Barriers Associated with the First/Last Mile Trip and Solutions to Bridge the Gap: A Scoping Literature Review

Abstract

A first/last mile (FLM) trip is defined as the distance a person travels before boarding a transit stop (first mile) or after disembarking (last mile). FLM trips could encourage or discourage people from riding transit systems, affecting their access to major services such as healthcare, education, employment, and transportation. When considering underserved communities specifically, where people rely heavily on public transportation, challenges to completing the FLM trip often negatively impact quality of life. This paper provides a comprehensive review of previous research efforts discussing the FLM trip. It begins by identifying the outcomes of challenges in completing the FLM trip and the contributing factors to those challenges and subsequently summarizes the various solutions transportation agencies and decision-makers have implemented to address the first and last legs for transit users. The most common solutions include shared mobility services, circulating shuttles, and built environment improvements. This research serves as a valuable reference for transportation professionals to enrich their understanding of the FLM barriers and the potential solutions to bridge this FLM gap.

Keywords

public transportation first/last mile accessibility barrier solution equity

Transportation plays an essential role in shaping the economy through the movement of people and goods. It is also essential to people’s health and economic well-being as it allows for better access to healthcare and potential employment opportunities. As a mode of transportation, the public transit system has several tangible benefits. With regard to the economy, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reported that for each U.S. dollar invested in public transit, a return of U.S.$5 is earned in economic activities ( 1 ). Environmentally, the nation’s carbon emissions could be reduced by 84% by using public transit rather than a car, and gasoline consumption by 6 billion gallons of gas each year ( 2 ). From a safety perspective, public transit travel recorded a 90% lower crash rate compared with automobile travel ( 3 ). However, despite the benefits obtained from public transportation, it is still unable to provide a reliable service to the public. In 2021, it was recorded that 45% of Americans cannot access public transit systems ( 4 ). This lack of access is particularly critical for underserved communities, which rely heavily on transit systems and often lack alternative modes of travel.

One major barrier to accessing public transportation is the distance to and from transit stops. Many transit commuters usually need to combine other modes of travel to bridge the gap between their origin or destination and the transit stops themselves, otherwise known as the first/last mile (FLM) trip ( 5 , 6 ). Depending on the length of travel to overcome this gap, certain commuters may feel discouraged from using public transportation. While the APTA reported that more than two-thirds of transit riders walk to transit stops, several U.S. studies revealed that public transit use declines by up to 90% when passengers need to walk more than 0.5 mi to the transit stop ( 2 , 7 ). The FLM trip is especially pronounced for disadvantaged groups, such as people with disabilities, people of color (Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native American or Indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other non-White groups), and lower-income travelers. In addition to published research on the effects of the FLM trip, transit agencies have also been implementing a wide range of initiatives to address those same effects and enhance transit accessibility. Shared mobility programs, including carsharing, bike-sharing, ridesharing, scooter-sharing, shuttles, and built environment improvements (e.g., streetscape and transit stations) are two proven methods for bridging the FLM gap.

This paper summarizes the outcomes of the FLM challenge and the contributing factors to these challenges, as well as various strategies to alleviate FLM problems, their implementation potentials, and their challenges, with a specific focus on underserved/low-income communities. The high dependency of underserved communities on transit systems makes them more vulnerable to the FLM problem compared with others, which raises disparities and inequities in transportation systems. Taking this into consideration, this research investigates literature that defined applicable approaches to improve public transportation accessibility for lower-income communities. This paper serves as a valuable reference for transportation professionals to foster a greater understanding of the importance of providing feasible FLM connections to enhance equitable access to public transportation systems.

Methodology

This study followed Arksey and O’Malley’s ( 8 ) framework to perform a scoping review of the literature to determine how challenges to completing the FLM trip create different barriers (e.g., healthcare, employment, and education), and to identify initiatives for alleviating the FLM trip and enhancing transit accessibility. A scoping review approach was selected because it facilitates concisely summarizing and disseminating research findings to decision-makers and practitioners.

Electronic databases like Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Rowan Campbell Library were instrumental in gathering relevant literature. Since transit accessibility research has been widely studied, searches excluded any work published before 2010. A two-block search approach was performed to expand the breadth of the preliminary search. The first block considered the challenges associated with the FLM trip, utilizing keywords like “first mile,”“last mile,”“challenge,”“barrier,”“transit,”“accessibility,”“education,”“public health,”“healthcare,”“job accessibility,” and “employment.” The second block considered the solutions to bridge the FLM trip, utilizing keywords like “first mile,”“last mile,”“solution,”“transit,”“accessibility,”“shared mobility,”“bike-sharing,”“ridesharing,”“carsharing,”“infrastructure,”“built environment,” and “land use.” The search was constructed using the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND,” where the keywords “last mile” and “first mile” were always connected with the term “transit” using the operator “AND.” In total, the searches uncovered more than 6,500 documents. To further filter these initial results, a title, keywords, and highlight section screening was performed, resulting in 861 relevant studies. Following the title and abstract screening, a full-text review was performed on 146 studies with a heightened focus on those conducted in the United States, and 79 documents were ultimately selected. Figure 1 illustrates the selection process.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of literature search and review.

