Built for Cars, Banned for Bikes.

Why Micromobility Fails Before it Starts
UC SAN DIEGO
SEVENTH COLLEGETHE SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Introduction

Why is micromobility adoption lower at specific university campuses, and how can we increase its usage to help counter the climate crisis?

We opened expecting theft. It is not theft. A student who owns a scooter still drives, because the campus makes keeping one harder than riding it: nowhere to park, nowhere to charge, nowhere to store.

Bobičić and Esztergár-Kiss sort barriers into micro, meso and macro levels, for cities. The gap: nobody ranks them for a campus. Everything we found is meso: not rider preference, but campus provision.

A parking problem,
not a crime problem.

Methods MIXED, 4 SOURCES

31
Survey responses12 institutions, 4 countries. 15 UCSD, 16 elsewhere.
7
Interviews3 campuses. One withheld consent, so is paraphrased.
3
Field observationsTimed counts of riders, pedestrians and close calls.
2
Municipal datasets, recomputedSDPD collisions and SANDAG bikeways, counted by us.

The split test. Every headline result is split UC San Diego against everyone else. A finding in one half is a fact about a campus. One that survives both is a fact about micromobility. Cost, $0: public files, a survey form, three of us with timers. Any campus can run this count on itself.

Findings WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

THE SINGLE BIGGEST BARRIER NAMED
Theft
7
Nothing stops me
6
Cost
5
Safety
4
Nowhere to park,
charge or store it
4
Weather
3

One choice each, 31 asked. Read alone this says theft. The split test says otherwise: all 7 who named theft attend UC San Diego, 0 elsewhere, and nobody in the sample reported an actual theft.

THE PROVISION TEST, WHICH SURVIVES THE SPLIT
UC San Diego4 of 4
Everyone else6 of 6

Every single respondent who ever needed campus parking, charging or storage failed to find it. It is the only headline finding that holds on both sides of the split. What they could not find: secure parking 9, storage 2, charging 1.

UC San DiegoEleven other institutions
AND THE RULE NOBODY WAS TOLD ABOUT
Did not know the
Library Walk rule
6/15

Of the 15 students the rule actually governs. The cheapest problem on this poster to fix, because the fix is a sign.

What we counted FIELD AND MUNICIPAL DATA

PROVISION PRODUCES RIDERS
87
riders / 40 min
Sichuan University. Lane, markings, signage, live speed display, shared bikes, cars kept out of the core.
1
rider / 30 min
Victor Valley College. None of the six. No lane, no markings, no signage, no shared bikes.

Busy did not mean dangerous. The campus with 87 riders logged 20 safety interventions and 5 close calls in 40 minutes, and zero collisions. So did the campus with one rider.

WHO PAYS WHEN IT GOES WRONG
Share of all
people involved
6.3%
Share of all
people killed
36%

Cyclists and pedestrians, in 3,570 collision reports covering 7,145 people, SDPD beats 115, 124, 126 and 932, complete years 2018 to 2025. Our own count from the city file, not a quoted statistic. 9 of the 25 people killed were unprotected.

AND THE NETWORK THEY RIDE TO CAMPUS ON
On-road, paint
or signs only
90%

Only 188 of San Diego's 1,976 existing bikeway miles are physically separated from traffic, and 342 of the 556 adopted miles are unbuilt. Computed by us from SANDAG's layers.

The ranking OUR ANSWER

1
Provision
Nowhere to park, charge or store it. The only finding that holds on both sides of the split, 4 of 4 and 6 of 6.
2
The unannounced rule
6 of the 15 students it governs had never heard of it. The fix costs a sign.
3
Safety at the seams
Where one surface feeds into another. Bike lanes, intersections and footpaths split accident locations almost evenly.
Demoted: theft

All 7 who named it attend UC San Diego, 0 elsewhere, and nobody reported an actual theft. The remedy for an anticipated loss is a secure place to leave the device. Which is item one.

Significance

180
tonnes CO2 a year
per 1,000 car commuters

Shift a tenth of them onto micromobility and 18 tonnes stop being emitted. The climate case does not need a new technology. It needs somewhere to park the one that already exists.

  • Actionable. The top barrier is a capital decision a campus knows how to make. The second is a sign.
  • Checkable. Three datasets published CC BY-NC 4.0, with a gate asserting every number against one source of truth.

Target audience

  • UCSD Transportation Services and HDH. Provision is their decision.
  • Associated Students, who could advocate for it.
  • Riders and pedestrians, whom it affects.
  • Future Synthesis students, via the Project Portal.

Timeline SUMMER SESSION 1, 2026

Weeks 1 to 2
Scope
Driving question, positionality, and a bibliography with every source verified.
Week 3
Instruments
Survey, consent script, and a fixed checklist, so three campuses count the same way.
July 22 to 25
Fieldwork
31 responses, 12 institutions, 4 countries. 7 interviews. Counts at 3 campuses.
July 27
Municipal data
SANDAG bikeway layers and the SDPD collision file recomputed from raw records.
July 28
Publish
Site live with the ranking, the playable thesis, and three open datasets.
Now
SYNposium
Present the ranking, hand the brief to the offices who can act on it.

Forty minutes. Two campuses.

