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.

23   Survey Development The information used in this synthesis was collected through an online survey of state DOTs and phone interviews of select DOTs regarding their policies and practices in managing micro- mobility vehicles. The research team designed the online survey, consisting of 33 questions, to collect primary data. Most of the questions had predetermined multiple-choice answers to reduce the effort required for completing the survey. Additionally, at least one question required an open response. The main goal of the questions was to gain basic information about how state DOTs treat different types of micromobility vehicles, which level of government regulates micromobility operations and enforces regulations, how micromobility is incorporated in statewide trans- portation planning efforts, how the state addresses safety and equity considerations of the new transportation modes, the challenges and opportunities associated with the adoption of micro- mobility technologies and sharing models, and other practices related to managing various types of micromobility vehicles. The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. This question- naire was developed in consultation with the NCHRP project panel and included suggestions and recommendations provided by panel members. In addition to the online survey of all DOTs, researchers performed 45-minute phone inter- views with three DOTs, focusing on best practices in regulating and managing micromobility at the state level. The research team selected the Minnesota, Maryland, and North Carolina DOTs for the in-depth follow-up phone interviews. These DOTs were selected on the basis of the infor- mation obtained through the survey and literature search and in consultation with the NCHRP panel. All DOT interviews were conducted in May 2021. Selection of Recipients The online survey was sent to representatives at state DOTs in 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. All 52 recipients represent the state perspectives on regulating micromobility. Additionally, the D.C. DOT combines the perspectives of both state and city/ municipality since it is both a district and a city. Researchers targeted bicycle and pedestrian coordinators, planners, and active transporta- tion and safety officials within DOTs. Recognizing that multiple people from various depart- ments and groups may be responsible for different aspects of micromobility, and to avoid duplicate sub missions, the survey asked recipients to consolidate feedback and provide one complete response per agency. Recipients were also asked to forward the survey link to the appropriate person within their organization if they were not in the position to answer ques- tions about micromobility regulations. C H A P T E R 3 State of the Practice

24 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices In addition to the formal survey, researchers identified and conducted the in-depth phone interviews with representatives at the three DOTs regarding their practices in regulating micro- mobility in their respective states. The candidates were selected on the basis of geographic loca- tion (to provide geographic diversity), state size (size diversity), general regulatory climate in the state, and other factors that may influence how states treat micromobility. Additionally, the selection process considered survey responses that identified agencies that were doing more in the space of micromobility management. The research team provided the questions to the DOT representatives prior to the interviews to allow time for familiarization with the proposed topics. It is worth noting that the interviews were structured as a discussion where questions were only used as general guidance and interviewees were allowed to expound on other relevant questions and topics. Interviews were conducted in May 2021. Data Collection The research team collected data over a two-month period, communicating with DOTs by email and phone. The survey link was emailed to recipients, who were given three weeks to complete the online survey. However, the survey link remained active after the official deadline, allowing DOTs to continue submitting responses. The email also included a PDF file of the sur- vey questionnaire, allowing DOT staff members to review the questions and look up the required data to provide answers before accessing the online survey. Researchers sent regular reminders to complete the survey both before and after the deadline. Additionally, NCHRP panel members assisted by reaching out to specific DOTs that were not responsive after the deadline. During May 2021, DOTs selected for more in-depth discussions were interviewed over the phone for approximately 30 to 45 minutes. Interviews were kept short to encourage participa- tion and reduce the time commitment burden for interviewees. These questions were also sent in advance to allow participants to become familiar with the topics covered. Of the 52 contacted DOTs, 42 fully completed the survey and two provided partial responses. Overall, 44 DOTs provided meaningful input, resulting in an overall response rate of 84.6%. Figure 1 presents a map of the surveyed DOTs. Appendix B contains the full survey responses, and Appendix C provides a summary of key survey responses. Treatment of Micromobility by State DOTs Definition of Micromobility Different types of micromobility vehicles have different definitions in state statutes across the country. Some states treat micromobility devices as vehicles, while others classify them as personal mobility devices, consumer products, or as other categories. There are often inconsis- tencies in how different devices are defined by state laws. While most states have a clear defini- tion of bicycles, this is not always the case for other types of micromobility vehicles (such as e-bikes and e-scooters) that often are not defined in state statutes. Regardless of how e-bikes and e-scooters are defined in state laws, they are often treated as bicycles and are subject to the same requirements as bicycles. In a few cases, motorized micromobility devices (such as e-bikes and e-scooters) are subject to similar requirements as mopeds or motor vehicles. The data show that most of the surveyed states define micromobility vehicles as non-motorized or motorized personal mobility devices. Twenty-eight DOTs (65.1% of responders) place bicycles in this category, 25 DOTs (58.1% of responders) define e-bikes as non-motorized/motorized per- sonal mobility devices, and 20 DOTs (48.8% of responders) define e-scooters as non-motorized/ motorized personal mobility devices.

