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.
9  Inventory of Relevant Micromobility Studies Many previous studies document the state of micromobility regulation in different states around the country. There is also research on common practices, challenges, and consider- ations for managing emerging transportation modes. General Overview of Micromobility Impacts and Business Models Micromobility is not a new concept. Bicycles and other micromobility vehicles have been in use since the 19th century. However, the recent emergence of shared micromobility can be attributed to the wide adoption of smartphones as well as significant advancements in GPS technology and mobile payment systems. As a result of these advancements, annual trips on shared micromobility vehicles have increased over the past decade, from 321,000 trips in 2010 to 84 million in 2018, and they continue to grow every year (NACTO 2020). Micromobility generally includes several transportation options, such as docked and dock- less pedal bicycles, electric bikes, and electric scooters. Flexibility and convenience of shared micromobility vehicles give them the potential to replace certain types of motor vehicle trips and enhance transit service by providing first-mile and last-mile solutions. Some optimistic forecasts suggest that up to 1.4 trillion annual miles of travel can be diverted to micromobility in the future (Moore 2019). Long before electric scooters, shared micromobility was piloted by public bikeshare pro- grams, which grew in popularity as convenient solutions for both short-distance connections to other modes and long-distance trips taken as an alternative to other transportation modes in an urban environment. The review of 44 information technologyâbased public bikesharing pro- grams in North America between 2007 and 2013 revealed that bikesharing programs can lead to lower usage of personal automobiles in favor of biking and can also affect transit usage by either increasing or decreasing transit usage. While differences in transit effects between different sur- veyed cities can likely be attributed to differences between public transit networks, micromobil- ityâs effect on transit still demonstrates that micromobility can both complement transit service and compete with it. Early bikesharing programs in North America used a variety of business models that, in addition to usage fees, also relied on advertising sales, grants, and sponsorships. In fact, the review of the 44 bikesharing programs showed that 42% of operating revenues of the surveyed programs came from sponsorships, 22% came from membership fees, and only 19% came directly from usage fees (Shaheen et al. 2014). In 2018, shared e-scooter usage overtook shared dockless bicycles and remains the fastest growing type of micromobility vehicle. Regulations governing e-scooters vary significantly from city to city and from state to state. In some cases, shared micromobility operators enjoyed the C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review
10 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices lack of state and local regulations, eventually leading to conflicts with other modes of transporta- tion and safety issues. As a result, states and local jurisdictions continue introducing regulations to manage the operation of shared micromobility vehicles. In 2019 alone, 26 states introduced more than 40 bills covering various aspects of e-scooter operations. While micromobility is often regulated at the local level (by municipalities or counties), states can also enact legislation that promotes public safety, ensures standardization and data collection and data sharing, and gives local jurisdictions the authority to create micromobility policies that best fit local conditions and goals (Moore 2019). Findings and Lessons Learned from Case Examples The literature provides a review of multiple e-scooter deployment programs implemented in different cities across the U.S., including Portland (OR), Austin (TX), Columbus (OH), Charlotte (NC), and others. Findings from the evaluations of notable pilot e-scooterâsharing programs help states and local jurisdictions better understand the implications of growth in micromobility and develop effective strategies to manage this emerging mode. The study of injury statistics for e-scooter use in Austin during two months in 2018 revealed the injury rate of 20 individuals injured per 100,000 e-scooter trips taken. Almost half of injured riders in that study sustained head injuries, and 35% of injured riders reported bone fractures. The data also show that only one out of 190 injured scooter riders was wearing a helmet. Approxi- mately 37% of injured riders in Austin reported that excessive e-scooter speed contributed to the injury. Finally, contrary to common perception about injuries associated with riding e-scooters, less than 10% of injured riders collided with a motor vehicle (APH 2019). The study that involved interviews with nine mid-sized cities that have e-scooter programs, as well as other micromobility options, demonstrated that safety remains the primary concern for the staff of e-scooter programs. The reviewed cities are typically interested in creating stan- dardized reporting to better understand potential public health risks associated with e-scooters. Cities often encourage the use of industry-standard data-reporting formats (such as Mobility Data Specification or General Bikeshare Feed Specification) to ensure standardization in data tracking and reporting. Some of the cities that implemented e-scooter programs expressed concern over the low helmet usage among scooter riders leading to head injuries. Cities that implement permitting of e-scooter companies generally do not design permit fees to make a profit but rather use them to help pay for the city staff to oversee and monitor micromobility- sharing programs. Improper parking of e-scooters is one of the common problems for all cities with active dockless micromobility-sharing programs. Cities and micromobility companies employ several approaches to encourage more organized parking habits, including designating appropriate locations for parking and providing printed materials to users showing places where e-scooters can be parked. Most mid-sized cities with reviewed micromobility programs prefer e-scooters to share space with in-street bike infrastructure, but they also allow sidewalk riding where separate bike lanes are not available (Goodman et al. 2019). The evaluation of an e-scooter pilot program in Portland demonstrated that people tend to use e-scooters for short trips, with an average trip distance of 1.06 miles and an average duration of 14 minutes. Data indicate that 8% of riders in Portland reported using scooters to get to transit. At the same time, 21% of riders in Portland reported using transit less because of e-scooters and only 6% reported using transit more. Approximately 32% of e-scooter rides occurred on Portlandâs bike infrastructure. E-scooter riders feel more comfortable when there is a safe infrastructure to ride separately from motor vehicles. Data from Portland demonstrated that, while e-scooter rides can reduce car trips, they can also displace low-carbon modes like walking, bicycling, or transit. While 37% of e-scooter rides in Portland replaced car trips, 58% of