Findings and Discussion

The 79 documents selected for this review focused on the challenges associated with the FLM trip, the solutions implemented to alleviate the problem, or both. The selected documents were published in 2010 or later, with 70 published since 2012. Of the reviewed documents, 82% (65 documents) were conducted in the United States, and the rest (14 documents) were published in Europe (7 documents), Canada (4 documents), South Africa (2 documents), and Malaysia (1 document). In relation to the document type, 58% (46 documents) were journal articles, 22% (17 documents) were white papers, and the remainder were a combination of conference papers (5 documents), educational papers (10 documents), and newsletters (1 document). Out of the 79 documents, 72 were research-based studies, where 13 discussed the barriers associated with transit accessibility and the FLM trip only, 33 discussed initiatives, research, or programs implemented to alleviate the FLM trip challenges, and 26 discussed both the challenges and solutions.

The key findings of the reviewed articles are summarized in two sections, each of which is described by overarching subsections as follows: barriers associated with the FLM trip (i.e., transportation accessibility, healthcare, education, and employment); and solutions to alleviate the FLM trip challenges (i.e., shared mobility services, micro-transit, enhancement of infrastructural facilities, and land use and transportation management strategies).

Barriers Associated with the FLM Trip

The first and last parts of a journey, which are frequently the shortest with reference to distance, are usually the most time-consuming parts of a trip. Problems with completing these two components could be interpreted as accessibility concerns and may have detrimental effects on communities. Other obstacles, such as inaccessible transit systems and disconnected transportation networks, may compound the issue. Accessibility to transportation, public health, education, and employment are outlined in this section as the four major FLM hurdles. Each of the sections below discusses the negative outcomes of the FLM challenge with reference to their respective hurdle.

Impact on Transportation Accessibility

Transit users often perceive the first and last legs of their trips as the most challenging and least reliable parts, thereby confirming these parts as an accessibility barrier to public transportation ( 9 , 10 ). The literature highlights how lower transit ridership and higher dependency on auto travel could result from poor access to public transportation ( 9 , 11 ), which could then affect the environment by raising gas consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, thereby complicating a community’s ability to achieve sustainability ( 12 , 13 ). Previous studies also emphasize that the FLM issue is especially critical for people who rely on public transportation as their primary mode of travel, as well as how transit accessibility is an equity barrier that increases marginalization and social exclusion for transportationally disadvantaged groups ( 14 – 16 ).

The impact of transportation accessibility issues varies depending on several factors, including the built environment (e.g., land use and streetscape factors), time-related issues, and socioeconomic characteristics ( 11 , 14 , 17 –22). In relation to land use, a study conducted in Chicago indicated that the FLM trip is less problematic in mixed land use areas than in non-mixed land use ones because of the greater number of options available to complete the FLM trip ( 17 ). In addition, the study highlighted that streetscape conditions, particularly well-maintained sidewalks and crosswalks, encourage walking to transit stops ( 17 ). Other studies highlight land use patterns as a significant impact factor on transit accessibility ( 11 , 18 ). Zuo and Wei ( 11 ) pointed out that mixed land use near transit stations promotes transit ridership. Another study conducted in Sweden to assess the FLM problem in accessing the transit system found that people who live in apartments in mixed land use areas have higher accessibility to the transit system than those who live in single houses in suburban and rural areas ( 18 ). Temporal factors also affect transit use and accessibility. For instance, an assessment study in Utah examined the FLM issue through temporal factors and found that different temporal barriers, such as waiting time, FLM travel time, and the fluctuation of trip schedules, are influential factors in assessing the quality of transit services in the area ( 19 ). Other studies ( 14 , 20 , 21 ) investigate the impact of socioeconomic characteristics on transit accessibility and bridging the FLM gap, finding that lower-income populations, people with disabilities, people of color, and vulnerable populations face considerably higher challenges in accessing transit stops.

In the transit literature, the FLM problem is identified as a factor in measuring the overall transit service quality. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual identifies the proximity of transit stations and stops to origins and destinations, safety, security, door-to-door travel time, and passenger amenities as essential factors for evaluating the FLM problem ( 22 ). Based on these selected studies, it is clear that the FLM trip is a complex issue with its involvement in lower transit use/ridership, longer travel times, and a higher tendency for auto travel ( 23 , 24 ).

Impact on Public Health

A lack of access to transportation is known as one of the major barriers to accessing healthcare ( 25 ). Kullgren et al. ( 26 ) conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2007 data from the Health Tracking Household Survey (HTHS) and identified accessibility barriers such as the lack of transportation sources and travel time as two reasons for delayed or absent healthcare service. Furthermore, Geisinger medical facilities noticed that in 2017, 150,000 patients missed their appointments because of the lack of transportation accessibility ( 27 ). Morris notes that low-income and elderly individuals face the most transportation-related barriers to accessing health services because of their high dependency on the transit system ( 28 ). Ermagun and Tilahun’s study on low-income communities in Chicago, IL, further confirmed this connection, reporting that the lack of accessibility to healthcare centers and healthy food has a significant impact on residents’ health and wellness ( 20 ). The authors noted that people in the studied communities are highly dependent on transit systems, and the FLM problem is of considerable concern for them. A study in Indiana indicated that increased access to transit networks improves people’s accessibility to healthy food providers ( 29 ). Finally, multiple studies identified transportation as a barrier for people who need frequent visits to healthcare centers, such as people with chronic diseases or cancer, children, and women who need prenatal care ( 30 – 32 ). In underserved communities and among lower-income populations, people rely heavily on public transportation, and issues in completing the FLM trip will considerably affect their access to healthy food and healthcare services ( 20 , 27 , 28 ).

