sections. State Guidance on Coordination Several state DOTs have developed manuals and guidance to support coordination activities between the state DOT and MPOs within the state. The Indiana DOT (INDOT) Planning Roles and Responsibilities Manual and the Illinois DOT (IDOT) Metropolitan Planning Organization Cooperative Operations Manual are used as representative examples in this literature review. INDOT The Indiana DOT INDOT Planning Roles and Responsibilities Manual (2020) describes how the DOT will coordinate with the state’s MPOs and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), out­ lining the individual responsibilities of each agency. The manual also serves as a cooperative agreement between INDOT and the MPOs and RPOs in Indiana. This document and its processes within are reviewed by INDOT and other agencies/groups such as the Indiana MPO Council, the RPOs’ Indiana Association of Regional Councils, the FHWA, and the FTA. The Indiana MPO Council was designed to promote the 3C planning process and its membership comprises the Executive Directors of each MPO. The Council meets monthly to discuss issues related to “coop­ eration and collaboration with state and federal planning partners” (INDOT 2020, p. 6). INDOT staff participate in these monthly meetings along with various other agency staff. For general administration and oversight of the MPO planning process, the INDOT Central Office Planning Liaisons serve as primary points of contact for coordination activities between

Literature Review 13   the state and MPOs. The coordination activities supported by the Central Office Planning liaisons include (INDOT 2020): • Regional plan development, • STIP updates, • MPO work plans, • Congestion mitigation coordination, • Air quality conformity coordination, • Performance management reporting, • Environmental justice, and • Other related general planning functions. INDOT District Office staff work with the MPOs for TIP amendment activities. District Office staff provide coordination support for a variety of other activities. According to the manual, District Office staff do the following (INDOT 2020): • Participate in MPO Technical/Advisory Committee and Policy Board meetings, • Participate in select public hearings, • Are active members of the Asset Management Teams, and • Work with MPOs for TIP amendment activities. Other coordination activities are supported by various other divisions, groups, and teams representative of INDOT. A number of these activities and responsible INDOT Divisions and/or Teams include the following (INDOT 2020): • Information sharing (Central Office Planning Teams); • MPO TIP technical support, review, approvals, modifications, and amendments (Central Office Planning Teams); • Data collection, data sharing, and data repository (Office of Roadway Inventory, Traffic Statistics Section); • Capacity building on Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) (Office of Roadway Inventory); • UPWP development, approval, authorization, and oversight (Multi­modal Division, Technical Planning and Programming Division, Technical Planning Section); • Capital planning (Technical Planning Section); • Modeling (Technical Modeling Team); • Traffic counts and monitoring (Traffic Statistics Section); and • Long­range transportation planning (Central Office Planning Teams). In addition to the coordination activities listed in this section, the Project Finance and Accounting Group provides planning funds to the MPOs and coordinates with the Capital Pro­ gram Management Committee to set funding targets. The INDOT Funding Program Reports show the federal aid apportionments for recipients, including the MPOs. The funding program report also includes a mechanism to resolve funding­related issues between involved parties if they occur (INDOT 2020). Illinois DOT The IDOT Metropolitan Planning Organization Cooperative Operations Manual (2020) pro­ vides information on how the state DOT and the state MPOs will conduct the 3C planning process. It includes information about the state and MPOs’ roles and responsibilities and estab­ lishes a process for communication. In the chapter dedicated to the roles and responsibilities of IDOT, the manual states that to carry out the 3C process, IDOT maintains “a collaborative process between and among IDOT, MPOs and public transit operators” (p. 2). Several sections

14 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination in this chapter describe how IDOT will fulfill this role. For example, the planning process system management section states the following: To assist in meeting its responsibilities, IDOT is represented on the Technical and Policy Committees of each MPO. IDOT encourages [MPOs] to not combine or schedule immediate back­to­back meetings of the Technical and Policy Committees. It also recommends MPO local member governments/agencies not appoint the same representative to serve and vote on both committees. (p. 2) Strategies for coordination and cooperation identified in this manual include a forum to promote the 3C process (MPO Council) and staff dedicated to coordinating with MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Managers). The MPO Council and its role are described as follows (IDOT 2020): IDOT shall work with an organization (hereinafter, “MPO Council”) representing MPO interests. The MPO Council may be organized by IDOT or established by the MPOs themselves, with the form and format of the MPO Council at the discretion of the MPOs. The MPO Council should meet no less than quarterly to address issues that come before it and to coop­ eratively determine the optimal solutions for transportation planning issues. (pp. 2–3) Metropolitan Planning Managers serve as the primary point of contact between IDOT and MPOs. The Metropolitan Planning Managers are responsible for supporting MPO staff by answering ques­ tions, providing information in a timely manner, sharing data, and sharing relevant information from other IDOT departments, as well as information from the FHWA and FTA. MPOs request federal statewide planning funds through the Metropolitan Planning Manager. The Metropolitan Planning Manager is also the first point of contact between the MPO and IDOT for UPWP devel­ opment. MPOs are encouraged to consult with the Metropolitan Planning Manager when drafting the UPWP and submit the first draft to them for review. The final version of the UPWP is submitted to the Metropolitan Planning Manager, who then submits it to IDOT. The Metropolitan Planning Manager also participates in the long­range transportation planning (LRTP) process with MPOs in the state. As it relates to coordination for statewide planning, IDOT includes statewide planning activi­ ties that occur within an MPO’s boundaries in that MPO’s UPWP for informational purposes. Depending on funding availability, state funds are also made available to match federal metro­ politan planning funds. These requests for funding are made through the Metropolitan Planning Manager. The manual identifies other activities with recommended or required coordination between the state and MPOs in the state. A selection of these activities along with an excerpt of the section addressing the need for coordination, or where available, the coordination strategies, are as follows (IDOT 2020): • Performance management: “The State of Illinois Department of Transportation has executed agreements with the MPO(s) and transit providers identifying how the target setting process is coordinated between the parties and the obligations of the parties for all of the performance measures” (p. 4). • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): “IDOT may, at its discretion, assign MPOs to program some or the entire 50 percent State share of TAP funds. [Transportation Manage­ ment Area (TMA)] MPOs are required to report approved project and budget information to the IDOT Metro Managers and [Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP)] Coordinator. This information should be provided no later than one month following project selection” (p. 13). • Public Participation Plan: “Metropolitan public involvement processes shall be coordinated with statewide and local public involvement processes wherever possible to enhance public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce redundancies and costs” (p. 26).

Literature Review 15   • Expenditure Reimbursement Process (p. 14): – MPO Staff: “Prepares and submits quarterly/monthly invoices to the IDOT Operations Manager and Metro Manager. All invoices prepared and submitted should have support­ ing documentation if requested.” – IDOT Metro Manager: “Reviews invoice and expense reports for all FHWA planning, FTA planning, State Planning funds, and [State Planning and Research (SPR)] funds if applicable; ensures that work is being accomplished and billings are consistent with work described in the UPWP.” Coordination, Collaboration, Consultation, and Cooperation Multi­jurisdictional collaboration influences the level of effectiveness of various planning activi­ ties (Beiler 2016). The level of consultation, coordination, cooperation, consensus building, and collaboration determines the strength of partnerships between participating agencies (Steiner et al. 2012). The levels of participation between agencies are illustrated through an adaptation of Sherry Arnstein’s 1969 Ladder of Citizen participation provided by the U.S. DOT (n.d.) (see Figure 3). Although the report relates to multi­MPO planning, the terms in this illustration related to partici­ pation are used generally enough to be applicable in the context of this literature review. The figure shows “notification,” described as one­way communication, as the lowest rung on the ladder (i.e., the lowest level of what the U.S. DOT refers to as integration between agencies). “Collaboration” and “coordination” are considered the highest levels of integration between agencies. Coordination is defined in 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A (2017) as, “the cooperative development of plans, programs, Source: U.S. DOT, n.d. Figure 3. Ladder of participation.