Literature Review 11  rides replaced low-carbon modes. The data also indicate that injury rates associated with riding e-scooters were 2.5 injuries per 10,000 trips, or 2.3 injuries per 10,000 miles. This is signifi- cantly higher than injury rates for other major transportation modes. Injury rates can partially be attributed to low helmet usage among e-scooter riders. Between 70% and 85% of riders in Portland reported rarely or never wearing a helmet while riding a scooter. The review of the e-scooter pilot program in Portland allowed the city to identify challenges and limitations in managing the program. The city recognized the need to work collaboratively with the Portland DOT to ensure that micromobility-sharing programs achieve congestion reduction, environ- mental benefits, and safety and equity goals (Ciarlo et al. 2020). The comparison of different bikesharing models in San Francisco looked at how docked non- electric bikesharing and dockless e-bikesharing programs complement and compete with each other and other transportation modes. The analysis shows that dockless e-bike trips were approxi- mately 30% farther in distance traveled and the duration was twice as long as docked non-electric bike trips. Additionally, riders of e-bikes were less sensitive to elevation gain, making trips with an average elevation gain three times higher than riders of regular pedal bikes. Overall, the analysis of behavior and destination choices from San Francisco bikesharing data reveal that docked non-electric bikesharing and dockless e-bikesharing programs appear to serve different types of trips. Trips on docked pedal bikes tend to be shorter and flat commute trips, mostly con- necting to and from public transit stations. Dockless e-bikes are mostly used for longer, more spatially distributed trips involving travel to lower density neighborhoods and significant gain in elevation (Lazarus et al. 2020). Integration of Micromobility with Other Modes Several studies look at the benefits of integrating different forms of micromobility (from station-based bikeshare to dockless scooters) with transit operations. Micromobility can offer flexibility and door-to-door service, while public transit can offer higher speed, comfort, and greater spatial reach. Theoretically, proper integration of micromobility and transit can provide transportation modes with the degree of access, comfort, and speed that can compete with pri- vate automobiles. Most of the research discussing integration of micromobility and transit focus primarily on benefits resulting from potential shifting away from private cars. Few studies also focus on the social effects of such integration, including reduced inequalities between different population groups and increased access to services and opportunities. At the same time, very few studies evaluate potential effects of micromobility and transit integration on sustainability, livability, and the economy (Oeschger et al. 2020). Bikeshare systems in the U.S. typically use one of the following three business models: (1) a system owned and operated by a nonprofit, (2) a system owned and operated privately, and (3) a system owned and operated publicly, by a third party. While there is some empirical evidence that integrating bikesharing programs with transit can improve transit ridership and bring environmental and economic benefits to communities, the full effects of such integration efforts have not been fully studied. The survey of transit agencies and bikeshare programs across the country identifies several areas for integration, including geographic integration (co-location of stations), branding and marketing integration (using similar branding for transit and bike- share fleets), fare payment integration (using compatible payment systems to pay for transit and bikeshare use), and operations and maintenance integration (combining planning, financing, and maintenance of transit and bikeshare fleets under one umbrella). Anecdotal evidence and survey results of transit and bikeshare programs suggest that one of the largest obstacles for closer integration between transit and bikeshare systems is incompatibility between components of back-end software that supports financial transactions for transit and bikeshare programs. Given that transit agencies have invested a lot of money in proprietary back-end software that
12 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices supports transit payment systems, they are unlikely to abandon that software in favor of compat- ibility with bikesharing in the near term (Hernandez et al. 2018). Regulations and Policies for Managing Micromobility Different types of shared micromobility systems, including conventional bicycles, electric bikes, and electric scooters, are currently in place in at least 46 states and the District of Columbia, with micromobility pilots operating in over a dozen major cities in the country. Since the regulatory landscape is constantly changing, it is not possible to accurately reflect the extent of micro- mobility regulations that are being implemented at the state and local levels at any given time. According to the survey of state and local regulators, as of early 2021, 23 states did not have e-scooterâspecific laws at the state level and e-scooters were outright illegal in two states (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 2021). The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) defines an electric bike as a two- or three- wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of fewer than 750 watts that can travel on a level surface at a speed of less than 20 mph. Since e-bikes are not considered motor vehicles in federal regulations, the authority to regulate e-bikes is deferred to CPSA, not National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In other words, federal legislation only