Impact on Education

Many studies have identified transportation as a major barrier to accessing education ( 33 – 36 ). Some studies have highlighted that the distance to school affects the quality of education in a community ( 34 ). McMillan discusses the complex relationship between urban forms and children’s trips to school, and explains how a student’s travel mode could be highly influenced by the presence of safety elements in the area, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and lighting ( 35 ). In addition, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that lower-income students face considerable safety concerns during their trips to school because of the lack of adequate infrastructure, which revealed a concern about school access equity ( 36 ). Similarly, a study that performed interviews with students in a low-income community found that approximately half of the respondents considered walking to be an unsafe travel mode to the school, indicating fast-moving vehicles, strangers, uncontrolled animals, and homelessness as major safety concerns ( 33 ). Relating these findings to people in lower-income communities mainly walking to school or using public transportation where they walk to transit stops, it could be inferred that the FLM trip is a challenge to efficient access to education. The literature concluded that educational accessibility issues could highly affect children’s and adults’ futures because of their effect on students skipping their classes and being tardy.

Impact on Employment

As part of the work commute, issues in FLM trips could limit job accessibility and interrupt work trips, especially for employees who rely on public transportation ( 9 ). Tilahun et al. conducted a study to examine the effect of the FLM problem on travel modes for work trips, reporting that areas with better pedestrian facilities and fewer street crimes provide a safer environment for transit users to bridge the last mile gap ( 37 ). Other factors affecting the impact of the FLM problem on work commutes include time-related factors (e.g., working hours for an employee and travel time [ 19 , 38 ], a community’s level of income [ 14 , 39 , 40 ], the built environment [ 17 ], and age and disability [ 20 ]). A study assessing the FLM for the transit system in Utah found that issues with transit station commutes are more frequent for employees who work night shifts ( 19 ). Another study conducted in the same area stated that transit service cuts and last mile problems increase travel time and reduce job accessibility in the area ( 38 ). A study conducted in a lower-income community in San Diego, CA, indicated that job accessibility increases when work commuters use faster modes in their FLM trip, such as cycling and driving instead of walking, especially if the commute is longer than 30 min ( 14 ). Similar findings were highlighted by other studies that defined the FLM problem as a challenge to work trips, specifically in underserved communities ( 39 , 40 ). Moreover, planning and transportation policies were marked as an impact factor on transit accessibility. A study in Chicago, IL, found that areas that support transit-oriented development (TOD) offer higher accessibility to transit stations compared with areas with poor streetscapes ( 17 ). Last, people with disabilities and older adults were found to face relatively higher traveling challenges to access their jobs, primarily if they rely on the transit system. A study conducted in Chicago, IL, found that older people are the second highest group with limited accessibility to transit for accessing their jobs after lower-income workers ( 20 ).

The reviewed literature highlights the adverse outcomes of FLM-associated challenges and the contributing factors to those outcomes. The factors’ weights differ based on the number of outcomes with which they are associated (Figure 2). For instance, low-income level has the highest weight, followed by crime rate, older population, and pedestrian infrastructural facilities. For low-income populations and underserved groups, issues in completing the FLM trip could deprive them of many opportunities and access to primary services such as employment, healthcare, and education, which violates equity principles and perpetuates disadvantaged communities. Alfaris and Jalayer completed an assessment study to evaluate the FLM problem in underserved communities and defined the factors contribute with the adversity of the problem, which greatly overlap with the ones defined in this study. However, the factors' importance was ranked differently in respect with underserved communities, and safety-related factors were given the highest rank in affecting the FLM issue ( 41 ). These findings should encourage transportation agencies and researchers to conduct additional studies and develop unique plans to alleviate the FLM problem. The next section discusses initiatives to do just that.

Figure 2.

Sankey diagram representing the factors that affect the FLM barriers, weighted according to each factor’s effect.

FLM Solutions

During the last decade, several initiatives have been adopted to alleviate the FLM problem and enhance public transportation accessibility and utilization. This section provides a thorough review of the feasibility and effectiveness of the solutions implemented by different agencies and local authorities across the United States. This section is organized into four key categories: shared mobility services, micro-transit services, infrastructural development, and land use and transportation management.