16 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, pro­ grams, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate,” while collaboration is defined by U.S. DOT (n.d.) as “a joint process of creation” (p. 5). It should be noted that in the literature, these terms are, to some degree, used interchangeably or described with high levels of interrelatedness. IDOT (2020) describes cooperation and col­ laboration as interrelated, where cooperation is dependent on the levels of collaboration between each agency. Alternatively, Beiler (2016) explains that coordination and collaboration can be used interchangeably. In the remainder of this chapter, coordination will be used to describe both coordination and collaboration in instances in which the literature conflates these terms. Transportation agency coordination is described as either horizontal or vertical and within the framework of operational coordination or jurisdictional coordination. Within these frameworks, these terms are defined as follows (Beiler 2016; Bourgault and Smits 2014; Fricker and Matlock 2009; Lewis and Zako 2017; Steiner et al. 2012): • Operational – Horizontal coordination is consensus­based, and all involved parties have equal decision­ making power. – Vertical coordination is hierarchical decision­making and can be “top­to­bottom” or “bottom­to­top.” • Jurisdictional – Horizontal coordination is across jurisdictions or between agencies on the same level of government (this may also include geographic adjacency and proximity). – Vertical coordination is between different levels of government, such as local and state or either of those with the federal government. Beiler (2016) describes a “multi­dimensional” model in which vertical and horizontal approaches for coordination are used at the same time. This approach is presented as effective for collaboration between agencies on multiple levels of government (Beiler 2016; Steiner et al. 2012). While the importance of partnerships between agencies is well­documented throughout the literature, there is no guidance for how these partnerships happen or are maintained (Fricker and Matlock 2009). Therefore, a wide range of coordination mechanisms are identified in the literature. A number of these mechanisms are described in the next section, including examples from several states. Example of Coordination in Planning Activities Related to Transportation Asset Management NCHRP Synthesis 577: Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs was published in 2021. More than half of the DOTs surveyed as a part of that study reported that they have high to moderately high levels of collaboration with MPOs in their state on data sharing and target setting. Key findings from the survey included the following (Park et al. 2021, p. 2): • The degree of state DOT/MPO collaboration on goals and performance targets varies. • Most MPOs deferred to state DOTs for the initial set of Pavement and Bridge (National Highway System) NHS performance targets. • State DOTs are leading data collection and analysis tasks supporting target setting for both state and local NHS assets. • There is currently strong state DOT/MPO collaboration on asset project programming. • Initial collaborative processes for target setting are in place, and there is interest in improvement. It was reported that most states surveyed for the study involved MPOs in long­range planning decisions related to transportation asset management (TAM). This involvement included the

Literature Review 17   development of TAM goals in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the development of MPO­specific TAM performance measures, the development of MPO TAM performance targets, and the determination of MPO TAM investment amounts related to performance tar­ gets. The report indicated that several MPOs have a representative who participates in the state’s long­range planning advisory committees. Specific strategies for collaboration on TAM performance management between DOTs and MPOs were identified in the study. These strategies include the following (Park et al. 2021, p. 40): • Communication using a mix of formal and informal channels; • Involvement of MPO members on long­range planning advisory committees; • Development and distribution of fact sheets to provide a common understanding of require­ ments, methodologies, and processes; • Technical assistance/capacity­building activities on specific topics, such as target­setting; • Statewide collection of asset condition information covering state and locally maintained assets; • Protocols and tools for data sharing across state DOTs and MPOs; • Standard report cards on asset condition within MPO boundaries; • Standard asset investment reporting; • Workshops involving state DOT, MPO, and local agency staff to discuss current practices, challenges, and future collaboration opportunities; • Formal documentation of collaboration processes; • Standing coordinating bodies for MPOs and TAM; and • Development of templates with standard language for MPOs to use within their planning documents [e.g., to establish targets within Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs)]. Coordination Mechanisms Oftentimes, agencies use a combination of strategies for coordination. For example, during the development of transportation asset management plans (TAMPs) and/or while setting NHS pavement and bridge targets, many states reported using both informal and formal strategies to coordinate, such as face­to­face meetings, conference calls, and workshops (Park et al. 2021). Other commonly cited mechanisms for coordination between DOTs and MPOs include formal agreements, such as memorandums of understanding (MOUs); informal communication, such as phone calls; and other strategies such as staffing arrangements, data sharing, and board and committee membership or participation. Each of these mechanisms is described in the following sections. It is important to note that the majority of this research was written before the COVID­19 pandemic. The pandemic significantly influenced the way agencies currently communicate. The trends described in this section reflect the communication mechanisms at the time of the given study without additional consideration for external influences or events. Formal and Informal Coordination Mechanisms The use of formal versus informal mechanisms for coordination depends on the resources needed for the specific planning activity. For example, formal agreements are better suited for larger planning studies that require a greater commitment of agency resources (Schmitt et al., 1984). Informal mechanisms are more frequently used at a smaller scale and on a more regular, or as­needed, basis and are typically more effective when there is already a strong working partner ship between the agencies (Schmitt et al. 1984; Taylor and Schweitzer 2005). Beiler (2016) provides a significant amount of information on informal communication between agencies. Phone calls and emails are most commonly used for informal communication, but some agencies may also rely on face­to­face or web­based communication. Agencies participating

18 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination in the survey conducted by Beiler reported that email and phone calls were used daily or weekly, and face­to­face and web­based meetings were more commonly used on a monthly basis. Oppor­ tunities for informal communication on a daily basis were reported as being dependent on the physical proximity of agency offices. Planning and programming meetings were also identified as being either face­to­face or web­based, but these meetings happened less frequently, on a biannual, annual, or biennial basis. Formal coordination is typically supported through MOUs, manuals, master agreements, or other documents. For example, some DOTs and MPOs have formal agreements related to model­ ing activities that address how the agencies develop, maintain, document, house the model, and use the analysis (Goode et al. 2001). Another example is the development of data business plans created for DOTs and local partners. The goal of these business plans is to provide a shared understanding of how data are collected, used, and needs to be improved (Park et al. 2021; Vandervalk 2018). In agencies with no formal agreement for modeling activities, coordination may be achieved through various committees and/or informal agreements (Goode et al. 2001). For multi­state MPOs, various agreement types are used to define agency roles and responsi­ bilities, coordinate MPO work products, determine the composition of technical committees, and designate a lead state (MnDOT 2015). For example, Maryland has a master agreement between states for the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB). Maryland also has a self­certification process in which agencies report how they meet their roles and responsibilities and that they have “appropriate” levels of coordination with participants in the multi­state MPO (MnDOT 2015, p. 6). Staffing Arrangements Staffing arrangements are not required at the federal level but may be addressed in state statutes (Kramer et al. 2017). Historically, many MPOs were housed in state departments. For instance, in 1972, almost half of the MPOs’ work programs were staffed by state employees (McDowell 1985 as cited by Zoller and Capizzano 1997). This practice declined over time and, in 2016, state DOTs accounted for approximately 1% of the MPO host agency types, as shown in Figure 4. For the 2017 report MPO Staffing and Organizational Structures, Kramer et al. surveyed 279 MPOs across the United States. One of the findings from this study described the advantages Source: Kramer et al. 2017 Figure 4. Host agency types.