regu- lates the manufacturing and first sale of e-bikes, not their use or operation. All the legislation regarding the operation and use of e-bikes is left to the states and local municipalities. As e-bike usage gains popularity, more and more states are adopting the three-tier system for distinguish- ing between different types (or classes) of e-bikes, depending on the type of electric motor assist and the maximum speed. Over a dozen U.S. states currently employ the three-tier model for regulating e-bikes. In general, the following features can be used by state and local authorities to further define the functionality and operational requirements of e-bikes: minimum age for riders, helmet requirements, vehicle weight, license requirements, and parameters of motor cessation and throttle assist (Leger et al. 2018). E-scooters are emerging as the fastest growing component of micromobility. Given the explo- sive growth in shared micromobility, states and local jurisdictions find it challenging to develop, adopt, and enforce micromobility regulations that would maximize transportation options and also ensure public safety at the same time. While there are several examples of successful imple- mentations of micromobility-sharing programs without intrusive regulatory involvement by state and local authorities, there are also quite a few examples in which local authorities had to step up regulations to protect the public. San Francisco (CA), Nashville (TN), Denver (CO), Scottsdale (AZ), and Charlotte had to intervene at the early stages of the implementation of micromobility pilot projects in their cities and ordered e-scooter vendors to cease operations. The reasons for these interventions varied from city to city. In some cases, riders were not obey- ing local laws and micromobility vendors were not enforcing them, while in other cases, micro- mobility companies failed to effectively address vehicle rebalancing and parking issues. Palo Alto (CA) aligned e-scooter regulations with the guidelines that already existed for dockless bikes (safety requirements, parking guidelines, low-income rates, etc.). Charlotte went even further by retroactively amending its dockless bikeshare pilot program to include e-scooters. This allowed the existing bikeshare vendor to add e-scooters to their fleet without needing additional permits. After issuing a cease-and-desist letter to micromobility vendors, San Francisco passed a separate e-scooter ordinance, creating a 12-month pilot program that established described operations requirements and expectations for micromobility vendors. Regardless of what the regulatory approach was, these examples emphasized the importance of establishing clear guidelines and rules for micromobility-sharing companies to maximize the benefits of the innovative transpor- tation modes while ensuring public safety and achieving unique goals of the local community (Anderson-Hall et al. 2018).
Literature Review 13  A review of micromobility laws and policies in five U.S. cities, including Atlanta (GA), Austin, Charlotte, Los Angeles, and Portland, provides a comparison of different approaches around the country regarding equitable access to shared micromobility options. Since shared micromobility services, particularly e-scooters, mainly use the dockless concept, access to this transportation service is not guaranteed, often leaving low-income and underserved communities with limited access to this transportation option. Regulations of bikeshare programs in many local markets, which have been in place for quite some time, have explicit equity requirements for underserved communities. In turn, e-scooter policies often model bikeshare equity regulations, requiring e-scooter companies to provide access in underserved neighborhoods. For example, in Atlanta, operators are required to submit an equity plan as part of the permit application, providing for discounted price options, non-credit card payment systems, non-smartphone reservation systems, and other elements. Portlandâs equity plan required e-scooter operators to commit a consistent 15% of their fleet to east Portland, an underserved area. Los Angeles, on the other hand, does not require specific percent distribution of a micromobility fleet in equity zones. Instead, it has created permit fee and fleet number incentives for operators to deploy e-scooters in disadvantaged neighborhoods, with a particular focus on the San Fernando Valley. As a result of these incentives, 8,000 out of 10,500 of Spinâs e-scooters permitted in Los Angeles operated in disadvantaged communities in 2019. Overall, almost one third of all permitted e-scooters (by all operators) were deployed in the San Fernando Valley. In Austin, operators are required to submit a marketing and outreach plan to promote e-scooter use in underserved communities but there are no specific percent requirements for fleet allocation (Johnston et al. 2020). Affordability and a range of payment options are important considerations to ensure equitable access to micromobility-sharing services. Policies in cities may differ, but there are many similar- ities in general approaches to address issues of equitable access and affordability. Major e-scooter companies, such as Bird, Lyft, and Lime, offer discounted pricing programs in many cities. Bird offers low-income residents in Los Angeles an annual subscription plan at $5 per month, waiving hold deposits and covering unlimited 30-minute rides. Lyftâs low-income discount program also offers a $5-per-month subscription fee and a 5-cents-per-minute usage fee. Portland also requires discount pricing plans for qualified low-income customers to make e-scooters more affordable to low-income riders. At the same time, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Austin do not mandate discount pricing for micromobility operators. In Atlanta, for example, discounted pricing is only a sug- gested element of an equity plan (Johnston et al. 2020). While more and more states are starting to implement state regulations of e-scooters and other micromobility vehicles, there are still 15 states in which e-scooters remain mostly unregulated. E-scooters, especially shared e-scooters, are usually banned from riding on sidewalks in the central business district. However, only 11 states ban all scooters from riding on sidewalks. In other cases, riding on sidewalks can be restricted by municipalities. In most states, scooters are not allowed to operate on streets with speed limit of over 35 mph. The common speed limit for e-scooters in most states is 20 mph. However, at least four states (Michigan, Oregon, Florida, and Missouri) allow higher maximum speeds for personal scooters. Florida and Missouri, for example, allow scooters to ride as fast as 30 mph. Shared e-scooters are almost universally regu- lated at a lower speed (usually 10â15 mph). Nine states currently require a driverâs license to operate e-scooters. The most common minimum age for riding an e-scooter is 16 years old, and helmets are usually required for riders under the age of 18. At the same time, a few states allow riding e-scooters at younger ages, such as 12 (e.g., Michigan, Minnesota) and 14 (e.g., Virginia). In states where helmet use is required for riders of all ages, it is usually an extension from moped laws to e-scooters (Unagi 2021). The literature demonstrates some of the uncertainties and legal barriers surrounding the expansion of shared micromobility systems. There are clear gaps in the existing legal canon and