Shared Mobility Services

Shared mobility is a service that has the potential to maximize the accessibility to public transportation by providing shared-use modes of transportation. With recent advancements in information and communication technologies (ICTs), the robustness of shared mobility has increased. These ICT advancements have allowed for the emergence of real-time ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft, as well as carsharing, bicycle- and scooter-sharing services. Shared mobility also offers several environmental, social, and transportation-related benefits. Many case studies in the United States leveraged shared mobility services to address the barriers associated with the FLM problem and enhance transit accessibility. The first initiative to solve the FLM problem with carsharing programs was in 1999 using CarLink-I ( 42 ), followed by a similar program called Zev.Net in 2002 ( 43 ). Currently, many organizations have adopted similar initiatives to alleviate the FLM problem of operating traditional (not automated) and automated vehicles ( 44 – 51 ). In the Vancouver Metro area, Gamiz et al. evaluated the one-way carsharing model as a solution for the first/last mile problem and concluded that this model is considered effective and flexible enough to bridge the FLM gap ( 44 ). In Ann-Arbor Detroit Area, MI, shared autonomous vehicles were operated to connect the Ann-Arbor transit system and Detroit Wayne County Airport; Moorthy et al. evaluated the program and concluded its effectiveness in providing last mile transit services ( 46 ). Other regions in the United States also adopted carsharing programs and considered them in their FLM plans to enhance transit accessibility, such as the Regional Transit District, CO ( 48 ), the Riverside Transit Agency, CA ( 49 ), Richmond, VA ( 50 ), and the Metro Transit Agency, CA ( 51 ). Additionally, ridesharing programs, which are mostly run through transportation network companies (TNCs), play an essential role in enhancing transit accessibility and solving the FLM problem ( 49 – 56 ). Ridesharing programs in their two operational models, traditional and subsidized, were primarily involved in FLM strategic plans and programs ( 49 – 56 ). In Florida, the city of Altamonte Springs partnered with Uber to subsidize 20% of the FLM trip cost between a rider’s origin/destination and transit stations in the city to facilitate the FLM trip and enhance transit ridership ( 52 ). In Boston, MA, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority partnered with Uber and Lyft to provide transit accessibility for people with disabilities. The program also subsidized 70% of the FLM trip ( 53 ). Some companies partnered with TNCs to facilitate the FLM trip for their employees. TriMet in Portland, OR ( 47 ), and the Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Colorado ( 48 ) conducted partnerships with Lyft to subsidize and facilitate trips between transit stations and workplaces for employees.

Bike-sharing and scooter-sharing programs, known as micro-mobility transportation models, offer higher accessibility to transit stations and stops ( 9 , 15 , 24 , 48 –51, 57 –60). Micro-mobility refers to a type of transportation that involves the use of small, lightweight vehicles for short trips; these vehicles could include bicycles, electric bikes, and electric scooters, and they are typically adopted within urban areas. The benefits of bike-share programs include reducing air pollution, alleviating traffic congestion, and mitigating parking demands ( 60 ). Kaufman et al. studied the Citi Bike system in New York City and found that almost 75% of its bike-sharing stations are within a five-min walk from a subway station, providing an FLM connection to public transit ( 57 ). Zuo et al. conducted a study in Hamilton County, OH, to evaluate the effectiveness of a bike-sharing program as an FLM travel mode ( 9 ). Zuo et al. ( 9 ) and Zuo and Wei ( 15 ) found that bike-sharing provides high accessibility to transit stations; they also noted that bike-sharing maintains equity and provides transit accessibility to low-income people. Flamm and Rivasplata analyzed survey results for cyclists to transit in Philadelphia, PA, and San Francisco, CA, and they highlighted that a larger catchment area for transit could be provided by cycling compared with traditional modes such as walking ( 58 ). Although the literature indicates the importance of the aforementioned models in improving transit accessibility, each model has its own implementation challenges, especially in underserved communities that lack the necessary logistics to access such models (e.g., bank accounts, smartphones, and internet access).

Micro-Transit Services

Micro-transit services are known as a form of on-demand or flexible transportation service that uses smaller vehicles, such as vans or shuttle buses, to provide point-to-point service within a defined area. Many agencies operate micro-transit services to tackle the barriers associated with the FLM problem (49 –51, 55 , 59 ). A shuttle service is one primary micro-transit model that has been utilized to connect people with transit stops ( 61 – 63 ). While this service could be costly and difficult to administer, agencies have offset costs through partnership programs, as well as employer-sponsored, agency-sponsored, and short-distance vanpools. As an approach to leveraging micro-transit, healthcare centers and agencies have deployed the service to offer facilitated medical trips for patients ( 61 – 63 ). For instance, Seattle Children’s Hospital, WA, offered shuttle links to transit hubs as a part of its financial and personal commitment to building, executing, and growing transportation services ( 61 ). Another project launched by Health Outreach Partners (HOP) adopted multiple strategies to alleviate transportation issues to access public health; among these strategies, the project operated a door-to-door shuttle service ( 62 ). On the educational side, Denver Public Schools in Colorado led a bus shuttle service to encourage school attendance and facilitate participation in before- and after-school activities in the city’s outlying areas. This initiative, in collaboration with other programs, contributed to raising students’ attendance and eliminating truancy ( 63 ). For job accessibility, the city of Oakland in California operates Oakland’s Broadway Shuttles to connect the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) with employment and shopping centers ( 64 ).

Infrastructural Development

Studies show that the design of active transportation infrastructure can encourage both active transport and transit mode share ( 65 , 66 ). This approach includes the improvement of pedestrian facilities, biking facilities, and transit station amenities. Many last mile plans and projects prioritized this approach to enhance transit ridership and solve FLM-associated problems (49 –51, 55 ). For improving transit accessibility, studies argue that the level of comfort, safety, and connectivity are major influencing factors for people to walk or bike to transit and ride it pleasantly ( 67 ). Meng et al. ( 68 ) state the quality of pedestrians’ infrastructure could encourage or discourage a person from walking to a transit stop, echoed by findings from a study through the University of Florida ( 47 ). Biking facilities are also considered a major influence to encourage people to ride their bikes and bridge the FLM gap; these facilities include dedicated bike lanes, installing bike racks at transit stations and stops, and installing bike racks at transit vehicles ( 11 , 15 ). Additionally, providing on-site amenities at transit stops could enhance multimodal access to public transportation, improve the overall transit riding experience, inspire new riders to use public transit, and increase passengers’ sense of security and safety ( 69 ). Previous literature highlighted that enhanced pedestrian safety signs encourage people to walk to transit stiops and improve their safety ( 70 – 72 ). Amenities at transit stations and stops include seating, adequate lighting, wayfinding, weather shelters, and security cameras ( 22 ).

