The present study analyses whether micromobility users in Barcelona have a monomodal or multimodal travel behaviour. Through an analysis of the weekly frequency of micromobility users’ use of traditional transportation modes in Barcelona, we investigated how each micromobility mode fits into the wider transportation mix in the city, thus gaining insights into the specific patterns of multimodality among micromobility users. Based on the results, three issues deserve further discussion: (i) Micromobility in relation to other micromobility modes, (ii) Micromobility in combination with traditional modes of transport, and (iii) Socioeconomic determinants of micromobility multimodality.
5.1 Multimodality (I): Micromobility and other micromobility modes
Barcelona presents a variety of micromobility options that offer a wide set of choices to travellers, ranging from public bike-sharing systems to moped-sharing services. Notwithstanding, our results found users to be, essentially, attached to a single micromobility device, showing almost no interest for other micromobility alternatives. This means, for instance, that most e-scooter users are unlikely to use any other micromobility mode during their everyday travel, or that users of bicycle-sharing systems will probably not use any other micromobility mode, other than the shared bicycle. Our sample found very few cases of multimodality within micromobility, as almost no participants declared using a combination of e-scooter, bike-sharing, and/or moped during the week. In the specific case of e-scooters, this inexistent combination with other micromobility alternatives may be explained by the fact that e-scooters in Barcelona can only be privately owned. Owning the device may act as a mechanism reinforcing its usage (Klinger, 2017), making it no longer necessary to consider other micromobility options. Precisely because of the sharing features they both have, we expected a larger overlap of users between shared bikes and shared mopeds. However, this overlap is, in fact, also very low as very few people combine bike-sharing and moped-sharing within the same week. These findings contradict previous studies suggesting that moped-sharing services may complement other shared mobility options, such as bike-sharing (Aguilera-García et al., 2021), and calls into question the ability of moped services to act as a gateway, through which to bring individuals closer towards other micromobility modes.
5.2 Multimodality (II): Micromobility in combination with traditional modes of transport
From the point of view of the combination with other modes of transport, our week-based analysis has revealed a wider variance than other trip-based analyses had previously reported. This is in line with studies that had focused exclusively on traditional modes of transport (Buehler & Hamre, 2016; Kuhnimhof et al., 2012), which found that longer time periods captured a greater variability of profiles. Our findings show that micromobility users are not monolithic in terms of their modal choices but, instead, they exhibit a wide and diverse range of modal mixes. This is consistent with the trends described in the study by Klinger (2017), where it was concluded that the traditional classification of users, as either solely car-drivers or users exclusively preferring sustainable modes of transport, was somewhat obsolete. Instead, that author promotes the idea that individuals make decisions about the most appropriate mode of transport in a more pragmatic way, based on a situational rationale. Similarly, our results show that micromobility serves as the core mode of transportation for some users’ daily travel patterns, while for others it merely represents an additional option, or plays a complementary role in their weekly modal mixes. This finding may support a more flexible understanding of traveller typologies and travel choice behaviours.
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is among the first to find a strong association between e-scooter and monomodal behaviours. However, this result is consistent with previous findings by Diana & Mokhtarian (2009) and Garcia-Sierra et al. (2018), where it was noted that there is an association between vehicle ownership and monomodal tendencies. In this case, the specificity of the Barcelona case, with the city council effectively banning sharing e-scooter services and thus pushing individuals to buy their own scooter device, might be affecting the study results. The combination of private ownership plus the convenient features of e-scooters -small and lightweight- allow for easy door-to-door travel, and might even be creating a greater degree of owner attachment to the device, while at the same time removing any incentive to use other modes of transport. In that sense, the behaviour of private e-scooter owners might be more similar to that of traditional bike owners, or even motorcycle owners, in Barcelona (Marquet & Miralles-Guasch, 2016). However, a relation of exclusivity and dependence with a single mode can be problematic in the long term, especially when the micromobility device in question is not available (due to maintenance issues, for instance), or when circumstances make their usage unsuitable (longer trips, trips to areas without adequate infrastructure, adverse weather conditions, or while carrying heavy loads). A lack of flexibility in switching to alternative modes of transportation could eventually lead to increments in immobility rates or, as suggested by Haworth et al., (2021), to misuses or risky behaviours. As previously experienced with other mobility options, repetitive and exclusive use of a particular mode of transport can lead to a lack of consideration for other users of the city. In Barcelona, for example, motorcycle riders who exhibit high levels of monomodality (Marquet & Miralles-Guasch, 2016), are frequently observed parking on pavements, which creates hazards for pedestrians (Catalunya Camina & Eixample Respira, 2022). E-scooter users losing empathy for other city actors might make them more likely to engage in unsafe or inconsiderate practices such as riding on pavements (Haworth et al., 2021). As suggested by Gibson et al. (2022), more research is needed to better understand the travel behaviour of a device that is associated with monomodal tendencies. This is especially important when the device does not fit neatly into a specific category, and its violation of the boundaries of transport spaces can threaten the integrity of pedestrians.