14 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices regulatory frameworks that govern micromobility systems. While some laws delineate the use of micromobility devices (such as standard and electric bicycles, as well as e-scooters), they lack standardization and regulation of shared micromobility systems. Pimentel et al. (2020) examined relevant laws across all fifty states and D.C. to identify features of laws related to micromobility and found that these laws include reference to nine categories: (1) definitions, (2) age restrictions, (3) safety equipment, (4) licensing requirements, (5) where to ride, (6) riding under the influence, (7) insurance requirements, (8) sidewalk clutter, and (9) shared micromobility regulations. Pimentel et al. (2020) found significant inconsistencies with micromobility laws and a lack of clarity from state agencies in defining micromobility and classifying these factors into categories. There are also discrepancies between state and local authorities on their roles in regulating micromobility, as well as stark inconsistencies among states in defining micromobility. Some states have taken steps to address these inconsistencies and ambiguities by proposing laws that standardize the regulation of micromobility, such as with the use of e-scooters and e-bikes. How- ever, Pimentel et al. (2020) suggest that these efforts are not substantial or comprehensive enough to address the inconsistencies among states and that federal authorities are the responsible body for developing and enacting uniform laws governing micromobility. These gaps in consistency underscore the need to understand and document the role that DOTs play in regulating micro- mobility (Pimentel et al. 2020). State highway offices and transportation departments are anticipated to play a critical role in implementing micromobility as it continues to grow as a mode of travel. From 2010 to 2019, there were 207 million trips taken on shared micromobility systems (with pedal and electric bikes and e-scooters) (Fischer 2020). In 2020, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) conducted a survey of the state and territorial highway safety offices to identify the roles the offices play in micromobility. The results of the survey were mixed; 17 reported having laws that refer to micromobility, with an emphasis on e-scooters, and 16 specified the presence of micromobility pilots within their respec- tive states, but not all of them reported that they were engaged in these pilots in any capacity. For those state highway offices that reported they did not work with local and other state agencies on micromobility, they cited jurisdictional issues and a lack of data supporting the involvement of their offices (Fischer 2020). Fischer (2020) identified six challenges that state highway offices and transportation depart- ments may be positioned to address pertaining to micromobility, including oversight, funding, collision and injury data, infrastructure, safety, and enforcement. Micromobility regulations vary by state. Fischer (2020) found that state legislatures should enact regulations for micro mobility devices; however, these regulations should be designed with flexibility and the ability for local governments to place limitations (such as restricting areas of operation). Shaheen and Cohen (2019) define shared mobility as the shared use of low-speed devices (bicycles, scooters, and others) to accommodate short-term access to transportation. Modes include bikesharing (including station-based, dockless, and hybrid systems) and scooter shar- ing (standing and moped). Shaheen and Cohen (2019) suggest that the preliminary studies on these modes demonstrate social, environmental, and behavioral effects, though more compre- hensive research is needed to better understand these effects. Micromobility can expand mobility options, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduce dependency on passenger vehicles, and improve the health of users. Given these benefits, micromobility is expanding in cities across the United States. However, there remains regulatory and policy barriers to managing micromobility and a need for more
Literature Review 15Â Â consistent regulation at the local and state levels. Shaheen and Cohen (2019) review the current policy landscape for micromobility at the local level, including policies and strategies on curb space management, service standards, equity considerations, data standards and sharing, per- formance metrics, and best practices for managing micromobility pilot initiatives (Shaheen and Cohen 2019). There is significant disparity in the ways cities and local agencies manage shared micro- mobility services. There are variations in fleet size, service quality, fee structures, designated service areas, and more. This variation has created a need for standard methods, tools, and resources that cities can use to manage micromobility. