Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1   Micromobility vehicles and shared micromobility services have been growing rapidly, both in the United States and on a global scale. Despite growth in customer acceptance and market adoption, these new technologies and modes can present challenges related to curb space management, safety, and pedestrian interaction. Micromobility vehicles often operate on pedestrian- or bicycle-oriented infrastructure, leading to conflicts with other transporta- tion modes and raising safety concerns. In order to address some of these challenges, state and local jurisdictions are beginning to regulate and govern these technologies. The goal of this study was to document policies, permits, and practices that state depart- ments of transportation (DOTs) are implementing regarding micromobility and to address the following topics and areas: • State definitions of micromobility • The role DOTs play relative to micromobility, including coordination with municipalities and other local or regional entities • Approaches to policies and regulations, including permitting, enforcement, monitoring, and emergency management • Challenges and opportunities that micromobility presents to state DOTs • A review of major planning, operational, and maintenance issues related to micromobility systems • Infrastructure design standards and maintenance for micromobility • Policies and procedures concerning integration and competition between other modes of transportation, such as walking, private cars, transit, taxis, and transportation network companies (TNCs) • Data collection and privacy issues • Policies and approaches addressing equitable access and diversity The information used in this synthesis was collected through an online survey of state DOTs (44 responders) administered in April and May 2021 and through phone interviews of three selected DOTs regarding their policies and practices in regulating micromobility, conducted in May 2021. The purpose of the analysis was to document the state of practice in micromobility regulations across the country, rather than to compare and contrast the regu- latory approaches of individual states. No attempt was made to document various regulatory practices at the local level. Such regulations are mentioned only briefly in this study. Yet, the survey included questions aimed at gauging how states coordinate and interface with local jurisdictions and other entities in managing micromobility. The key findings obtained from the surveyed DOTs include the following: • The definition and classification of micromobility vehicles in state statutes play an impor- tant role in the way such devices are regulated and treated on the road. While most states S U M M A R Y Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices

2 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices have a clear definition of bicycles in their statutes, this is not always the case for motorized micromobility vehicles such as e-bikes and e-scooters. The majority of responding states define different micromobility vehicles as either non-motorized or motorized personal mobility devices (65.1% of responders for bicycles, 58.1% of responders for e-bikes, and 48.8% of responders for e-scooters). Ten surveyed DOTs (23.3% of responders) classify e-bikes and e-scooters as motor vehicles. Additionally, e-bikes are not defined in the state statutes of two states, while e-scooters are not defined in the statutes of five states. • The majority of DOTs do not regulate shared micromobility companies in their states. Only one surveyed DOT is involved in regulating shared micromobility vendors. • The majority of surveyed DOTs (85.4% of responders) do not seek input from micro- mobility companies when developing micromobility policies, but 14.6% of responding DOTs do seek such input. • While developing micromobility strategies and initiatives, state DOTs collaborate and interact with various stakeholders at all levels, including city and county governments (64.9% of responders), metropolitan and transportation planning organizations (64.9% of responders), transit agencies (45.9% of responders), nonprofit organizations (43.2% of responders), and others. • The most common actions by DOTs related to micromobility management at the state level include developing recommendations (24 DOTs, or 61.5% of responders), develop- ing standards and guidance (21 DOTs, or 53.8% of responders), conducting research initiatives (18 DOTs, or 46.2% of responders), performing data collection (18 DOTs, or 46.2% of responders), and promoting micromobility (17 DOTs, or 43.6% of responders). Seven of the surveyed DOTs (17.9% of responders) are not engaged in any activities related to managing or regulating micromobility. • The DOTs’ most important goals for regulating micromobility are safety (62.5% of responders), integration of micromobility with other transportation modes (52.5% of responders), improving mobility (50.0% of responders), reducing vehicle miles traveled by passenger vehicles (17.5% of responders), and other goals (17.5% of responders). “Other” reported goals for regulating micromobility included equity, coordinating with local juris- dictions, staffing and figuring out what entity manages