Bicycle-sharing users in our sample show a higher disposition to using other modes of transport other than micromobility. Consistent with the body of literature, our results indicate that a change in the transportation culture towards more frequent use of sharing systems and lower ownership rates might be expanding the set of modes of transport that travellers rely on, on a weekly basis (Miramontes et al., 2017). Bicycle sharing has arisen as a pillar within some users’ daily mobility strategies, and as a flexible and convenient mode of transportation that complements other options and allows for more diverse and sustainable travel patterns for others. Therefore, the success of bike-sharing systems might be creating a group of multimodal users that are able to choose their mode of transportation based on their real-time needs and context(s), thus making modal choice a more rational process that is potentially less dependent on habit. This represents a departure point from the traditional approach of choosing a mode of transportation for the entire day, and allows users to select the most suitable mode of transportation for each individual trip that they need to make.
Consistent with prior research (Buehler & Hamre, 2016; Klinger, 2017; Lavery et al., 2013), our results suggest that micromobility has the potential to reduce transaction costs associated with multimodal travel behaviour, such as the time and the effort required to coordinate strategies, especially in contexts with a certain degree of compactness and with a well-designed public transportation network, such as the network in Barcelona. However, the lack of centralised information across travel modes might be slowing down the maximisation of this potential. If transportation suppliers succeeded in reducing transaction costs even more, the use of bicycles on an as-needed basis could arise as a convenient option with which to meet weekly transport demand of people with different cycling preferences and expectations. As previous authors have noted (Arias-Molinares & García-Palomares, 2020; Becker et al., 2020), a plausible way of simplifying the provision of information and the access to information is to create a unique common information source in the form of a Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Developing a digital channel enabling users to book for multiple types of mobility services can boost the potential to use bike-sharing for multimodality and unplanned trips. By providing users with a single platform, that allows them to smoothly access different modes of transportation, including bike-sharing, it becomes easier for people to plan and execute trips that involve multiple modes of transportation.
Barcelona is a city with a long-standing tradition of using private mopeds and motorcycles for urban transport (Marquet & Miralles-Guasch, 2016). Because of that, shared moped-style systems are thought to have much appeal and potential to expand and, thus, have started to attract the attention of a number of studies (Bach et al., 2023; Bach et al., 2023). In our sample, users of moped-style sharing systems had a lower likelihood of being monomodal users. According to our results, individuals making use of moped sharing services are also more likely to have access to a private vehicle than non-users. Indeed, a great proportion of users who are paying for moped sharing services primarily rely on car-trips and only use shared mopeds on an occasional basis. This is consistent with the work of Aguilera-García et al. (2020), that found a positive association between owning a car and being a shared-moped user in Madrid (central Spain). It suggests that shared moped systems in Spain, in general, might be viewed as a "crutch" vehicle that offers the benefits of a motorised private vehicle without the problems and burdens of the ownership. The results of their study also suggest that moped sharing services may be complementing rather than replacing private vehicle ownership. While shared mopeds are certainly a step in the right direction towards more sustainable transportation options, they may not be enough to trigger deep travel behaviour changes.
5.3 Socioeconomic determinants of micromobility multimodality
Our models demonstrate that the degree of multimodality of the different micromobility users is effectively mediated by personal characteristics such as gender, professional status, or socioeconomic level. In line with previous research (Levy, 2013; Roberts et al., 2011), our findings have shown that female micromobility users tend to have a larger variety of modes of transport that they use on a weekly basis. This might be explained by a larger variance in the characteristics of their trips, as women tend to travel shorter distances and make more trips for personal and household purposes (Maciejewska et al., 2019; Miralles-Guasch et al., 2015). Regarding the role of professional status, prior research has revealed that the entry into professional life drastically attenuates multimodal behaviours (Nobis, 2007). In a context where daily routines become more complex, the inherent characteristics of the daily commute, such as the fixed distances, routes, schedules, or frequency, make occupational trips the kind of trip that is most significantly influenced by habits (Gao et al., 2020). This is consistent with our results, where employed individuals are characterised by an intensive use of micromobility modes, either private e-scooter or moped, and tend to have lower multimodality rates. In terms of socioeconomic level, results from previous research on non-micromobility modes, found that the low-income population had a more diverse and a wider set of modes of transportation than the high-income population (Diana & Mokhtarian, 2009; Kroesen, 2014; Molin et al., 2016). Traditionally, the use of multiple modes of transportation has been associated with higher “transaction costs”, in the sense of higher efforts and requirements for the procurement of information and geographic and temporal organisation, and therefore to low-income population groups, as high-income population is often unwilling to incur the costs that are associated with multi-option mobility schemes. However, the introduction of some micromobility devices may have changed this association, as our models repeatedly find higher incomes to be associated with a higher multimodal behaviour, particularly in the case of those using bike-sharing. Although this may be partially explained by Barcelona’s bicycle sharing system layout, which operates exclusively within the Barcelona city boundaries and thus concentrates its network mostly in central areas of the city, this is an interesting finding on the ability of some micromobility services to break well-established theories on urban travel behaviour. At the same time, however, these findings highlight the paper of shared micromobility services in exacerbating existing transportation inequalities based on socioeconomic status, with higher-income individuals benefiting more from the increased travel choices, whereas lower-income individuals are potentially being left behind with fewer options. This suggests that, for micromobility to have a real ability to break well-established theories on urban travel behaviour, policy interventions should first ensure micromobility accessibility and affordability for all income groups, rather than solely benefiting those who are already better off.