Land Use and Transportation Management Strategies

Several planning policies and strategies have been adopted to enhance accessibility to transit systems and bridge the FLM problem. TOD is one of the approaches that positively affects transit accessibility ( 50 , 73 –75). Several agencies approved TOD in their land use and transportation plans, including Portland Metro, OR ( 73 ), Metro Vancouver Region, BC ( 74 ), the City Council of Charlotte, NC ( 75 ), and the City of Richmond, VA ( 50 ). In addition to TOD, a transportation demand management (TDM) policy was adopted by communities, cities, and employers across the United States, including the San Diego Region, CA ( 76 ), and Cambridge, MA ( 77 ). Richmond, VA ( 50 ), also adopted this policy to provide a multimodal transportation approach for workers to complete their work commutes. Moreover, planning and transportation policies considered improving educational accessibility as well, such as the Safe Route to School (SRTS) program, a federal program launched in 2005 and adopted by different organizations to enhance students’ access to schools, especially for students who walk, bike, or ride public transportation. Referring to statistics collected between 2007 and 2012 from regions that applied SRTS policies, students who walked to or from school increased from 14.1% to 17.7%, although this increase occurred mostly among students who attended low-income schools ( 78 ). These strategies, in collaboration with other policies and organizations such as parking management ( 79 ) and transportation management associations ( 50 ), can play a substantial role in alleviating the FLM problem and its barriers in the short and long term.

To better understand the contributions of the aforementioned initiatives in solving the FLM problem, Table 1 summarizes the capability, operational models, advantages, disadvantages, and implementation barriers with regard to each approach.

Table 1.

Summary of the First/Last Mile (FLM) Solutions and their Effectiveness, Models, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implementation Barriers

FLM Solution		Service capability and feasibility	Operational model	Advantages	Disadvantages	Implementation barriers
Shared mobility services	Carsharing	5 to 15 mi	• Carpooling • Managed by a specific agency for a specific group of people (e.g., employees or a specific area)	• Reduce vehicle miles traveled, gas consumption, and GHG emissions • Reduce parking demand • Passive income • Available 24/7	• Not accessible for low-income and people with disabilities • Costly • Limited range of service	• Parking availability • Data sharing and security • Logistical barriers for low-income communities (e.g., driver’s license, bank account, internet access, and smartphones)
	Ridesharing	Up to 15 mi	• Regular taxis • TNCs • Subsidized for a specific trip purpose (e.g., healthcare trip) or for underserved populations (e.g., seniors)	• On-demand service, if provided by a TNC • Safe and quick • Reduce parking expenses • Affordable if subsidized	• Contribute to traffic congestion, GHG emissions, and gas consumption • Competitive with the transit system • Limited eligibility for subsidized model	• Technology barriers • Limited access for people with disabilities and seniors • Logistical barriers for low-income communities (e.g., driver’s license, bank account, internet access, and smartphones) • Marketing and outreach • Long-term risks
	Bike-/scooter-sharing	Up to 5 mi	• Dockless/free-floating provided by private vendors or public entity • Docked provided by private vendors or TNCs	• Environmental benefits • Fitness and leisure • Convenient to use	• Safety concerns (helmet, first-time cycler, biking lanes) • Docking model needs space for docking stations • Not always accessible for people with disabilities	• Logistical barriers for low-income communities (e.g., driver’s license, bank account, internet access, and smartphones) • Theft and vandalism
Micro-transit service		5 to 15 mi	• Fixed route• Deviated fixed route• Demand-responsive transit	• Accessible for everyone• Affordable if subsidized	• Difficult to administer	• Coordination between the service provider and transit agencies
Infrastructural development	Pedestrian facilities	Up to 1 mi	na	• Encourage walking• Improve pedestrian safety, especially for those with disabilities	na	• Lack of existing facilities, current infrastructure conditions, and pedestrians’ data• Funding• Bounded by the existing road conditions
	Biking facilities	Up to 5 mi	na	• Encourage biking• Improve cyclists’ safety	na	• Need to be considered in the early stages of planning• Funding• Bounded by the existing road conditions
	Transit station/stop amenities	na	na	• Improve safety• Ease navigating transit stops• Provide comfortable waiting areas for transit users	na	• Funding
Land use and transportation management strategies		na	na	• Long-term vision for growth and accessibility• Promote sustainability• Establish consolidated and documented goals that work for everyone	• Costly• Its effect is not tangible in the short term	• Coordination between multiple partners• Incentives allocation at the local level• Educating campaigns and public involvement

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; TNC = transportation network company; na = not applicable

Conclusion

The FLM problem is a critical issue impacting people’s access to primary services, including healthcare, education, employment, and transportation. Issues in completing the FLM trip and access to public transportation could result in transportationally disadvantaged communities that face underuse and social exclusion, inferior health conditions because of delaying and skipping healthcare appointments, unemployment and lower economic levels because of decreased job accessibility, and lower levels of education. As a result, the FLM problem and its resultant barriers could lower the quality of life and prevent the achievement and maintenance of equity, especially for underserved populations. Furthermore, the impact level of the FLM problem differs depending on several factors, including socioeconomic characteristics and factors related to health, the built environment, safety, and accessibility.