Literature Review 19   and disadvantages of MPOs being hosted. The general disadvantages for a state of hosting an MPO include blurring of agency responsibilities, identities, and boundaries, and lack of MPO autonomy and independence, according to participants in the study. Alternatively, respondents described enhanced coordination of planning efforts as an advantage of being MPOs being hosted by the state. This particular benefit is described as stemming from regular communica­ tion and coordination with host agency staff. Other identified benefits related to coordination include the elimination of “transportation silo[s],” a holistic approach to planning, shared exper­ tise, alignment of goals, and improved synergies between agencies (Kramer et al. 2017). MPO Boards and Committee Participation Federal law requires that MPO governing boards in transportation management areas (TMAs) include local elected officials, representatives of modal operators, and other “appropriate State officials” (Title 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart C, 2017). As a result, MPO governing boards are typi­ cally composed of elected officials, officials from regional and state transportation agencies, and a variety of other representatives from various groups and agencies. Although federal law identifies which agencies should have a seat on the Board, . . . actual board composition is not determined by federal law or regulation. Federal law encourages participation by other important stakeholders (school districts, military bases, universities, etc.), but does not dictate the manner of such participation including such matters as non­voting board membership, the constitution of advisory committees, and voting rights of board members. Some states, on the other hand, have established requirements for board composition in statute. (Kramer et al. 2017, p. 2­1) MPO Board composition is not static between MPOs, nor over time. Sciara (2017) compared MPO Board composition in 1977 and 2010, and although the categories of board seats expanded in that more than 30­year period, in both of these years, most MPOs surveyed had at least one seat for state officials or state DOTs. This was the case for more than 70% of MPOs in 1977 and more than 60% of MPOs in 2010. In 2016, 76% of MPOs had a seat for state DOT representatives on the MPO Boards (Kramer et al. 2017). Goode et al. (2001) reported that for the MPOs surveyed in their study, DOT representatives were from various divisions within the department, includ­ ing the following: “division of planning, representative of Governor, district secretary/engineer/ commissioner, state Board of Transportation, and transit or intermodal divisions” (Goode et al. 2001, p. 17). State DOTs may serve as voting or non­voting members on the MPO Board. Non­voting members may participate in an advisory capacity, serve as liaisons between the DOT, MPO, and other agencies represented on the Board, or provide technical support (Goode et al. 2001). In Texas, for example, the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO), Houston­ Galveston Area Council (H­GAC), and North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) have different board compositions, resulting in variations in the number of DOT representatives on each MPO’s Board. AAMPO includes one member from the Texas Department of Transpor­ tation (TxDOT) and H­GAC and NCTCOG both include two TxDOT representatives (Loftus­ Otway et al. 2019). Relevant State-Led Surveys on Coordination As a preliminary activity before updating processes and procedures, several state DOTs have conducted surveys to learn from their peers. Maine and Minnesota are used as representative examples in this literature review. The results from surveys conducted by the Maine DOT and Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) that are relevant to coordination are summarized in the following sections.

20 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) (AASHTO 2021 by Maine DOT) In 2021, Maine DOT conducted a survey to identify best practices for developing MOUs between state DOTs and MPOs across the United States. (AASHTO 2021). This survey had a total of 28 responses. Twenty­seven of the 28 respondents identified that they have an MOU or some documented agreement between the state DOT and MPO(s). Other coordination docu­ ments identified include master agreements, intergovernmental agreements, cooperative agree­ ments, contracts, guidelines and procedures manuals, planning authorization letters, and mutual service standards documents. Coordination Between State Transportation Agencies in Multi-State Metropolitan Planning Areas (MnDOT 2015) In 2015, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) surveyed other states in the United States to collect information on their coordination practices for multi­state metropolitan planning organizations. Information and documents collected included formal agreements, distribution of federal funds, differences in planning and reporting requirements, areas of con­ cern in coordinating multi­state MPO activities, and best practices for coordinating multi­state MPO activities. This survey had a total of nine respondents. Most of the respondents identified that they have formal agreements with the other state(s) participating in multi­state MPOs. According to MnDOT, “[t]ypical provisions in the agree­ ments include the definition of roles and responsibilities of participating entities; coordination of MPO work products; technical committee composition and participation; and designation of the lead state under the agreement” (2015, p. 2). As it relates to the distribution of federal funds, most states responding to this survey reported that grants were distributed to individual states. Three respondents shared that they distrib­ ute federal funds as separate FHWA/FTA grants, while another three shared that federal funds are distributed as consolidated planning grants. Differences in planning or reporting require­ ments, when they occur, are reported as being addressed by providing flexibility in requirements, adopting similar policies to support coordination efforts, and aligning planning and reporting requirements. Areas of concern for coordination relate to differences in the way data are collected and stored, the interpretation of federal or state requirements or regulations between states, coordination of schedules or deadlines, uncertainty about the performance­based planning and target­setting requirements, and separate reporting requirements for each state. Notable practices identified through this survey include effective communication, involvement by all affected parties as they relate to MPO activities, manuals that outline the roles and responsibilities of all involved agencies, finding common ground between involved parties, enabling flexibility and building strong partnerships, and establishing a mutual understanding of each state’s requirements and procedures. Relevant NCHRP Surveys NCHRP commissioned a series of surveys to provide information on the current state of plan­ ning practice. The research findings are provided as short, visual documents called “Planning Snapshots.” Planning snapshots on integrated planning and long­range planning address coor­ dination at varying levels of detail. This section describes information on coordination provided in these two planning snapshots.

Literature Review 21   NCHRP Snapshot #2, published in 2014, provided information on planning practices related to long­range planning. The practices identified related to coordination include the following (Cambridge Systematics, 2014, p. 4): • Hosting a planner’s conference to improve communication, coordination, and understanding between planning staff; • Participating in other organizations and committees to learn about issues and build relationships; • Evaluating outreach efforts to assess and improve communication, messaging, and engage­ ment; and • Creating an overarching brand for statewide planning to visually link products and activities back to the long­range transportation plan (LRTP). NCHRP Snapshot #8, published in June 2016, provided information on planning practices related to integrated planning. Coordination practices between agencies on various planning pro­ cesses were identified through a survey of 15 state DOTs and 21 regional organizations. The study was concerned with whether or not agencies are integrating and coordinating planning efforts beyond federal and state requirements. When asked if integrated planning is required at the state, regional, or local level, as it relates to transportation planning, most DOTs responded that it is mandatory, while most regional and local agencies responded that it is voluntary (see Figure 5). Planning efforts between states and regional agencies were described as fairly well integrated (see Figure 6). Integrated planning was identified as a catalyst for several shared benefits between agencies. These benefits include increased cooperation between various levels of government, coordination of strategies and policies, reduced conflict between agency plans, and creation of programs to increase coordination. Several challenges for integrated planning were identified through this survey. Some of these challenges include variations in update cycles and plan horizons between agencies, reluctance Source: Adapted from Cambridge Systematics 2016, used with permission. Figure 5. Integrated planning for transportation at the state, regional, or local level. Figure 6. Coordination efforts between regional agencies and states. Source: Cambridge Systematics 2016, used with permission.

22 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination to participate in integrated planning, and delays resulting from the need for consensus between multiple parties. Coordination was identified as a specific impediment to integrated and compre­ hensive planning—respondents cited “staffing limitations, time and budget constraints, or gen­ eral lack of interest” as specific barriers to plan coordination activities (Cambridge Systematics 2016, p. 5). Strategies that address the identified challenges for integrated planning were divided into four broad categories. The category and strategy related specifically to coordination are as follows (Cambridge Systematics 2016, p. 6): • Sustain coordination and implementation, – Use online meeting software to coordinate staff efforts, – Continue coordination with plan owners on a regular, monthly basis, – Showcase tasks, schedules, and accomplishments and ensure everything is available via a management database, • Communicate early and often, • Demonstrate leadership, and • Maintain interest. Lessons learned identified from this study address the benefit of informal coordination. A com­ ment provided in the survey emphasized that laws and policies are not required for agencies to coordinate on planning. Another comment addressed the need to ensure proper decision­making authority for involved agencies (Cambridge Systematics 2016). Success Factors for Coordination The frequency, duration, method, and purpose of communication influence the level and effectiveness of coordination (Beiler 2016). Other considerations for coordination include the following (Fricker and Matlock 2009; Schmitt et al. 1984): • Funding for coordination activities, including implementation and staff to support the col­ laborative process; • The development of coordination plans; • Regular communication through ad hoc communication or formal meetings through a stand­ ing committee or task force; • The creation of written agreements (such as MOUs); • Flexibility in multiple areas of the coordination process; • Conflict resolution; and • A champion to lead the collaborative effort. Many of these considerations were identified in surveys and interviews conducted through various studies, and in some documents, the respondent and/or author does not expound on the specific factor. Therefore, limited information is available on those aspects. Factors explained in detail in the literature are described in the remainder of this section. Coordination through inter­agency committees is more likely to be successful when there is a regular meeting schedule, participating members have the authority to make decisions for their agencies, and there is a clear agenda that focuses on decision­making (Schmitt et al. 1984). To support federally mandated cooperation between DOTs and MPOs, and the continuous nature of the planning process, a formal standing committee may be preferred (Fricker and Matlock 2009). For example, an outcome of the research conducted by Fricker and Matlock (2009) on guidelines for INDOT­MPO coordination was a recommendation for a formalized, hierarchical structure, to support coordination for the work these agencies do together on planning and programming activities.