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) developed a set of guide- lines to provide municipalities with recommendations and best practices for managing shared micromobility, such as establishing formal management of public-use micromobility devices that fall outside the purview of conventional procurement practices. These guidelines also include recommendations on how cities can regulate micromobility, such as through a permit or fee structure or implementation of a pilot program. Templates for service provision agree- ments are included, as well as identification of key infrastructure investment needs to support micromobility. Considerations for safety, equity, and public engagement are also provided in the guidebook (NACTO 2019). General Findings From the Literature The growth in micromobility has been fueled mainly by the growth in popularity of the sharing models, allowing short-term rentals of micromobility vehicles (e-scooters in particular). Similarly, most of the regulation discussions in the recent literature focus on shared micro- mobility technologies rather than personal micromobility vehicles. However, even before shared micromobility gained popularity, the discussion about federal, state, and local regulation of micromobility vehicles started with electric bikes. Some of the challenges with regulations were related to the classification of e-bikes by state law (as bicycles, as vehicles, or as their own sepa- rate category), as well as uncertainty about applying regulations to e-bikes that fall outside of the Consumer Product Safety Commissionâs definition of low-speed electric bicycles (e.g., bikes that can go faster than 20 mph or are powered by a motor above 750 watts) (MacArthur and Kobel 2014). Similar challenges remain relevant for some types of micromobility vehicles (such as e-scooters) and shared micromobility systems. The use of shared micromobility systems is pri- marily regulated at the local level, while states typically establish safety and equipment standards and provide general guidelines for local regulations. States and local jurisdictions may establish rules and policies that apply to personal micromobility vehicles, shared micromobility systems, or both. Policies that apply to shared micromobility services are often more restrictive than typi- cal requirements for personal micromobility vehicles in a given jurisdiction. Definition of Micromobility Micromobility vehicles may be defined differently in the statutes of different states, lead- ing to varied treatment of micromobility vehicles across the country. In general, micromobility vehicles can be human powered or partially or fully motorized. While the rules for human- powered vehicles such as bicycles or push scooters are usually more straightforward, some con- fusion may arise with motorized devices such as e-bikes or e-scooters. If e-bikes and e-scooters are not directly defined in state statutes, they may fall within the statutory definitions of a motor- cycle or moped and be treated as motor vehicles. This can lead to more restrictive regulations for these low-speed vehicles, including requirements for a driverâs license, registration, and insurance,
16 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices as well as vehicle safety equipment such as turn signals and brake lights. For example, in North Carolina, e-scooters and e-bikes are classified as motor vehicles and must be registered by their department of motor vehicles (DMV). Until recently, the state of New York lacked a separate definition for e-bikes and e-scooters, so they fell under the state definition of motor vehicles, with all the associated requirements. Yet, the New York DMV did not allow registration of such vehicles, making e-bikes and e-scooters formally illegal on public roads in the state (Pimentel et al. 2020). Such regulatory gaps created confusion. To address similar confusion, some states have developed a separate category for e-scooters, e-bikes, and other motorized personal mobility devices, different from that of motorcycles and motor vehicles, or have stipulated in existing statutes that such micromobility devices do not have to satisfy the registration and insurance requirements applicable to motor vehicles. Regard- less of the state definition, micromobility devices are typically treated in the same way as bicycles and their operators are expected to have the same rights and duties as bicycle riders. Sometimes, state law conflicts with local regulations. This happens in cases where cities enact micromobility regulations first in the absence of state guidance, and then later the state adopts regulations that directly contradict local rules and regulations. While state law typically super- sedes local ordinances (unless state statutes explicitly provide local jurisdictions the authority to regulate certain areas), conflicting local laws can remain in place for some time before being repealed or adjusted to comply with state laws. This situation is more typical for emerging areas of the transportation market, such as shared micromobility. Potential Benefits The use of micromobility increased dramatically in recent years and continues to grow rapidly. According to the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, almost 60% of all vehicle trips in the United States have a length of less than 6 miles, and more than 35% of vehicle trips are less than 3 miles long (NHTS 2017). Under certain circumstances, some of the short trips taken by vehicles can be replaced with micromobility trips. Potential benefits of this replacement may include a reduction in traffic congestion, a reduction in emissions, and the increased health benefits associated with a more active mode of travel. Even when traveling on the road in mixed traffic, micromobility vehicles take less space than a typical vehicle. Additionally, micromobility vehicles can often travel in bike lanes and some- times on sidewalks, reducing the number of vehicles on the roadway. Evidence from D.C.âs Capital Bikeshare program suggests that the availability of bikeshare reduces traffic congestion in high-density urban neighborhoods by at least 4% (Hamilton and Wichman 2018). Motorized micromobility vehicles that use small-sized electric motors for propulsion are associated with much fewer emissions than a typical passenger carâs. Human health benefits vary depending on the type of micromobility vehicle and its usage. A study of bikeshare usage in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia found that 60% of bikeshare trips replace low-activity modes of transportation, effectively increasing the overall time spent on physical activity by travelers (Fishman et al. 2015). Regular bicycles and push scooters provide the most health benefits, since they require the most physical effort for propulsion. At the same time, e-bikes and e-scooters offer their riders some other benefits that traditional bicycles are unable to produce. These benefits include the ability to travel with less physical effort (which may be crucial for older adults and people with mobility limitations), to travel without getting sweatyâand therefore the ability to wear any type of clothing, and to travel longer distances (Pimentel et al. 2020). Other benefits may include cost savings and the convenience of taking short trips on demand (Hernandez et al. 2018).