Same instrument, same fixed checklist, counted by us. One campus has a lane, markings, signage, a live speed display, shared bikes, and cars kept out of the core. The other has none of the six.

00:00
observed time
Sichuan University
Six of six provisions present. 10:00 to 10:40am.
0
riders
counted
Victor Valley College
None of the six. 1:00 to 1:30pm.
0
riders
counted
Observation window closed at 30:00
Provision is not what riders ask for. It is what produces them.

What is real and what is drawn. The counts, the windows and the provision checklists are our field observations, published as field-observations.csv. The arrivals are spaced evenly across each window for this replay, because we recorded totals, not timestamps. Victor Valley College was observed for thirty minutes, so its window closes before the clock does.

QR code to syn100-micromobility.vercel.app

Take a photo of
this square. Then go ride it.

syn100-micromobility.vercel.appEvery figure on this poster, the source it came from, and three datasets published open
library-walk.vercel.appThe playable thesis: ride the Library Walk leg we measured, and hit the rule nobody was told about
Built for Cars, Banned for BikesRut, Yuvia Cabral, Yash Goel · SYN 100 · Seventh College, UC San Diego · Summer Session 1, 2026

Literature Cited

  SOURCESALL VERIFIED, JULY 2026
  • Works cited
  • Bobičić, Ognjen, and Domokos Esztergár-Kiss. "Enablers and Barriers to Micromobility Adoption: Urban and Suburban Contexts." Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 484, Dec. 2024, article 144346, doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144346.
  • Chkarboul, Christina, and Jaba Portillo. "Are Electric Bikes Allowed at Your College in California? Depends on Where You Go to School." CalMatters, 11 Dec. 2023.
  • Cline, Jordan, and Ling Ren. "Riding the Risk: A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Bicycle Theft on College Campuses." CrimRxiv, 30 Apr. 2026, doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.e86f1962.
  • "How to Protect Your Bike on Campus." YouTube, uploaded by UC Riverside, 7 Apr. 2023.
  • Jamil, Mahmudul Haque, et al. "A Comparative Analysis of Perceptions and Preferences Between E-Scooter Users and Non-Users on a University Campus." Future Transportation, vol. 6, no. 3, 2026, article 121, doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp6030121.
  • McKnight, David. "Supporting Safer E-Mobility on College Campuses." UL Standards & Engagement, 11 Mar. 2025.
  • Rosati, Nicholas. A Comprehensive Study of Cyber Threats and Countermeasures in Micromobility. Politecnico di Milano, 2023.
  • Sarreal, Jordani. "How Bike Index Works for University and College Campuses." Bike Index, 24 Aug. 2022.
  • UC San Diego. Survey Guidelines. surveys.ucsd.edu/guidelines/index.html.
  • UC San Diego. PPM 270-11: Micromobility Device Policy; and UCSD Police, Bicycle, Skateboard and Scooter Guidelines.
  • Data this poster is computed from
  • Cabral, Yuvia. Field observation, Sichuan University, 10:00 to 10:40 AM, with three on-site rider interviews. Published as field-observations.csv.
  • City of San Diego Police Department. Police Collisions, Details, person-level file, retrieved 27 July 2026. Every collision figure is our own count, filtered to SDPD beats 115, 124, 126 and 932 for the complete years 2018 through 2025. 2015 to 2017 are excluded as severely undercounted at source, and 2026 as still in progress.
  • Group 3, SYN 100. Built for Bikes, project survey. 31 responses collected 22 to 25 July 2026 across twelve institutions in four countries. Aggregate counts published as survey-data.csv.
  • Hollingsworth, Joseph, et al. "Are E-Scooters Polluters?" Environmental Research Letters, 2019. Shared e-scooter life-cycle emissions of about 220 g CO2 per mile, used in the significance arithmetic.
  • Ian, Frank, Mel, and Anyla. Cyclalytics. SYN 100 drone and computer-vision project, UC San Diego. No figure on this poster comes from it, because their speeds are reported in pixels per second rather than real-world units. The seven junctions and the term slowdown factor are theirs, used with credit.
  • SANDAG. Bike Routes 2019 and Adopted Regional Bike Network, published feature layers, retrieved 27 July 2026. The mileage, the shares by kind, and the built-against-adopted split are our own computation from these layers, summed in EPSG 2230, not figures quoted from a SANDAG report.
  • Rut. Field observation, Victor Valley College, 1:00 to 1:30 PM, with one on-site interview, and three on-site interviews at UC San Diego. Published as field-observations.csv.
  • Tong, Anthony, Alan Wang, Ari Pasha, and Owen Molloy. Bridging the Gap: Understanding Micromobility Infrastructure From Home to Campus. SYN 100, Seventh College, UC San Diego, 2026. The campus entry points and the car share counted at six locations are theirs, used with credit.
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. About 400 grams of CO2 per mile, used in the significance arithmetic.

On the borrowed numbers. Two of these sources are other SYN 100 teams. Every figure taken from them is attributed at the point it appears, both here and on the site, because a borrowed number a reader cannot trace back to its owner is one they have to take on our word. On our own numbers. The survey, the field counts and the corridor collision extract are published under CC BY-NC 4.0 at syn100-micromobility.vercel.app/data.html, so the next team starts where this one stopped.