Literature Review 23   Planning processes are improved when collaborative efforts are continuously evaluated, reviewed, and modified, particularly in the event of policy or organizational changes (Indiana MPO Council, 2007 as cited by Fricker and Matlock, 2009). Fricker and Matlock (2009) also cite Chislom (1989), identifying three strategies to maintain flexibility in coordination activities. These strategies include the following (Fricker and Matlock 2009, p. 78): • Accommodating the schedules of the participants, • Being aware of the objectives and constraints that other participants have, and • Being open to changes from traditional planning strategies. Taylor and Schweitzer (2005) identified that there are certain topics in the statewide plans that DOTs and MPO most successfully collaborate on. These topics include those that “(1) have net­ work or environmental externalities that transcend regional boundaries, (2) require the political clout of a higher­level governmental authority to enforce locally unpopular actions, or (3) take advantage of economies of scale” (Taylor and Schweitzer, 2005, p. 501). Benefits of Coordination Most of the literature emphasizes the mutual benefits of coordination for both MPOs and DOTs. Steiner et al. (2012) emphasize collaboration as a “critical process” that can be used to leverage resources and encourage “cooperation rather than competition” (p. 67). Several authors discuss the benefits of coordination for MPOs, and a few address benefits specific to DOTs. For example, Taylor and Schweitzer (2005) found that a key benefit of coordination to DOTs is the local knowledge available from MPO staff. Other benefits of partnerships between DOTs and MPOs for both agencies include the following (Fricker and Matlock 2009; IDOT 2020, Bourgault and Smits 2014): • Increased comprehension of activities of all parties, • Efficient information processing, • Meeting federal requirements, • Increase in communication, • Decreased duplication of efforts, • Capacity building, • Emphasis on common interest and conflict resolution, • Bidirectional decision­making power, • Complementarity and combined expertise, • Reciprocal learning, • Improved understanding of participants’ roles, • Trust building, • Fiscal benefits, and • Efficiency. Within these broad categories of benefits, key advantages of coordination to MPOs relate to technical support and data gathering, sharing, and modeling provided by the DOT staff (Park et al. 2021; Kramer et al. 2017; Taylor and Schweitzer 2005). As it relates to technical support, Kramer et al. (2017) found that most MPOs were satisfied with the level of support they received from their state DOT but wanted more support for transportation modeling, data collection, and technical analysis. Other areas of need identified by MPOs included MPO operations, perfor­ mance management, transportation funding and programming, and regulatory compliance. In developing measures of effectiveness for MPOs, Goode et al. (2001) included “[c]oordina­ tion with state Department(s) of Transportation” as a measure of success. This measure relies

24 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination on the frequency and quality of communication between DOT and MPO staff to determine its effectiveness. For example, some DOTs and MPOs have regularly scheduled meetings on a recur­ ring basis (e.g., monthly), whereas others may only meet for specific projects or studies (Goode et al. 2001). In a 2021 report about collaborative practices on performance­based asset management between state DOTs and MPOs, several considerations for improvement on TAMP develop­ ment were identified. These future improvement needs for collaboration on TAMP development include the following (Park et al. 2021): • Make the TAMP more meaningful to MPOs, • Move beyond coordination to real partnership, • Create stronger linkages between the statewide TAMP and the regional MTPs and TIPs, • Increase transparency in information sharing, • Improve data sharing and software tools, • Share expenditures/investment levels across agencies, and • Develop more robust modeling capabilities coordinated across states and MPOs. In a survey of MPOs across the United States conducted by Kramer et al. (2017), the Kittery Area Comprehensive Transportation System (KACTS) shared that a benefit of coordination was seen in their grant applications. In two separate years, KACTS submitted a joint U.S. DOT TIGER grant application with nearby MPOs, Maine DOT, and New Hampshire DOT, citing notable levels of success with this approach. Barriers to Coordination Schmitt et al. (1984) describe barriers to coordination as “conditions, attitudes, etc., that hamper or prevent cooperative relationships between transportation agencies” (p. 233). Federal legislation does not specify how agencies should go about the 3C planning process. Resulting variations in collaborative activities may cause inconsistencies in coordination practices and potential conflicts (Fricker and Matlock 2009). Attempts for coordination between agencies at different levels of government can present challenges stemming from the various functions and roles of each agency (Beiler 2016; Lane et al. 2022; Taylor and Schweitzer 2005). Barriers to coor­ dination may include the following broad topics (Fricker and Matlock 2009; Lane et al. 2022; Lewis and Zako 2017; MnDOT 2015; Park et al. 2021): • Varying agency missions, • Differing interpretations of federal requirements, • Inconsistencies between long­range planning and short­term decisions and strategies, • Relevancy of decision­making stemming from agency authority and implementation capacity, • Understanding each agency’s scope of authority, • Reluctance to join in coordination activities or make significant changes to plans, and • Limited time and resources (staff, funding, etc.) available for coordination activities. Inter­agency partnerships were identified as a challenge for most MPOs in NCHRP Research Report 1002: Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success (Lane et al. 2022). This challenge stems from a variety of factors, including those in the above list, such as differing interpretations of federal requirements and varying agency missions. Other examples of chal­ lenges described in that document include the relevancy of MPO efforts to their state and local partners and the potential conflict between state and local agency decisions—both made on a day­to­day basis and as part of long­range strategies made by the MPO (Lane et al. 2022). Goode et al. (2001) identified factors related to coordination that inhibit the success of MPOs. These include differing funding levels and priorities between the states and MPOs, and levels of

Literature Review 25   staffing and administrative structure, which may limit the frequency of staff contact. Lewis and Zako (2017) noted that in some instances, efforts to improve coordination may not be successful due to a variety of barriers including the following: • Issues synchronizing efforts between agencies and integrating coordination efforts within the individual agencies, • Lack of authority and responsibility to a single agency, • The nature and role of transportation agencies (shifting agency culture can be a slow process), and • The distribution of authority across agencies makes it difficult for agencies to take ownership of policies. Data issues presented several barriers to coordination. These barriers most commonly relate to data availability and accessibility (Park et al. 2021), and the way data are collected and stored (MnDOT 2015). More specifically, Park et al. (2021) describe the barriers related to data sharing as follows: “lack of data and analysis skills, distrust of data, and organizational [silos] can create institutional obstacles that inhibit data sharing” (Harrison et al. 2019 as cited by Park et al. 2021). NCHRP Synthesis 577: Collaborative Practices for Performance-Based Asset Management Between State DOTs and MPOs surveyed DOTs and provided a list of potential barriers to increased coordination was provided to survey respondents. This list included constraints on DOT and MPO staff time, limited interest in coordinating, and issues with planning/programming silos. Planning and programming silos and data were identified as less of a concern. On the other hand, staff time and limited interest in coordinating were identified as the most significant barriers to increased coordination (Park et al. 2021). Summary of Literature Review Findings Federal Legislation and Regulation • Historic and contemporary federal legislation and regulations require states and local com­ munities to participate in the 3C transportation planning process. • Authorizations continued the legislative intent for coordination between state DOTs and MPOs within the state. • Where provided, MPOs are also subject to the requirements for coordination established in state law. • Federal legislation requires states and MPOs to work collaboratively to achieve the 3C metro­ politan transportation planning process, but it does not specify how. State Guidance on Coordination • Several state DOTs have developed manuals and guidance to support coordination activities between the state DOT and MPOs within the state. • In Indiana, the INDOT Planning Roles and Responsibilities Manual (2020) describes how the DOT will coordinate with the state’s MPOs and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) and serves as a cooperative agreement between INDOT and the MPOs and RPOs in the state. • In Illinois, the IDOT Metropolitan Planning Organization Cooperative Operations Manual (2020) provides information on how the state DOT and the state MPOs will conduct the 3C planning process. Coordination, Collaboration, Consultation, and Cooperation • Coordination, collaboration, consultation, and cooperation are used interchangeably or described with high levels of interrelatedness in the literature.