Literature Review 17  Some industry estimates predict that micromobility can replace 8% to 15% of short-distance vehicle trips in the future (Heineke et al. 2019). While this is not a revolutionary shift in the transportation market, it is not insignificant and cannot be underestimated. Over the past decade, shared micromobility trips in the U.S. have grown exponentially, increas- ing from 321,000 trips in 2010 to 136 million trips in 2019. This represents a 60% increase from 2018 and was largely driven by a 45% increase in dockless e-scooter programs. Of the 136 million micromobility trips registered in 2019, 40 million were taken by station-based bikes, while 88.5 million were taken by scooters. E-scooters overtook bikes as the preferred shared vehicle for dockless providers. By the end of 2018, there were more than 85,000 e-scooters operating in approximately 100 U.S. cities. Station-based bikeshare systems are also expected to continue expanding their vehicle fleets (NACTO 2020). In addition to providing benefits for congestion and potentially the environment, micromobility can also improve mobility for underserved populations, offering additional travel options for people who do not have a driverâs license or cannot afford a car. While a micromobility-sharing service may not be the travel option that offers the lowest user cost on a per-mile or per-trip basis, it may be more convenient and available on a shorter notice than other transportation options. One area where micromobility can play a key role is in enhancing other transportation modes, such as public transit. Better integration of micromobility trips with transit can potentially solve the first-mile/last-mile problem that transit service suffers from, especially in low-density areas. Combining the high-speed and geographic coverage of public transit with the convenience of point-to-point accessibility through micromobility can achieve a level of access and convenience that is comparable to private vehicles (Oeschger et al. 2020). While proponents of micromobility argue that its use will mainly replace car trips, which add to traffic congestion and GHG emissions, evidence from various cities shows that micromobility can also displace trips by other, more environmentally friendly modes such as walking or transit. It is not always clear which types of trips will be displaced more and thus what the net effect of micromobility will be on trip generation by different modes. The mode usage data reported in the literature show that, in cities like Calgary (Canada), Denver (CO), and Oakland (CA), e-scooter trips replace almost twice as many trips by low-carbon modes (biking, walking, and transit) than car trips. In Santa Monica (CA), on the other hand, e-scooters replace approximately an equal number of trips by car and by environmentally friendly modes (Ciarlo et al. 2020). Micromobility regulations need to aim at ensuring that micromobility trips replace more car trips and fewer low-carbon trips. Complete Streets Micromobility fits well in the Complete Streets concept, which is a method for designing roads that prioritizes safety and encourages equal access to transportation infrastructure by all modes, including automobiles, public transportation, walking, and cycling. Complete Streets approaches include a wide range of elements such as sidewalks, bicycle lanes, public transportation stops, reconfigured vehicle traffic lanes, curb cuts, median islands, pedestrian signals, various landscap- ing, and right-of-way improvements to accommodate all travel modes. Complete Streets designs can be implemented during new construction, during capital improvement projects, or through the redevelopment of transportation infrastructure. Such policies can be implemented at the local, regional, and state levels with varying approaches, depending on community needs. More and more communities across the country are adopting Complete Streets designs in an effort to promote comfortable access and travel to all transportation system users (Walsh 2012). Sev- eral studies indicate that these policies result in a reduction of crashes and in overall improved safety
18 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices for all users. The review of 37 Complete Streets projects in the United States demonstrated a reduc- tion in collisions in 70% of projects, a decrease in injuries in 56% of projects, and an increase in pedestrian and bicycle volume (Anderson and Searfoss 2015). Notably, even in some cases where the absolute number of collisions increased after implementing Complete Streetsâbecause of increased overall travel volumeâthe collision rates and injury rates fell. Combining micromobility policies with smart infrastructure design approaches may be an efficient way to take advantage of the mobility benefits offered by micromobility modes while ensuring adequate safety for all users of the transportation system. Challenges Increased ridership on micromobility vehicles, particularly e-scooters, in the urban environ- ment has created many challenges to local and state officials, including accidents resulting in injuries to riders and pedestrians, sidewalk congestion and sidewalk blocking due to improper parking, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enforcement, and other chal- lenges. As a result, the benefits and convenience of motorized micromobility devices have often been overshadowed by the problems they cause. In response to these challenges, some cities (and in fewer cases, states) have taken steps to ban or significantly regulate the operation of micromobility-sharing services, particularly e-scooters. An increase in ridership on motorized scooters has also brought a sharp increase in injuries associated with micromobility rides. A study of national injury data indicates that between 2014 and 2018, the number of e-scooter injuries in the United States increased from six per 100,000 people to 19 per 100,000 people, an increase of 222%. Additionally, hospital admis- sions related to micromobility injuries increased by 365% during the same period. More than 39,000 injuries associated with e-scooter use occurred between 2014 and 2018, with the most common injuries involving fractures, abrasions, lacerations of the lower/upper