and oversees micromobility, and developing infrastructure that supports safe and efficient trips on micromobility vehicles. Additionally, one DOT emphasized that it has no explicit goals regarding micromobility outside of bicycles and pedestrian activities. Ensuring equitable treatment of all users ranks as the most important factor when regulating shared micromobility companies, followed by ensuring adequate safety of all transportation modes and providing mobility to under- served populations. Reducing congestion and achieving environmental goals rank as the least important factors. • The different ways to regulate micromobility are state legislation (2.4% of responders), local ordinances (24.4% of responders), regulations at both the state and local levels (56.1% of responders), other ways (7.3% of responders), and no regulations (9.8% of responders). • In most cases, municipalities (53.7% of responders) are in charge of regulating micro- mobility. Other entities that regulate micromobility include state DOTs (4.9% of respond- ers); other state agencies (4.9% of responders); others, including the department of safety, legislation, and facility owners; or various combinations of cities, counties, and the state (22% of responders). • Enforcement of micromobility regulations mostly occurs at the local level, where local agencies apply local ordinances (47.6% of responders) or apply or enforce state laws (14.3% of responders). Only two surveyed DOTs (4.8% of responders) reported enforce- ment that involves state agencies applying state laws. Over half of the surveyed DOTs (51.3% of responders) stated that their DOT has no role in regulating micromobility,

Summary 3   30.8% of responders are involved in establishing micromobility infrastructure design standards, 25.6% of responders see the role of their DOT in enforcing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, and 20.5% of responders see their regulation role in terms of establishing data collection and reporting standards. • The data show that the state-authorized speed for micromobility vehicles can be regu- lated by the following entities: municipalities (34.1% of responders); state DOTs (4.9% of responders); both state DOTs and municipalities (24.4% of responders); and other entities, including the state legislature, a combination of state, municipal, and county governments, and state departments of public safety (24.4% of responders). • A large percentage of DOTs are not involved in setting the maximum speed for micro- mobility vehicles. Depending on the vehicle type, the percentage of DOTs that do not regulate the speed varies from 23.1% for Class-1 e-bikes to 81.8% for regular bicycles. Maximum speed is not set by DOTs in almost half of the responding states for standing and sitting e-scooters. The most common maximum speeds for micromobility vehicles are 16–20 mph or 26–30 mph. Maximum speeds for e-bikes are generally consistent with the three-tier e-bikes classification. • In some instances, DOTs can impose safety equipment requirements for micromobility vehicles, although this does not happen often. Of the responding DOTs, 41.5% do not impose any equipment requirements on micromobility vehicles, 36.6% require them to have reflectors, and 31.7% require them to have headlights. • Some other safety requirements that can potentially be addressed by DOTs include requirements to wear helmets while riding on micromobility vehicles (23.1% of respond- ers), establishing a minimum age to ride on micromobility vehicles (28.2% of responders), prohibiting tandem riding on scooters (5.1% of responders), and other safety require- ments (33.3% of responders). Over half of the DOTs are not involved in establishing safety requirements for micromobility vehicles. • Survey data indicate that ensuring adequate safety for riders and pedestrians is the top challenge related to micromobility (70% of responding DOTs reported it to be one of the main challenges they face), followed by issues with defining or classifying micromobility vehicles (45% of responders) and obtaining reliable data on trips and incidents (40% of responders). Other commonly cited challenges include technology development that is outpacing regulations (30% of responders), ensuring that micromobility modes improve overall transportation system performance without creating additional traffic (25% of responders), maintaining uniform approaches to micromobility in different geographic areas (22.5% of responders), and other challenges. • All but two surveyed DOTs (95.1% of responders) reported that they were not involved in regulating the operations aspects of shared micromobility, which may include—but are not limited to—issuing operator permits, establishing permitting fees, regulating fleet size, and regulating hours of service. • Twenty-five surveyed DOTs (61% of responders) are not engaged in planning, operating, or maintaining micromobility infrastructure, while 16 (39% of responders) are involved in certain aspects of planning or maintaining micromobility infrastructure, such as park- ing corrals, geofences, sidewalks and paths, and on-street infrastructure. • As a general rule, issues related to micromobility vehicle parking are handled at the local level by entities that have traffic control jurisdiction. Thirty-seven DOTs (90.2% of responders) reported that cities and towns in their states regulate where and how micro- mobility vehicles can be parked. State DOTs are involved in regulating micromobility vehicle parking in four states (9.8% of responders), while other entities, including coun- ties and various combinations of state, county, and local jurisdictions, regulate parking in five states. When DOTs are involved in regulating micromobility vehicle parking, they may play a leading role in providing policies regarding where parking corrals are placed,