26 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination • These terms are each defined in federal legislation and the literature as follows: – Coordination – “the cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate” (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). – Collaboration – “a joint process of creation” (U.S. DOT, n.d., p. 5). – Consultation – “one or more parties confer with other identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken” (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). – Cooperation – “the parties involved in carrying out the transportation planning and pro­ gramming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective” (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). – Notification – “one­way communication” (U.S. DOT, n.d., p. 5). Coordination Mechanisms • Agencies will often use a combination of strategies for coordination. • The use of formal versus informal mechanisms for coordination depends on the resources needed for the specific planning activity. – Informal mechanisms are more frequently used at a smaller scale and on a more regular, or as­needed, basis and are typically more effective when there is already a strong working partnership between the agencies (Schmitt et al. 1984; Taylor and Schweitzer 2005). – Phone calls and emails are most commonly used for informal communication, but some agencies may also rely on face­to­face or web­based communication. – Formal coordination is typically supported through MOUs, manuals, master agreements, or other documents. • In 2016, fewer MPOs were hosted by state DOTs (less than 1%) as compared to 1972 (more than half). • Most MPOs have at least one seat for state officials or state DOTs, but the number of seats varies based on the Board composition. – State DOTs may serve as voting or non­voting members on the MPO Board. Results from Other Surveys on Coordination • Most DOTs have an MOU or some documented agreement between the state DOT and MPO(s). • Most states have formal agreements with the other state(s) participating in multi­state MPOs. • Challenges when coordinating with multi­state MPOs include: – Differences in the way data are collected and stored, – The interpretation of federal or state requirements or regulations between states, – Coordination of schedules or deadlines, – Uncertainty about the performance­based planning and target­setting requirements, and – Separate reporting requirements for each state. • Notable practices when coordinating with multi­state MPOs include: – Effective communication, – Involvement by all affected parties as they relate to MPO activities, – Manuals that outline the roles and responsibilities of all involved agencies, – Finding common ground between involved parties, – Enabling flexibility and building strong partnerships, and – Establishing a mutual understanding of each state’s requirements and procedures. • Integrated planning was identified as a catalyst for several shared benefits between agencies, but coordination was identified as a specific impediment to integrated and comprehensive planning.

Literature Review 27   • Strategies that address the identified challenges for integrated planning specifically related to coordination are as follows (Cambridge Systematics 2016, p. 6): – Use online meeting software to coordinate staff efforts; – Continue coordination with plan owners on a regular, monthly basis; – Showcase tasks, schedules, and accomplishments and ensure everything is available via a management database; – Communicate early and often; – Demonstrate leadership; and – Maintain interest. Success Factors for Coordination • The frequency, duration, method, and purpose of communication influence the level and effectiveness of coordination (Beiler 2016). • Coordination through inter­agency committees is more likely to be successful when there is a regular meeting schedule, participating members have the authority to make decisions for their agencies, and there is a clear agenda that focuses on decision­making (Schmitt et al. 1984). • To support federally mandated cooperation between DOTs and MPOs, and the continuous nature of the planning process, a formal standing committee may be preferred (Fricker and Matlock 2009). • Planning processes are improved when collaborative efforts are continuously evaluated, reviewed, and modified (Indiana MPO Council 2007 as cited by Fricker and Matlock 2009). Benefits of Coordination • A key benefit of coordination to DOTs is the local knowledge available from MPO staff (Taylor and Schweitzer 2005). • Benefits of partnerships between DOTs and MPOs for both agencies include the following (Fricker and Matlock 2009; IDOT 2020, Bourgault and Smits 2014): – Increased comprehension of activities of all parties, – Efficient information processing, – Meeting federal requirements, – Increase in communication, – Decreased duplication of efforts, – Capacity building, – Emphasis on common interest and conflict resolution, – Bidirectional decision­making power, – Complementarity and combined expertise, – Reciprocal learning, – Improved understanding of participants’ roles, – Trust building, – Fiscal benefits, and – Efficiency. Barriers to Coordination • Variations in collaborative activities may cause inconsistencies in coordination practices and potential conflicts (Fricker and Matlock 2009). • Barriers to coordination for both MPOs and DOTs include the following (Fricker and Matlock 2009; Lane et al. 2022; Lewis and Zako 2017; MnDOT 2015; Park et al. 2021): – Varying agency missions, – Differing interpretations of federal requirements,

28 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination – Inconsistencies between long­range planning and short­term decisions and strategies, – Relevancy of decision­making stemming from agency authority and implementation capacity, – Understanding each agency’s scope of authority, – Unwillingness to participate in coordination activities or make significant changes to coordi­ nation plans, – Limited time and resources (staff, funding, etc.) available for coordination activities, – Constraints on DOTs and MPO staff time, – Limited interest in coordinating, and – Issues with planning/programming silos.

State departments of transportation (DOTs) are required by federal law to coordinate transportation planning and programming processes with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the state. However, state DOTs and MPOs have varying coordination practices depending on their specific contexts.

NCHRP Synthesis 626: Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination , from TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program, documents current DOT strategies and practices to facilitate coordination between state DOTs and MPOs as well as common challenges and obstacles to coordination.

Supplemental to the report is Appendix C , which includes documents, legislation, and guidance related to coordination between DOTs and MPOs.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Advertisement

Consumer intention to accept electric two-wheelers in India: a valence theory approach to unveil the role of identity and utility

• Published: 22 September 2023

Cite this article

• Furqan A. Bhat 1 &
• Ashish Verma 1  

469 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Two-wheelers in India account for more than 70% of the total motorised vehicles, with approximately half of the Indian households owning at least one two-wheeler as compared to 7.5% of the households owning a four-wheeler. An impetus towards electrification of mobility is crucial for India, given the enormous volume of oil imports and the subsequent negative impacts it has on the trade balance and the environment. However, the adoption rates of electric two-wheelers remain low, and hence, for fruitful penetration of electric two-wheelers in developing economies such as India, this study analyses the factors affecting the adoption behaviour of electric two-wheelers. This study uses data collected from 1375 potential electric two-wheeler buyers of Bengaluru, India, to study the influence of socio-demographic variables and certain latent factors such as environmental enthusiasm, technological enthusiasm, monetary benefits, environmental benefits, social image, lack of infrastructural readiness, perceived fee, and perceived risks on consumers’ intention to adopt electric two-wheelers. The results reveal environmental enthusiasm, technological enthusiasm, monetary benefits, environmental benefits, and social image to have a significant positive impact on electric two-wheeler adoption intention. Perceived fees and perceived risks are found to hinder the adoption of electric two-wheelers, while the lack of infrastructural facilities does not have a direct impact on the intention to adopt electric two-wheelers among potential buyers. Moreover, socio-demographic variables are also found to be significant determinants of electric vehicle adoption behaviour. This study provides some important implications for policy and decision-makers that can help in the widespread adoption of electric two-wheelers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Self-Driving Vehicles—an Ethical Overview

Sven Ove Hansson, Matts-Åke Belin & Björn Lundgren

A systematic literature review on greenwashing and its relationship to stakeholders: state of art and future research agenda

Célia Santos, Arnaldo Coelho & Alzira Marques

Business Model Design: Lessons Learned from Tesla Motors

Ab Hamid, M.R., Sami, W., Mohmad Sidek, M.H.: Discriminant validity assessment: use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 890, p. 012163 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163

Adnan, N., Nordin, S.M., Rahman, I., Rasli, A.M.: A new era of sustainable transport: an experimental examination on forecasting adoption behavior of EVs among Malaysian consumer. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 103 , 279–295 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.06.010