In the last decade, governments and agencies have made concerted efforts to bridge the FLM gap and maintain fair transportation access through initiatives like shared mobility programs (e.g., carsharing, ridesharing, bike-sharing, and scooter-sharing), micro-transit services (e.g., fixed route, deviated fixed route, and demand-response transit shuttles), infrastructural improvements, and land use and transportation planning. Despite the wide range of initiatives implemented, a very limited number of studies considered the equity aspect, and almost no studies discussed the feasibility and accessibility models of these solutions for lower-income populations and underserved communities.

This research provides a concise overview of the capabilities, operational models, advantages, disadvantages, and implementation barriers of the summarized solutions to foster a better understanding of the potentials and challenges with regard to each approach. The provided summaries could serve as an enriched reference for transportation professionals and agencies throughout the process of planning for the FLM trip and equitable transportation networks, especially for disadvantaged groups.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: R. E. Alfaris, M. Jalayer; data collection: R.E. Alfaris; analysis and interpretation of results: R. E. Alfaris, D. Patel; draft manuscript preparation: R. E. Alfaris, D. Patel, M. Jalayer, M, Meenar. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is based on a research project funded by the South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA).

ORCID iDs

Ruqaya Emad Alfaris

Deep Patel

Mohammad Jalayer

Mahbubur Meenar

References

Economic Development Research Group. Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment: 2020 Update. American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2020.

Dickens

American Public Transportation Association: 2021 Public Transportation Fact Book. American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2021.

Litman

Safer Than You Think! Revising the Transit Safety Narrative. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia, Canada, 2022.

Public Transportation Facts. American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/news-publications/public-transportation-facts/. Accessed June 3, 2022.

Nocera

Pungillo

Bruzzone

How to Evaluate and Plan the Freight-Passengers First-Last Mile. Transport Policy, Vol. 113, 2021, pp. 56–66.

Lesh

M. C.

Innovative Concepts in First-Last Mile Connections to Public Transportation. Urban Public Transportation Systems, Paris, France, 2013, pp. 63–74.

Canales

Bouton

Trimble

Thayne

Da Silva

Shastry

Knupfer

Powell

Connected Urban Growth: Public-Private Collaborations for Transforming Urban Mobility. Coalition for Urban Transitions, Vol. 10, 2017, pp. 39–45.

Arksey

O’Malley

Scoping Studies: Towards A Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005, pp. 19–32.

Zuo

Wei

Chen

Promote Transit Via Hardening First-and-Last-Mile Accessibility: Learned from Modeling Commuters’ Transit Use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 86, 2020, p. 102446.

10.

Venter

C. J.

Measuring the Quality of the First/Last Mile Connection to Public Transport. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 83, 2020, p. 100949.

11.

Zuo

Wei

Bikeway Prioritization to Increase Bicycle Network Connectivity and Bicycle-Transit Connection: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 129, 2019, pp. 52–71.

12.

Mohiuddin

Planning for the First and Last Mile: A Review of Practices at Selected Transit Agencies in the United States. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2021, p. 2222.

13.

European Environmental Agency (EEA). The First and Last Mile—The Key to Sustainable Urban Transport. EEA, 2020. Avaiable at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/the-first-and-last-mile. Accessed July 13, 2022.

14.

Boarnet

M. G.

Giuliano

Hou

Shin

E. J.

First/Last Mile Transit Access as an Equity Planning Issue. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 103, 2017, pp. 296–310.

15.

Zuo

Wei

Chen

Zhang

First-and-Last Mile Solution Via Bicycling to Improving Transit Accessibility and Advancing Transportation Equity. Cities, Vol 99, 2020, p. 102614.

16.

Chen

Yan

Pan

Deal

Using Big Data for Last Mile Performance Evaluation: An Accessibility-Based Approach. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 25, 2021, pp. 153–163.

17.

Zellner

Massey

Shiftan

Levine

Arquero

M. J.

Overcoming the Last-Mile Problem with Transportation and Land-Use Improvements: An Agent-Based Approach. International Journal of Transportation, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016, pp. 1–26.

18.

Jonsson

Defining and Assessing the First/Last Mile Problem of Public Transport: A Case Study in Stockholm, Sweden. Dissertation. 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-36753. Accessed May 13, 2022.

19.

Liu

X. C.

Porter

R. J.

Zlatkovic

Fayyaz

Taylor

First and Last Mile Assessment for Transit Systems. Mountain-Plains Consortium, Fargo, ND, 2018.

20.

Ermagun

Tilahun

Equity of Transit Accessibility Across Chicago. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 86, 2020, p. 102461.

21.

Ruscher

Kofler

Renat

Neumayer

Intermodal Transport Systems as a Chance to Enhance First Mile and Last Mile Mobility of Older Adults and Persons with Disabilities: Position Paper on Action Areas for Accessible Urban and Suburban Transport. SCITEPRESS—Science and Technology Publications, Lda, Funchal, Portugal, 2018, pp. 200–208.

22.

Kittelson & Associates, United States. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transit Development Corporation. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.

23.

Campbell

K. B.

Brakewood

Sharing Riders: How Bikesharing Impacts Bus Ridership in New York City. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 100, 2017, pp. 264–282.

24.

Shaheen

Chan

Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Facilitate the First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections. Built Environment, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2016, pp. 573–588.

