Congested sidewalks: The effects of the built environment on e-scooter parking compliance


  • Rob Hemphill Portland State University
  • John MacArthur TREC at Portland State University
  • Philip Longenecker Portland State University
  • Garima Desai University of California, Santa Cruz
  • Lillie Nie University of Southern California
  • Abbey Ibarra California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
  • Jennifer Dill, Ph.D Portland State University



micromobility, e-scooters, shared, parking, compliance, land use


With the proliferation of electric scooters (e-scooters) in cities across the world, concerns continue to arise about their parking spots on sidewalks and other public spaces. Research has looked at e-scooter parking compliance and compared compliance to other mobility devices, but research has not yet examined the impacts of the built environment on parking compliance. Using a field observation dataset in Portland, Oregon, and novel GIS data, we attempt to understand the spatial distribution of e-scooter parking and the impact of built features on parking compliance, offering recommendations for policymakers and future research. The results of our study show that 76% of e-scooters observed fail at least one of the Portland’s parking compliance requirements and 59% fail at least two criteria. However, compliance varies spatially and by violation type, indicating that parking compliance (or non-compliance) is dependent on features of the built environment. Parking compliance is significantly higher on blocks with designated e-scooter parking than blocks without designated e-scooter parking. A statistically significant relationship is observed between the amount of legally parkable area on a city block and parking compliance. Parking compliance increases with larger percentages of legally parkable area. This finding can help policymakers prioritize dedicated e-scooter parking for blocks with limited legally parkable area.


Bai, S., & Jiao, J. (2020). From shared micro-mobility to shared responsibility: Using crowdsourcing to understand dockless vehicle violations in Austin, Texas. Journal of Urban Affairs.

Bozzi, A., & Aguilera, A. (2021). Shared e-scooters: A review of uses, health and environmental impacts, and policy implications of a new micro-mobility service. Sustainability, 13(16), 8676.

Brown, A., Klein, N. J., Thigpen, C., & Williams, N. (2020). Impeding access: The frequency and characteristics of improper scooter, bike, and car parking. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 4(March), 100099.

Fang, K., Steele, J., Hunter, J. J., & Hooper, A. M. (2018). Where do riders park dockless, shared electric scooters? Findings from San Jose, California. Mineta San Jose, CA: Transportation Institute. Retrieved from (2021). GPS accuracy. GPS: The global positioning system. Washington DC: NOAA. Retrieved from

KATU staff. (2019). Disability rights: Oregon addresses concerns with e-scooter pilot program. Retrieved from

Kopplin, C., Brand, B., & Reichenberger, Y. (2021). Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 91(February), 102680.

McQueen, M., Abou-Zeid, G., MacArthur, J., & Clifton, K. (2021). Transportation transformation: Is micromobility making a macro impact on sustainability? Journal of Planning Literature, 36(1), 46–61.

Merlin, L., Yan, X., Xu, Y., & Zhao, X. (2021). A segment-level model of shared, electric scooter origins and destinations. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92(March), 102709.

Moran, M. (2021). Drawing the map: The creation and regulation of geographic constraints on shared bikes and e-scooters in San Francisco, CA. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 197–218.

Murase, R., Isaacson, K., Hinshaw, M., & Brown, M. (1998). Portland pedestrian design guidelines. Portland, OR: City of Portland, Office of Transportation Engineering and Development, Pedestrian Transportation Program.

North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA). (2020). 1st annual micromobility state-of-the-industry report. Retrieved from

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2019). Shared micromobility in the US: 2018. Retrieved from

Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). (2018a). 2018 e-scooter findings report. Retrieved from

Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). (2018b). New mobility – shared electric scooters (TRN-15.01). Retrieved from

Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). (2019). Rules of the road for e-scooters in Portland. Retrieved from

Shoup, D. (2017). The high cost of free parking (updated edition). Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.

Teale, C. (2018). Dockless digest: Bird, lime celebrate 10M rides. Retrieved from

Thomas, K., & KATU staff. (2019). E-scooter pilot program will return to Portland with new rules, enforcement fines. Retrieved from

Zhang, W., Buehler, R., Broaddus, A., & Sweeney, T. (2021). What type of infrastructures do e-scooter riders prefer? A route choice model. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94(May), 102761.




How to Cite

Hemphill, R., MacArthur, J., Longenecker, P., Desai, G., Nie, L., Ibarra, A., & Dill, J. (2022). Congested sidewalks: The effects of the built environment on e-scooter parking compliance. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 15(1), 481–495.