Article   Google Scholar  

Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 , 179–211 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Alzahrani, K., Hall-Phillips, A., Zeng, A.Z.: Applying the theory of reasoned action to understanding consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles in Saudi Arabia. Transportation (amst). 46 , 199–215 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9801-3

Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Samad, S., Abdullah, R., Mahmoud, M., Alkinani, M.H., Yadegaridehkordi, E.: Factors impacting consumers’ intention toward adoption of electric vehicles in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 282 , 124474 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.124474

Austmann, L.M., Vigne, S.A.: Does environmental awareness fuel the electric vehicle market? A Twitter keyword analysis. Energy Econ. 101 , 105337 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENECO.2021.105337

Bang, H.K., Ellinger, A.E., Hadjimarcou, J., Traichal, P.A.: Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol. Mark. 17 , 449–468 (2000a). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200006)17:6%3c449::AID-MAR2%3e3.0.CO;2-8

Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M.: Indian vehicle ownership: insights from literature review, expert interviews, and state-level model. In: Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, vol. 56 (2017)

Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M., Schievelbein, W., Schauer-West, S.: Indian vehicle ownership and travel behavior: a case study of Bengaluru, Delhi and Kolkata. Res. Transp. Econ. 71 , 2–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RETREC.2018.07.025

Bansal, P., Kumar, R.R., Raj, A., Dubey, S., Graham, D.J.: Willingness to pay and attitudinal preferences of Indian consumers for electric vehicles. Energy Econ. 100 , 105340 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENECO.2021.105340

van den Berg, P., Vinken, S., Geurs, K., Arentze, T.: Stated choice model of transport modes including solar bike. J. Transp. Land Use 11 , 901–919 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5198/JTLU.2018.1149

Bethlehem, J.: Selection bias in web surveys. Int. Stat. Rev. 78 , 161–188 (2010)

Bhat, F.A., Verma, A.: A bibliometric analysis and review of adoption behaviour of electric vehicles. Transp. Dev. Econ. 9 , 1–30 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/S40890-022-00175-2

Bhat, F.A., Verma, M., Verma, A.: Measuring and modelling electric vehicle adoption of Indian consumers. Transp. Dev. Econ. 8 , 6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-021-00143-2

Bhatt, Y.: India’s Transport CO2 Emissions and Value Added Contribution—KAPSARC (2019), https://www.kapsarc.org/research/publications/indias-transport-co2-emissions-and-value-added-contribution/

Bhutani, C.: Govt ropes in IISc Bangalore to expand probe into electric scooter fire mishaps (2022)

Bilkey, W.J.: A psychological approach to consumer behavior analysis. J. Mark. 18 , 18–25 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224295301800103

Bjerkan, K.Y., Nørbech, T.E., Nordtømme, M.E.: Incentives for promoting Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 43 , 169–180 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.002

Carley, S., Krause, R.M., Lane, B.W., Graham, J.D.: Intent to purchase a plug-in electric vehicle: a survey of early impressions in large US cites. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 18 , 39–45 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.09.007

Carley, S., Siddiki, S., Nicholson-Crotty, S.: Evolution of plug-in electric vehicle demand: assessing consumer perceptions and intent to purchase over time. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 70 , 94–111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.002

Chakraborty, R., Chakravarty, S.: Factors affecting acceptance of electric two-wheelers in India: a discrete choice survey. Transp. Policy (oxf) 132 , 27–41 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2022.12.015

Chandler, J., Sisso, I., Shapiro, D.: Participant carelessness and fraud: consequences for clinical research and potential solutions. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 129 , 49–55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1037/ABN0000479

Chen, C.F., Eccarius, T., Su, P.C.: The role of environmental concern in forming intentions for switching to electric scooters. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 154 , 129–144 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2021.10.010

Chen, C.F., Xu, X., Frey, S.: Who wants solar water heaters and alternative fuel vehicles? assessing social–psychological predictors of adoption intention and policy support in China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15 , 1–11 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2016.02.006

Chhikara, R., Garg, R., Chhabra, S., Karnatak, U., Agrawal, G.: Factors affecting adoption of electric vehicles in India: an exploratory study. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103084

Choudhary, G.: Another electric scooter caught on fire; no injuries reported | Mint, https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/another-electric-scooter-caught-on-fire-no-injuries-reported-11670996679121.html (2022)

Chu, W., Im, M., Song, M.R., Park, J.: Psychological and behavioral factors affecting electric vehicle adoption and satisfaction: a comparative study of early adopters in China and Korea. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 76 , 1–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2019.09.009

Coffman, M., Bernstein, P., Wee, S.: Electric vehicles revisited: a review of factors that affect adoption. Transp. Rev. 37 , 79–93 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1217282

Dash, S., Vasudevan, V., Singh, S.: Disaggregate model for vehicle ownership behavior of Indian households. Transp. Res. Rec. (2013). https://doi.org/10.3141/2394-07

Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13 , 319–339 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Ding, C., Wang, Y., Tang, T., Mishra, S., Liu, C.: Joint analysis of the spatial impacts of built environment on car ownership and travel mode choice. Transp. Res. Part D 60 , 28–40 (2018)

Dogra, S.: In The Future, You Will Get Parking Only If You Drive An Electric Vehicle (2019), https://www.indiatimes.com/auto/current/karnataka-will-soon-reserve-20-percent-parking-for-electric-vehicles-378513.html

Duann, L.S., Chou, H.Y., Wang, C.C.: The factors affecting the demand for electric motorcycle. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 4 , 209–220 (2001)

Google Scholar  

Dumortier, J., Siddiki, S., Carley, S., Cisney, J., Krause, R.M., Lane, B.W., Rupp, J.A., Graham, J.D.: Effects of providing total cost of ownership information on consumers’ intent to purchase a hybrid or plug-in electric vehicle. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 72 , 71–86 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.005

Eccarius, T., Lu, C.C.: Powered two-wheelers for sustainable mobility: a review of consumer adoption of electric motorcycles. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 14 , 215–231 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1540735

Egbue, O., Long, S.: Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48 , 717–729 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009

Eppstein, M.J., Grover, D.K., Marshall, J.S., Rizzo, D.M.: An agent-based model to study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy 39 , 3789–3802 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.007

Eswar, M., Roy, A.K.: Urbanisation in Karnataka: trend and spatial pattern. J. Reg. Dev. Plan. 5 , 5–20 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730902790024

Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)

Fujii, S.: Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 26 , 262–268 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.003

Garbarino, E., Strahilevitz, M.: Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. J. Bus. Res. 57 , 768–775 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00363-6

Garretson, J.A., Clow, K.E.: The influence of coupon face value on service quality expectations, risk perceptions and purchase intentions in the dental industry. J. Serv. Mark. 13 , 59–72 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049910256122

Goel, R., Mohan, D.: Investigating the association between population density and travel patterns in Indian cities—an analysis of 2011 census data. Cities 100 , 102656 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2020.102656

Goel, S., Sharma, R., Rathore, A.K.: A review on barrier and challenges of electric vehicle in India and vehicle to grid optimisation. Transp. Eng. 4 , 100057 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRENG.2021.100057

GoI: FAME-I: Scheme for faster adoption and manufacturing of (hybrid &) electric vehicles in India. New Delhi (2015)

Gopisetty, V., Srinivasan, K.K.: Joint models for analysis of household trip frequency and vehicle ownership in Chennai city. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. Math. 5 , 129–144 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12572-013-0091-5

Guahroya, A., Majumdarb, B.B., Sahc, P.K., Majid, A.: Identification and evaluation of key determinants of two-wheeler ownership model in the context of developing countries: a case study of Pune city, India. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 13 , 120–131 (2019)

Guerra, E.: Electric vehicles, air pollution, and the motorcycle city: a stated preference survey of consumers’ willingness to adopt electric motorcycles in Solo, Indonesia. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 68 , 52–64 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2017.07.027