body, and head trauma (Namiri et al. 2020). The increase in injuries may not necessarily represent an increase in injury rates but may have been the result of higher usage. Yet, this is a notable trend that needs to be addressed. This national injury data study did not have access to micromobility ridership data and used linear regression to estimate injury rates. However, a 2018 study conducted by the Austin Public Health Department that combined injury data with micromobility ridership data came to similar conclusions regarding injury and head trauma rates. The Austin study found the injury rate to be 20 individuals per 100,000 micromobility trips taken, with 45% of crashes involving head injuries. Most of those injuries were minor. Some of the contributing factors to e-scooter accidents and injuries identified by the Austin study include the inexperience of riders, speed, and alcohol use. The study also found that the vast majority of riders injured on e-scooters did not wear a helmet (APH 2019). Similar injury rates were observed in the Portland (OR) e-scooterâsharing program. In 2019, the rates of injuries associated with operating e-scooters in Portland were approximately 25 per 100,000 trips or 23 per 100,000 miles, which is consistent with e-scooter injury rates in other U.S. cities (Ciarlo et al. 2020). Some studies also found that e-scooters may pose a risk to pedestrians when e-scooters are ridden on the sidewalk. The data from emergency room visits in Southern California indicate that approximately 8% of micromobility-related injuries were reported by pedestrians who were either hit by e-scooters or tripped over a scooter parked on the sidewalk. It is worth noting that most of the e-scooterârelated injuries documented in this study were rather minor, with only 6% of patients admitted to the hospital (Trivedi et al. 2019). The studies comparing injury rates
Literature Review 19  associated with different types of powered micromobility vehicles note that e-scooters have sig- nificantly higher injury rates than e-bikes. At the same time, e-bikes are three times more likely than e-scooters to be involved in a collision with a pedestrian. The research also found that e-bike riders are more likely to wear a helmet than e-scooter riders (DiMaggio et al. 2020). Since that study relies on the data from the period of 2000 to 2017, it is likely capturing injuries with personal rather than shared micromobility vehicles. The number of fatalities associated with micromobility vehicles remains relatively low com- pared to motor vehicleârelated fatalities. However, since 2018 there were 22 fatalities in the United States involving e-scooters and 4 fatalities associated with e-bike sharing programs since 2007. It is likely that this statistic is underestimated because of a lack of consistency in crash reporting. This data on micromobility crash rates and head injuries prompted some states and cities to impose the requirement to wear a helmet while riding bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters. While some states and cities impose a helmet requirement for all micromobility riders, others only require helmet use for riders under a certain age (i.e., under 16 or under 18). While riders of personal micromobility vehicles can meet helmet requirements relatively easily, helmet laws can be rather burdensome to shared micromobility systems since potential riders do not carry helmets with them all the time. The idea of sharing helmets along with the micromobility vehicles (bicycles, e-bikes, or e-scooters) is not well received by the public and potential riders because of the concern for equipment cleanliness. This concern became even more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic. The success of Seattleâs (WA) recent bikeshare program can arguably be attributed (at least partially) to the decision of local police to relax the enforcement of King Countyâs helmet law, which was passed in 1993. Riding without a helmet is still against the law, but police are focusing more on rider education than on issuing citations (Gutman 2017). Separating transportation modes is the most effective way to reduce micromobility crashes and injuries, although building separate infrastructure for micromobility vehicles is not always feasible. A barrier-separated bike lane can provide adequate safety for both motorized and non- motorized micromobility vehicles. However, if separate infrastructure does not exist, micro- mobility riders may choose to travel where they feel safe, which is often the sidewalk. In many cases, e-scootersâ sidewalk riding (even when it is explicitly prohibited) is motivated by riders not feeling safe to travel on the roadway in mixed traffic. Another notable challenge associated with the use of micromobility vehicles (particularly dockless shared micromobility systems) in an urban environment is that shared bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters are often parked inappropriately on sidewalks and other public places. This is especially relevant to e-scooters. Most e-scooters are parked using wheel-lock technology, allow- ing the vehicleâs wheels to be locked/unlocked using a smartphone. As a result, riders who rent e-scooters do not have to return them to a specified parking or storage location and can leave them anywhere. Riders often leave e-scooters in inappropriate locations for parking and storage, which results in cluttering sidewalks, obstructing pedestrian traffic, and spoiling the aesthetic view of the public space. While aesthetics are not an insignificant issue, the bigger concerns involve blocking sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, creating nuisance and safety-related hazards (e.g., tripping hazards), and violating ADA rules (e.g., blocking wheelchair access to pedestrian infrastructure). Obstructing sidewalks and other pedestrian paths has a negative effect on any public pedestrian infrastructure, and it can have a more negative effect on communities with narrower sidewalks or higher pedestrian traffic. Therefore, mismanaged micromobility vehicles can have disproportional negative effects on different neighborhoods, depending on traffic patterns and roadway and pedestrian infrastructure configurations.