25.

Syed

S. T.

Gerber

B. S.

Sharp

L. K.

Traveling Towards Disease: Transportation Barriers to Health Care Access. Journal of Community Health, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2013, pp. 976–993.

26.

Kullgren

J.T.

McLaughlin

C.G.

Mitra

Armstrong

Nonfinancial Barriers and Access to Care for US Adults. HealthService Research, Vol. 47, No.1pt2, 2012, pp.462–485.

27.

Krize

Geisinger Unveils New Transportation Program. WNEP, 2018. https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/montour-county/geisinger-unveils-new-transportation-program/523-4a55efa5-bc1f-413a-96e7-7cd470e96911. Accessed March 12, 2022.

28.

Morris

E. A.

Access and Outcomes: Transportation, Location, and Subjective Well-Being. University of California, Berkeley, 2011.

29.

Losada-Rojas

L. L.

Pyrialakou

V. D.

Gkritza

Access to Healthy Food in Urban and Rural Areas: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 23, 2021, p. 101245.

30.

Heaman

M. I.

Sword

Elliott

Moffatt

Helewa

M. E.

Morris

Gregory

Tjaden

Cook

Barriers and Facilitators Related to Use of Prenatal Care by Inner-City Women: Perceptions of Health Care Providers. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1–3.

31.

Schneiderman

J. U.

McDaniel

Xie

Clark

J. S.

Child Welfare Caregivers: An Evaluation of Access to Pediatric Health Care. Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2010, pp. 698–703.

32.

Oviedo

Sabogal

Unpacking the Connections Between Transport and Well-Being in Socially Disadvantaged Communities: Structural Equations Approach to Low-Income Neighbourhoods in Nigeria. Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 19, 2020, p. 100966.

33.

Banerjee

Uhm

Bahl

Walking to School: The Experience of Children in Inner City Los Angeles and Implications for Policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2014, pp. 123–140.

34.

Rodriguez-Segura

Kim

B. H.

The Last Mile in School Access: Mapping Education Deserts in Developing Countries. Development Engineering, Vol. 6, 2021, p. 100064.

35.

Robers

Zhang

Morgan

R. E.

Musu-Gillette

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014. NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C., 2015.

36.

Kontou

McDonald

N. C.

Brookshire

Pullen-Seufert

N. C.

LaJeunesse

US Active School Travel in 2017: Prevalence and Correlates. Preventive Medicine Reports, Vol. 17, 2020, p. 101024.

37.

Tilahun

Thakuriah

P. V.

Keita

Transit Use and the Work Commute: Analyzing the Role of Last Mile Issues. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 54, 2016, pp. 359–368.

38.

Farber

Dynamic Public Transit Accessibility Using Travel Time Cubes: Comparing the Effects of Infrastructure (Dis) Investments over Time. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 62, 2017, pp. 30–40.

39.

Weiss

The Relationship Between Transit Access and Concentrated Disadvantage Within Chicago. University of Chicago, IL, 2020.

40.

Tilahun

Walking Access to Transit Stations: Evaluating Barriers with Stated Preference. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2534: 16–23.

41.

Alfaris

R. E.

Jalayer

Assessment of the First-and-Last Mile Problem in Underserved Communities: Case Study in Camden City, NJ. Transportation Research Record, 2023, p. 0361198123116053.

42.

Shaheen

S. A.

Chan

N. D.

Micheaux

One-Way Carsharing’s Evolution and Operator Perspectives from the Americas. Transportation, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2015, pp. 519–536.

43.

Shaheen

Bansal

Chan

Cohen

Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Industry Developments and Early Understanding of Impacts. UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, 2017.

44.

Gamiz

Planner

N. M.

Wyant

T. L.

Evo

B. C.

One-Way Carsharing as a First and Last Mile Solution for Transit. UBS Sustainability Scholar, 2020. Available at: https://www.sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2019-73_One-way%20Carsharing%20as%20a%20First_Sharma.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2022.

45.

Ohnemus

Perl

Shared Autonomous Vehicles: Catalyst of New Mobility for the Last Mile?

Built Environment, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2016, pp. 589–602.

46.

Moorthy

De Kleine

Keoleian

Good

Lewis

Shared Autonomous Vehicles as a Sustainable Solution to the Last Mile Problem: A Case Study of Ann Arbor-Detroit Area. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Electronic and Electrical Systems, Vol. 10, 2017, pp. 328–336.

47.

Smith

First/Last Mile Challenge: Perspectives of Millennials. University of Florida, Gainesville, 2016.

48.

Regional Transit Authority. First and Last Mile Strategic Plan. RTD. 2018. Available at: https://www.rtd-denver.com/sites/default/files/files/2019-07/FLM-Strategic-Plan_06-10-19.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2022.

49.

Riverside Transit Agency. First & Last Mile Mobility Plan. 2017. Available at: https://www.riversidetransit.com/images/DOWNLOADS/PUBLICATIONS/FIRST_MILE_LAST_MILE/First%20and%20Last%20Mile%20Mobility%20Plan%20Report%202017-04-25_r.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2022.

50.

Nelson, Nygaard Consulting Associates. Richmond First Mile/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan: Inventory of Best Multimodal Practices. City of Richmond, CA, 2017.

51.

