Transactions on Transport Sciences 2025, 16(3):37-43 | DOI: 10.5507/tots.2025.009

Shared Mobility Service Usage Patterns - Results of a Representative Survey in Budapest

Dávid Földesa, Ráchel SurányIb, Bálint Csonkaa, Borbála Simonovitsb, Csaba Csiszára
a. Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehilce Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp. 3, Budapest, H-1111, Hungary
b. Institute of Intercultural Psychology and Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Kazinczy u. 23-27, Budapest, H-1075, Hungary

To increase the share of shared mobility, understanding the general characteristics of active users and, moreover, the characteristics of non-users is essential. In this paper, we aimed to reveal the correlation between travel habits, general personal characteristics, and the use of shared mobility services, such as scooter-sharing, bike-sharing, and car-sharing. The data from a representative online survey were used; the respondents are citizens of Budapest, Hungary, and have a driver's license. We found that the active users are mainly from the younger generation with higher educational levels and higher incomes. Most users have subscriptions for more than one shared mobility service type. Furthermore, the service availability in the neighborhood and the car ownership influence car-sharing use. These findings contribute to the limited knowledge of the choice between different shared mobility types. The results can be used by operators to improve shared mobility services; the target groups of a campaign can be identified by the results.

Keywords: shared mobility; bike-sharing; scooter-sharing; car-sharing; usage habits; questionnaire survey

Received: May 2, 2025; Revised: May 2, 2025; Accepted: May 6, 2025; Published: May 28, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Földes, D., SurányI, R., Csonka, B., Simonovits, B., & Csiszár, C. (2025). Shared Mobility Service Usage Patterns - Results of a Representative Survey in Budapest. Transactions on Transport Sciences, 16(SI SCSP conference), 37-43. doi: 10.5507/tots.2025.009
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J., Antoniou, C., & Vassallo, J. M. (2022). Behavioral factors impacting adoption and frequency of use of carsharing: A tale of two European cities. Transport Policy, 123, 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.04.007 Go to original source...
    2. Amirnazmiafshar, E., & Diana, M. (2022). A review of the socio-demographic characteristics affecting the demand for different car-sharing operational schemes. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 14, 100616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100616 Go to original source...
    3. Chrétien, J., & Louvet, N. (2019, June 6). Usages et usagers de services de trottinettes électriques en free-floating en France. https://www.6-t.co/article/trottinettes-freefloating
    4. Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2014). Bike share's impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 31, 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.013 Go to original source...
    5. Fluctuo. (2024). European shared mobility. Annual Review 2023. https://european-index.fluctuo.com/
    6. Garrard, J. (2021). Women and Cycling: Addressing the Gender Gap. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11963.003.0015 Go to original source...
    7. Guo, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Understanding factors influencing shared e-scooter usage and its impact on auto mode substitution. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 99, 102991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102991 Go to original source...
    8. Hyland, M., Hong, Z., Pinto, H. K. R. de F., & Chen, Y. (2018). Hybrid cluster-regression approach to model bikeshare station usage. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 115, 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.11.009 Go to original source...
    9. Jiao, J., & Bai, S. (2020). Understanding the Shared E-scooter Travels in Austin, TX. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9020135 Go to original source...
    10. Kopplin, C. S., Brand, B. M., & Reichenberger, Y. (2021). Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 91, 102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102680 Go to original source...
    11. Kronsell, A., Dymén, C., Rosqvist, L. S., & Hiselius, L. W. (2020). Masculinities and femininities in sustainable transport policy: A focus on Swedish municipalities. NORMA, 15(2), 128-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2020.1714315 Go to original source...
    12. Laa, B., & Leth, U. (2020). Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. Journal of Transport Geography, 89, 102874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874 Go to original source...
    13. Lee, H., Baek, K., Chung, J.-H., & Kim, J. (2021a). Factors affecting heterogeneity in willingness to use e-scooter sharing services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102751 Go to original source...
    14. Lee, H., Baek, K., Chung, J.-H., & Kim, J. (2021b). Factors affecting heterogeneity in willingness to use e-scooter sharing services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102751 Go to original source...
    15. Lu, M., Hsu, S.-C., Chen, P.-C., & Lee, W.-Y. (2018). Improving the sustainability of integrated transportation system with bike-sharing: A spatial agent-based approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.023 Go to original source...
    16. McKenzie, G. (2019). Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007 Go to original source...
    17. Meddin. (2022). The Meddin Bike-sharing World Map Report. https://bikesharingworldmap.com/reports/bswm_mid2022report.pdf
    18. Mobility Lab. (2019, October 8). Arlington County Shared Mobility Devices (SMD) Pilot Evaluation Report. https://mobilitylab.org/research/micromobility/arlington-county-shared-mobility-devices-smd-pilot-evaluation-report/
    19. Moran, M. E., Laa, B., & Emberger, G. (2020). Six scooter operators, six maps: Spatial coverage and regulation of micromobility in Vienna, Austria. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8(2), 658-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.03.001 Go to original source...
    20. Mouratidis, K. (2022). Bike-sharing, car-sharing, e-scooters, and Uber: Who are the shared mobility users and where do they live? Sustainable Cities and Society, 86, 104161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104161 Go to original source...
    21. Ogilvie, F., & Goodman, A. (2012). Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: Socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Preventive Medicine, 55(1), 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.002 Go to original source...
    22. Olde Kalter, M.-J., La Paix Puello, L., & Geurs, K. T. (2020). Do changes in travellers' attitudes towards car use and ownership over time affect travel mode choice? A latent transition approach in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.015 Go to original source...
    23. PBOT. (2018). 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report | Portland.gov. https://www.portland.gov/transportation/regulatory/escooterpdx/2018-e-scooter-findings-report
    24. Raux, C., Zoubir, A., & Geyik, M. (2017). Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon's "Velo'v" scheme. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106, 350-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.010 Go to original source...
    25. Ricci, M. (2015). Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 15, 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.003 Go to original source...
    26. Shaheen, S., & Guzman, S. (2011). Worldwide Bikesharing. Access, 39, 22-27.
    27. Wallgren, P., Rexfelt, O., & Nikitas, A. (2023). Comparing the bad media-fuelled reputation of e-scooters with real-life user and non-user perceptions: Evidence from Sweden. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 99, 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.005 Go to original source...
    28. Wang, J., & Lindsey, G. (2019). Neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics and bike share member patterns of use. Journal of Transport Geography, 79, 102475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102475 Go to original source...
    29. Wielinski, G., Trépanier, M., & Morency, C. (2017). Carsharing Versus Bikesharing: Comparing Mobility Behaviors. Transportation Research Record, 2650(1), 112-122. https://doi.org/10.3141/2650-13 Go to original source...
    30. Winters, M., Davidson, G., Kao, D., & Teschke, K. (2010). Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: Comparing influences on decisions to ride. Transportation, 38(1), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9284-y Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content