Bang, H.-K., Ellinger, A.E., Hadjimarcou, J., Traichal, P.A.: Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory—Bang—2000—Psychology & Marketing—Wiley Online Library. Psychol. Mark. 17 , 449–468 (2000b)

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.G.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 26 , 106–121 (2014)

Hair, J.H., Balck, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2009)

Han, L., Wang, S., Zhao, D., Li, J.: The intention to adopt electric vehicles: driven by functional and non-functional values. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 103 , 185–197 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.033

He, X., Zhan, W., Hu, Y.: Consumer purchase intention of electric vehicles in China: the roles of perception and personality. J. Clean Prod. 204 , 1060–1069 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.260

Hidrue, M.K., Parsons, G.R., Kempton, W., Gardner, M.P.: Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour. Energy Econ. 33 , 686–705 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.02.002

Hung, S.Y., Ku, C.Y., Chang, C.M.: Critical factors of WAP services adoption: an empirical study. Electron. Commerce Res. Appl. 2 , 42–60 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1567-4223(03)00008-5

IEA: World Energy Outlook 2009, IEA, Paris (2009)

IEA: Tracking Transport 2020, IEA, Paris (2020)

International Institute for Population Sciences, ICF: National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019–21. Mumbai (2021)

Jain, N.K., Bhaskar, K., Jain, S.: What drives adoption intention of electric vehicles in India? an integrated UTAUT model with environmental concerns, perceived risk and government support. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. (2022a). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100730

Jain, N.K., Bhaskar, K., Jain, S.: What drives adoption intention of electric vehicles in India? An integrated UTAUT model with environmental concerns, perceived risk and government support. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 42 , 100730 (2022b). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RTBM.2021.100730

Jaiswal, D., Deshmukh, A.K., Thaichon, P.: Who will adopt electric vehicles? Segmenting and exemplifying potential buyer heterogeneity and forthcoming research. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 67 , 102969 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRETCONSER.2022.102969

Jansson, J., Marell, A., Nordlund, A.: Green consumer behavior: determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J. Consum. Mark. 27 , 358–370 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011052396

Cao, X., Næss, P., Wolday, F.: Examining the effects of the built environment on auto ownership in two Norwegian urban regions. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 67 , 464–474 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2018.12.020

Jensen, A.F., Cherchi, E., Mabit, S.L.: On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 25 , 24–32 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.006

Jindel, J., Chandra, A., Allirani, H., Verma, A.: Studying two-wheeler usage in the context of sustainable and resilient urban mobility policies in India. Transp. Res. Rec. 2676 , 424–436 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221074644

Junquera, B., Moreno, B., Álvarez, R.: Analyzing consumer attitudes towards electric vehicle purchasing intentions in Spain: technological limitations and vehicle confidence. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 109 , 6–14 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.006

Ken Research: Malaysia Electric Two-Wheeler Market Future Outlook to 2026: Driven by increase in awareness about alternative fuel, advancements in battery technology, and growing demand of two-wheelers in B2B Services (2022)

Kidiyoor, S.: Bengaluru’s number of vehicles doubles in a decade, but BMTC fleet size remains stagnant, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bengalurus-number-of-vehicles-doubles-in-a-decade-but-bmtc-fleet-size-remains-stagnant/article65442021.ece (2022)

Kim, J., Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.: Expanding scope of hybrid choice models allowing for mixture of social influences and latent attitudes: application to intended purchase of electric cars. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 69 , 71–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.016

Kresnanto, N.C.: Model of relationship between car ownership growth and economic growth in Java. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 650, p. 012047 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/650/1/012047

Kwon, Y., Son, S., Jang, K.: User satisfaction with battery electric vehicles in South Korea. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2020.102306

Lane, B., Potter, S.: The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the consumer attitude-action gap. J. Clean Prod. 15 , 1085–1092 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.026

Le, H., Posada, F., Yang, Z.: Electric two-wheeler market growth in Vietnam: An overview. International Council on Clean Trasnportation (2022)

Le, H., Yang, Z.: Market analysis of two-and three-wheeler vehicles in key ASEAN member states. International Council on Clean Transportation (2022)

Levine, M.D., Koomey, J.G., McMahon, J.E., Sanstad, A.H., Hirst, E.: Energy efficiency policy and market failures. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 20 , 535–555 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.20.110195.002535

Li, L., Wang, Z., Xie, X.: From government to market? A discrete choice analysis of policy instruments for electric vehicle adoption. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 160 , 143–159 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2022.04.004

Liao, F., Molin, E., van Wee, B.: Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review. Transp. Rev. 37 , 252–275 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1230794

Liu, F., Zhao, X., Chau, P.Y.K., Tang, Q.: Roles of perceived value and individual differences in the acceptance of mobile coupon applications. Internet Res. 25 , 471–495 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-02-2014-0053

Maat, K., Timmermans, H.J.P.: Influence of the residential and work environment on car use in dual-earner households. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 43 , 654–664 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2009.06.003

MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., Sugawara, H.M.: Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1 , 130–149 (1996)

Melliger, M.A., van Vliet, O.P.R., Liimatainen, H.: Anxiety vs reality—sufficiency of battery electric vehicle range in Switzerland and Finland. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 65 , 101–115 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.08.011

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India: India’s Long-Term Low-Carbon Development Strategy (2022)

MoRTH: Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Annual report 2020–2021. (2020)

Murugan, M., Marisamynathan, S.: Estimation of two-wheeler users’ mode shift behavior and policy analysis to encourage electric-bike adoption in India. Case Stud. Transp. Policy. (2022a). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSTP.2022.06.006

Murugan, M., Marisamynathan, S.: Mode shift behaviour and user willingness to adopt the electric two-wheeler: a study based on Indian road user preferences. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. (2022b). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJTST.2022.03.008

Okada, T., Tamaki, T., Managi, S.: Effect of environmental awareness on purchase intention and satisfaction pertaining to electric vehicles in Japan. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 67 , 503–513 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2019.01.012

Ozaki, R., Sevastyanova, K.: Going hybrid: an analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy 39 , 2217–2227 (2011)

Ozturk, A.B., Bilgihan, A., Salehi-Esfahani, S., Hua, N.: Understanding the mobile payment technology acceptance based on valence theory: a case of restaurant transactions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 29 , 2027–2049 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2016-0192/FULL/PDF

Pagiaslis, A., Krontalis, A.K.: Green consumption behavior antecedents: environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychol. Mark. 31 , 335–348 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20698

Patil, M., Majumdar, B.B.: An investigation on the key determinants influencing electric two-wheeler usage in urban Indian context. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 43 , 100693 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RTBM.2021.100693

Patil, M., Majumdar, B.B., Sahu, P.K., Truong, L.T.: Evaluation of prospective users’ choice decision toward electric two-wheelers using a stated preference survey: an indian perspective. Sustainability 13 , 3035 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13063035

Pearre, N.S., Kempton, W., Guensler, R.L., Elango, V.V.: Electric vehicles: How much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 19 , 1171–1184 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.010

Peter, J.P., Tarpey, L.X., Sr.: A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. J. Consum. Res. 2 , 29–37 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1086/208613

Preacher, K.J., Coffman, D.L.: Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software] (2006), http://www.quantpsy.org/rmsea/rmsea.htm

Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bodin, J.: Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 34 , 122–136 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.010

Roychowdhury, A., Dubey, G.: The urban commute: And how it contributes to pollution and energy consumption. (2018)

Rudra, N.: Are Recent Fire Incidents Impacting Growth and Sales of EVs? Find Out What OEMs and Industry Associations Say (2022), https://circuitdigest.com/article/electric-vehicle-growth-and-sales-in-india

Sahoo, D., Harichandan, S., Kar, S.K., Sreejesh, S.: An empirical study on consumer motives and attitude towards adoption of electric vehicles in India: Policy implications for stakeholders. Energy Policy (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112941

Sajjad, A., Asmi, F., Chu, J., Anwar, M.A.: Environmental concerns and switching toward electric vehicles: geographic and institutional perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 , 39774–39785 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08311-4