Cardoso

Amiri

Chawla

Mateer

Oster

First Last Mile Strategic Plan & Planning Guidelines. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority—Metro & Southern California Association of Governments—SCAG, Los Angeles County, CA, 2014.

52.

Blodgett

Khani

Negoescu

Benjaafar

Public/Private Partnerships in Transit: Case Studies and Analysis. Minnesota Council on Transportation Access, Minneapolis, MN, 2017.

53.

Gonzales

E. J.

Sipetas

Italiano

Optimizing ADA Paratransit Operation with Taxis and Ride Share Programs. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2019.

54.

Contreras

S. D.

Paz

The Effects of Ride-Hailing Companies on the Taxicab Industry in Las Vegas, Nevada. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 115, 2018, pp. 63–70.

55.

Utah Transit Authority. First/Last Mile Strategies Study. Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, 2015.

56.

Weinreich

D. P.

Reeves

S. M.

Sakalker

Hamidi

Transit in Flex: Examining Service Fragmentation of App-Based, On-Demand Transit Services in Texas. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 5, 2020, p. 100060.

57.

Kaufman

S. M.

Gordon-Koven

Levenson

Moss

M. L.

Citi Bike: The First Two Years. Rudin Center for Transportation, New York, NY, 2015.

58.

Flamm

Rivasplata

Perceptions of Bicycle-Friendly Policy Impacts on Accessibility to Transit Services: The First and Last Mile Bridge. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José, CA, 2014.

59.

Barnes

A Scoot, Skip, and a JUMP Away: Learning from Shared Micromobility Systems in San Francisco. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, 2019.

60.

Vandervalk

Snyder

Almario

Pasumarthy

Mid-America Regional Council Pilot of the Data Business Plan for State and Local Departments of Transportation: Data Business Plan. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC., 2018.

61.

Health Research and Educational Trust. Social Determinants of Health Series: Transportation and the Role of Hospitals. The American Hospital Association: Advancing Health in America, 2017.

62.

Transportation Research Board. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Transportation to Health-Related Destinations. Presented at Exploring Data and Metrics of Value at the Intersection of Health Care and Transportation: Proceedings of a Workshop, Washington, D.C., 2016.

63.

Ely

Teske

Success Express: Transportation Innovation in Denver Public Schools. University of Colorado, Denver, 2014.

64.

Gomez

Oakland Looks to Expand Popular “Free B” Shuttle. San Francisco Chronicle, 2010.

65.

Litman

Blair

Demopoulos

Eddy

Fritzel

Laidlaw

Maddox

Forster

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A guide to Best Practices. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia, Canada, 2015.

66.

Cervero

Caldwell

Cuellar

Bike-and-Ride: Build It and They Will Come. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2013, p. 5.

67.

Naharudin

Ahamad

Sanusi

Sadullah

A. F.

Optimizing Pedestrian-Friendly Walking Path for the First and Last Mile Transit Journey by Using the Analytical Network Process (ANP) Decision Model and GIS Network Analysis. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. 42, 2017.

68.

Meng

Koh

P. P.

Wong

Y. D.

Influence of Socio-Demography and Operating Streetscape on Last-Mile Mode Choice. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2016, p. 3.

69.

Zandiatashbar

Hamidi

Impacts of Transit and Walking Amenities on Robust Local Knowledge Economy. Cities, Vol. 81, 2018, pp. 161–171.

70.

Patel

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Pedestrian Safety Intervention Program: Behavioral and Observational Approach. Rowan University, NJ, 2020.

71.

Jalayer

Patel

Szary

Hamas

An Oservational Analysis of Pedestrian Safety Campain: A Case Study in New Jersey. Proc., International Conference on Transportation Development 2020, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2020, pp. 182–193.

72.

Patel

Saidi

Jalayer

Offenbacker

Mehta

Sustainability in Transportation Infrastructure: Perspective of CREATEs, Rowan University. In Advances in Water Resources and Transportation Engineering: Select Proceedings of TRACE 2020, Springer, Singapore, 2021, pp. 17–29. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-1303-6_2. Accessed 5 July 2022.

73.

Thorne-Lyman

Wood

Zimbabwe

Belzer

Breznau

Fogarty

Brennan

Tumlin

Yake

Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan/Metro TOD Program. 2011. Available at: https://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2022.

74.

Melchor

O. H.

Lembcke

A. C.

Developing Transit-Oriented Communities for Better Accessibility and Affordability: The Case of the Metro Vancouver Region. OECD Regional Development Papers. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020.

75.

Duncan

Would the Replacement of Park-and-Ride Facilities with Transit-Oriented Development Reduce Vehicle Kilometers Traveled in an Auto-Oriented US Region?

Transport Policy, Vol. 81, 2019, pp. 293–301.

76.

Winters

P. L.

Hendricks

S. J.

Concas

Project UCARE: Uniform Commuter Assistance Reporting and Evaluation for Transportation Demand Management Programs. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2013.

77.

Cumming

Weal

Afzali

Rezaei

Idris

A. O.

The Impacts of Office Relocation on Commuting Mode Shift Behaviour in the Context of Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2019, pp. 346–356.

78.

McDonald

N. C.

Yang

Abbott

S. M.

Bullock

A. N.

Impact of the Safe Routes to School Program on Walking and Biking: Eugene, Oregon Study. Transport Policy, Vol. 29, 2013, pp. 243–248.

79.

Litman

Parking Management Best Practices. Tylor Francis Group, New York, NY, 2020.