4 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices establishing guidelines for designated parking locations versus sidewalks, and recom- mending the distance that micromobility parking areas should be from driveways and buildings. • Similar to their role in parking regulations, municipalities play the key role in most states in regulating where micromobility vehicles are permitted to operate. Thirty-four surveyed DOTs (82.9% of responders) reported that municipalities regulate where micromobility vehicles are allowed to operate in their states. Eleven (26.8% of responders) indicated that state DOTs regulate where micromobility vehicles are permitted to operate, while eight (19.5% of responders) listed other entities, including state legislatures, transportation facility owners, state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), and counties. • While shared micromobility companies often use technological solutions (e.g., geofencing, GPS) to manage the service area where shared vehicles operate, 58.5% of responding DOTs reported that such technology use is stipulated by municipalities and other local entities without any involvement from state agencies. • Twenty-six DOTs (61.9% of responders) include micromobility in their long-range state- wide transportation plans, while 16 DOTs (38.1% of responders) do not. The primary motivation for including micromobility in a statewide transportation plan is planning for future improvements in the overall transportation system (88% of responders), followed by outlining policies and strategies for regulating micromobility (40% of responders), and detailing how micromobility will meet performance measures (36% of responders). Ensuring the safety of all transportation modes ranks as the most important reason for including micromobility in state transportation plans, while regulating other modes to accommodate micromobility and incorporating micromobility into congestion manage- ment efforts rank as least important. • While 26 DOTs (65.0% of responders) do not collect micromobility data, three states (7.5% of responders)—Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming—do collect and manage data inter- nally (done by state DOT personnel). One DOT (Connecticut) outsources data collection and data management to third parties, four (Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia) work with local agencies to gather data, while six DOTs (Colorado, the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and North Carolina) use other ways to collect and manage micromobility data. • Three of the surveyed DOTs (7.3% of responders) reported that they have some policies in place at the state level addressing equity aspects of shared micromobility, while 38 DOTs (92.7% of responders) do not. Equity policies for shared micromobility companies are in place in Iowa, Maryland, and the District of Columbia (D.C.). Not all DOTs are eager or able to get more involved in regulating micromobility. However, higher involvement by state DOTs in planning and regulating micromobility can potentially bring more coordination to rules and policies across different geographic areas within each state and ensure that local communities take full advantage of the benefits offered by the emerging transportation modes. One of the limitations of the current study is that it looks only at micromobility regula- tions at the state level, managed by state DOTs, and does not capture the full spectrum of policies and approaches employed to manage and regulate micromobility operations in the country. Additionally, the results presented in this synthesis are based on primary data collection obtained through a survey of state DOTs; the results may have been affected by the survey design and may be subject to other limitations associated with stated-preference surveys. Because of the nature of the surveying mechanism, the results presented in this study may lack context and report only on the state of practice in regulating micromobility. The results do not explain the reasons for using certain approaches.

Summary 5   While micromobility trips can complement transit ridership and displace car trips, they can also compete with transit and other active transportation modes. Further research is warranted to study the net effect of wider use of micromobility modes on transit ridership, traffic congestion, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the overall cost of travel in urban areas. The transportation community can also benefit from further research on the true cost of travel associated with shared micromobility modes, as well as user perception of the incre- mental cost of travel.