20 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices Many states already have statutes that prohibit any vehicle from parking in a manner that impedes normal pedestrian traffic. But if micromobility devices are not classified as vehicles in state statutes, this can create confusion regarding the applicability of such statutes. States can either explicitly specify in the statutes that micromobility vehicles are not allowed to impede pedestrian movement, or delegate parking policies to local jurisdictions (Pimentel et al. 2020). To address multiple complaints about the improper operation and parking of shared micro- mobility systems, several cities (San Francisco, Nashville, Denver, Scottsdale, and Charlotte) have banned shared e-scooter programs or have temporarily suspended them until operators comply with city or state rules. San Francisco received 1,800 complaints during the first month of its e-scooterâsharing service related to scooters blocking sidewalks, illegally riding on sidewalks, and bumping into pedestrians. Nashville ordered its e-scooter company to remove all scooters from the streets and stop operating in the city after one operator launched in advance of any permit process. In Scottsdale, a scooter-sharing company was accused of allowing its customers to park on sidewalks and to operate on streets with a speed limit exceeding 25 mph. The city agreed to allow the company to operate as long as it complied with city ordinances regarding micromobility. The e-scooterâsharing program by one vendor in Charlotte was shut down after only one day of operation after failing to obtain the required approvals from the city (Anderson- Hall et al. 2018). One of the challenges of managing micromobility operations is enforcing state and local regu- lations. Operations are usually regulated by the local jurisdictions (cities or towns), while the state may establish general guidelines and safety standards. However, the enforcement of local rules may be hindered if micromobility is not well defined in the state statutes or local ordi- nances, or if there has been little or no training of local law enforcement (Fischer 2020). Finally, local law enforcement may be hesitant to ticket e-scooter users for improper parking or opera- tion of vehicles because riders may be credibly unaware of the existing requirements (Pimentel et al. 2020). Federal legislation in the United States only regulates the manufacturing and first sale of e-bikes, rather than their operation. Consequently, many states have their own rules and regu- lations governing the operation of e-bikes, resulting in a lack of consistency between different states (Leger et al. 2018). A similar situation exists for e-scooters. Areas of Regulation While micromobility is mainly regulated at the local level, state governments may establish general rules to ensure the safety and accessibility of this emerging transportation mode. Areas that may need addressing or regulating at the state level include the following (Leger et al. 2018): ⢠Defining micromobility vehicle types ⢠Defining maximum speed for different classes of vehicles ⢠Defining operating space (i.e., where micromobility vehicles are allowed to ride) ⢠The minimum age required to ride on micromobility vehicles ⢠Helmet requirements ⢠License and registration requirements for operating micromobility devices on public roads ⢠Vehicle characteristics, including size, weight, and standard equipment ⢠Motor cessation requirements for e-bikes Micromobility-sharing companies are rarely regulated directly by state agencies. Local gov- ernments (including towns, cities, and counties) are more likely to impose rules governing the operation of shared micromobility systems. When local authorities choose to regulate micromobility-sharing programs, they are likely to implement policies addressing the follow- ing key areas (NACTO 2019):
Literature Review 21  ⢠Regulating the fleet size deployed in the local market ⢠Establishing and enforcing vehicle parking rules ⢠Instituting removal and relocation procedures for improperly parked vehicles ⢠Regulating rebalancing and fleet redistribution standards ⢠Establishing a clear and transparent fee structure ⢠Restricting the use of streets ⢠Ensuring equity and other community goals ⢠Defining data-reporting standards While micromobility vehicles are not new, the shared micromobility model is a novel approach in transportation, allowing riders to quickly access a convenient point-to-point service using a smartphone and secure mobile payment system. In response to explosive growth in shared micromobility, many states and cities quickly moved to regulate this market, utilizing differ- ent approaches. Some quickly banned micromobility-sharing companies, others implemented small-scale pilots before deciding on larger-scale adoption (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 2021; Marshall 2018). Yet, in other cases, state and local officials acted quickly to institute policies and practices enabling the organized deployment and enforcement of micromobility-sharing pro- grams. Whatever the approach, both state and local authorities need to ensure that their policies allow users to take full advantage of this new transportation mode, while mitigating negative effects and achieving adequate safety for the traveling public. Additional research may be needed to identify best practices in splitting regulatory and enforcement responsibilities related to the micromobility system between state and local gov- ernments to achieve the optimal outcome for all stakeholders (governments, riders, businesses, and the general public). Role of Local Governments Municipalities may be involved in some of the following activities when managing micro- mobility (Fedorowicz et al. 2020): ⢠Developing agreements ⢠Including requests for proposals, permits, and conducting pilot deployments with shared micromobility operations ⢠Collaborating with other sectors, agencies, and organizations to build out transportation infrastructure to support micromobility ⢠Partnering with micromobility companies to improve existing transportation systems and to collect and analyze data on vehicle use, trip history, and routes Cities are experimenting with improving various micromobility safety practices, such as defining service area boundaries, identifying maximum safe speeds for micromobility devices, restrict- ing speed or times of operation, and determining sidewalk accessibility (FHWA 2021). Local governments may also be engaged in conducting micromobility pilot studies and instituting data requirements and use agreements with shared micromobility companies. These projects might involve identification of new funding streams, designation of new policies and ordinances for operation, and installation of new infrastructure and parking structures to support both personal and shared micromobility (FHWA 2021). DOT Engagement and Coordination with Local Governments Statutes and legislative actions vary among states, which may require different roles and respon- sibilities for DOTs that inform DOTsâ relationships with local, regional, and state agencies. The
22 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices following are some of the common ways state DOTs engage with local governments to manage micromobility: ⢠DOTs provide guidance on how to partner with local governments for planning, designing, and developing transportation facilities and projects. Collaboration between DOTs and local agencies may occur across all phases of project development, from planning to programming to implementation. This ongoing collaboration builds and strengthens partnerships between state agencies and local governments (FDOT 2021). ⢠DOTs are responsible for drafting and updating transportation plans that account for all modes of transport and transportation planning and provide direction to those involved in state trans- portation systems on state, regional, and local levels. These plans often contain goals and strat- egies to achieve DOT-established objectives across various transportation modes, including aviation, bicycles, highways, paratransit, pedestrian travel, pipelines, rails, transit, space, and water (FDOT 2021). ⢠Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local governments are responsible for iden- tifying needs and priority projects in their local jurisdictions, and DOTs respond to these needs through budgeting, programming, and planning. ⢠DOTs are developing definitions and operating standards for micromobility technologies and are working with other agencies and local governments to coordinate projects, perform research, develop guidance, incentivize innovation through pilot deployments, and collect safety and mobility data (FHWA 2021).