Sau Mei, N., Weng Wai, C., Ahamad, R.: Environmental awareness and practice in reducing climate change among Malaysian community. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 222 , 668–675 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.223

Schleich, J.: Barriers to energy efficiency: a comparison across the German commercial and services sector. Ecol. Econ. 68 , 2150–2159 (2009)

Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., Kinnear, N.: The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 48 , 39–49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.004

Schwartz, S.H.: Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10 , 221–279 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5

Schwartz, S.H.: An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read Psychol Cult 2 , 11 (2012). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Scorrano, M., Rotaris, L.: The role of environmental awareness and knowledge in the choice of a seated electric scooter. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 160 , 333–347 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2022.04.007

Scroll.in: Making two-wheelers less polluting to combat air pollution in India (2017f), https://scroll.in/b/105

Sen, S.: With 26 Lakh 2-wheelers, City Has 1,300 Bikes/km, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/with-26-lakh-2-wheelers-city-has-1300-bikes/km/articleshow/94848415.cms , (2022)

Sharma, A.: Scooter Story: Asia’s Two Wheel EV Transition, https://icg.citi.com/icghome/what-we-think/global-insights/insights/scooter-story-asia-s-two-wheel-ev-transition

Sheeran, P.: Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 12 , 1–36 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L.: Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 22 , 159–170 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8

Siegrist, M.: The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20 , 195–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202020

Sierzchula, W.: Factors influencing fleet manager adoption of electric vehicles. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 31 , 126–134 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.022

Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., Van Wee, B.: The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 68 , 183–194 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043

Singh, P.: E-two wheelers can cut carbon emissions in a big way, https://www.dailypioneer.com/2022/columnists/e-two-wheelers-can-cut-carbon-emissions-in-a-big-way.html , (2022)

Singh, S., Sagar, R.: A critical look at online survey or questionnaire-based research studies during COVID-19. Asian J. Psychiatr. 65 , 102850 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJP.2021.102850

Singh, V., Singh, V., Vaibhav, S.: A review and simple meta-analysis of factors influencing adoption of electric vehicles. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. (2020a). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102436

Singh, V., Singh, V., Vaibhav, S.: A review and simple meta-analysis of factors influencing adoption of electric vehicles. Transp .res. D Transp. Environ. (2020b). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2020.102436

Sinnappan, P., Rahman, A.A.: Antecedents of green purchasing behavior among Malaysian consumers. Int. Bus. Manag. 5 , 129–139 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2011.129.139

Sivapriyan, E.: E-bike catches fire in Tamil Nadu’s Hosur; 29-year-old escapes unhurt, (2022)

Skippon, S.M., Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Stannard, J.: How experience of use influences mass-market drivers’ willingness to consider a battery electric vehicle: a randomised controlled trial. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 92 , 26–42 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.034

Srinivasan, K.K., Bhargavi, A.P.: Longer-term changes in mode choice decisions in Chennai: a comparison between cross-sectional and dynamic models. Transportation 34 , 355–374 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9116-x

Sundaram, R.: Fire accidents burn down sales of electric vehicles in Tamil Nadu | Chennai News - Times of India (2022), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/fire-accidents-burn-down-sales-of-electric-vehicles-in-tamil-nadu/articleshow/91755912.cms

Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N.: Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 77 , 203–220 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

The Economic Times: Over 21 crore two-wheelers, 7 crore four-wheelers and above category of vehicles registered in India (2022), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/two-wheelers-three-wheelers/over-21-crore-two-wheelers-7-crore-four-wheelers-and-above-category-of-vehicles-registered-in-india/articleshow/93351004.cms?from=mdr

TIFAC, NITI Aayog: Forecasting penetration of electric two-wheelers in India—A bottom-up analysis (2022)

Turrentine, T.S., Kurani, K.S.: Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy 35 , 1213–1223 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.03.005

United Nations Climate Change: Key aspects of the Paris Agreement (2016), https://unfccc.int/most-requested/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement

Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I.A., Zait, A.: How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Econ. Finance 20 , 679–686 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9

U.S. EIA: International Energy Outlook 2016. (2017)

Vajjarapu, H., Verma, A., Allirani, H.: Evaluating the climate change mitigation potential of sustainable urban transport measures in India. J. Urban Plan Dev. 149 , 04022047 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000890

Venkadavarahan, M., Marisamynathan, S.: Estimation of rider’s shifting intention for electric bike adoption: An integrated choice and latent variable approach. Transp. Lett. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2021.2000815

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 , 425–478 (2003)

Verma, M., Manoj, M., Verma, A.: Analysis of the influences of attitudinal factors on car ownership decisions among urban young adults in a developing country like India. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 42 , 90–103 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2016.06.024

Verma, V.K., Chandra, B., Kumar, S.: Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. J. Bus. Res. 96 , 206–216 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2018.11.021

Wahab, L., Jiang, H.: Factors influencing the adoption of electric vehicle: the case of electric motorcycle in northern Ghana. Int. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 9 , 22–37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.7708/IJTTE.2019.9(1).03

Wang, N., Tang, L., Pan, H.: Analysis of public acceptance of electric vehicles: an empirical study in Shanghai. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 126 , 284–291 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.011

Wang, S., Fan, J., Zhao, D., Yang, S., Fu, Y.: Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model. Transportation (amst). 43 , 123–143 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9567-9

Wang, S., Li, J., Zhao, D.: The impact of policy measures on consumer intention to adopt electric vehicles: evidence from China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 105 , 14–26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2017.08.013

Wedagama, D.M.P.: A multinomial logit model for estimating the influence of household characteristics on motorcycle ownership: a case study in Denpasar city Bali. J. Civ. Eng. 29 , 2–9 (2009)

White, L.V., Sintov, N.D.: You are what you drive: Environmentalist and social innovator symbolism drives electric vehicle adoption intentions. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 99 , 94–113 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2017.03.008

World Population Review: Bangalore Population, https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/bangalore-population

Yamamoto, T.: Comparative analysis of household car, motorcycle and bicycle ownership between Osaka metropolitan area, Japan and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Transportation (amst.) 36 , 351–366 (2009)

Yeung, S.P.M.: Teaching approaches in geography and students’ environmental attitudes. Environmentalist 24 , 101–117 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-004-4801-1

Zegras, C.: The built environment and motor vehicle ownership and use: evidence from Santiago de Chile. Urban Stud. 47 , 1793–1817 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009356125

Zegras, P.C., Srinivasan, S.: Household income, travel behavior, location, and accessibility: sketches from two different developing contexts. Transp. Res. Rec. (2007). https://doi.org/10.3141/2038-17

Zhu, L., Song, Q., Sheng, N., Zhou, X.: Exploring the determinants of consumers’ WTB and WTP for electric motorcycles using CVM method in Macau. Energy Policy 127 , 64–72 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.12.004

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ruth Babbington, Amy Davis, Domas Zemaitis, Sandhya Nagaraju, Chris Harrison, Sathsara Abeysinghe, Mo Abrahams and Thomas Gofrey-Brown from Energy Systems Catapult for their inputs throughout the project. The authors would also like to thank Eclat engineering private limited for their assistance in data collection. The authors acknowledge the important contribution made by Poornashree, Anusha, Atish, Bhumika, Deeksha, Ann and Vaibhav in data collection and processing. The authors would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for devoting the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to significantly improve the quality of the manuscript.

The authors thank UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) SP/ESCL-21-0001 for the financial support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India

Furqan A. Bhat & Ashish Verma

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Bhat and Verma; Data collection: Bhat and Verma; Analysis: Bhat; Interpretation of results: Bhat and Verma; Draft manuscript preparation and revision: Bhat and Verma. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashish Verma .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bhat, F.A., Verma, A. Consumer intention to accept electric two-wheelers in India: a valence theory approach to unveil the role of identity and utility. Transportation (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-023-10430-z

Download citation

Accepted : 08 September 2023

Published : 22 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-023-10430-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Electric vehicles (EVs)
• Electric two-wheelers
• Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
• Structural equation modelling (SEM)
• Adoption behaviour
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research