State of the Practice 25   Ten surveyed DOTs (23.3% of responders) classify bicycles and e-bikes as motor vehicles. Essentially, the same states that define bicycles as vehicles also define e-bikes as vehicles. The survey results indicate that e-bikes are not defined in the state statutes of two of the surveyed states while e-scooters are not defined in the statutes of five states. Table 1 summarizes the frequencies of the various classifications of common types of micro- mobility vehicles as reported by survey respondents. Five states (11.6% of responders) define e-bikes and nine states (22.0% of responders) define e-scooters differently from motor vehicles, personal mobility devices, or personal consumer products. For e-bikes, the “other” definitions include electric power–assisted bicycles and a certain type of vehicle (other than motor vehicle). For e-scooters, “other” definitions may mean motor- ized skateboards, scooters, and motorized foot scooters, or that e-scooters are defined in the statutes but are not classified, or are treated as bicycles despite the lack of formal definition in the statutes. DOT Involvement in Managing Micromobility DOT Divisions Involved There are multiple divisions within state DOTs that may handle micromobility, including opera- tions, safety, planning, policy, motor vehicles, compliance, and active transportation. Addition- ally, divisions that work on micromobility issues may include the office of innovative mobility, the highway safety office, real estate, or engineering. Among surveyed DOTs, planning and active transportation divisions seem to be the most typical areas involved in managing micromobility. Thirty-two surveyed DOTs indicated that the planning division within their DOT has dedicated staff members (either full-time or part-time) managing micromobility topics. Twenty-seven Figure 1. Map of surveyed DOTs.

26 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices reported that staff members from the active transportation division manage micromobility (on either a full-time or part-time basis). For most DOTs, the staff that manages micromobility typi- cally does it on a part-time basis because they have other responsibilities. A maximum of eight DOTs indicated that they have staff members dedicated to micromobility issues on a full-time basis (in the planning department). Figure 2 summarizes and compares the different divisions within DOTs responsible for managing micromobility, either on a full-time or a part-time basis. Regulatory Actions and Transportation Planning DOTs may choose to be involved in various tasks related to managing micromobility at the state level, including providing recommendations to the legislature, developing standards and guidance, providing training to local entities on managing micromobility, funding micro mobility pilot projects, and other actions. The most popular actions related to micromobility management include developing recommendations (24 DOTs or 61.5% of responders), developing 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 pro- moting micromobility (17 DOTs or 43.6% of responders). Seven of the surveyed DOTs (17.9% of responders) reported not being engaged in any activities related to managing micromobility. Fig- ure 3 summarizes DOT involvement in various actions related to managing micromobility. Note that responders were allowed to provide multiple responses to this question; therefore, the percent- ages do not add up to 100. The survey asked if each state DOT includes micromobility in its statewide transportation plan. States must prepare a long-range statewide transportation plan that develops and outlines a multimodal state transportation system for a 20-year period. The plan needs to include all modes of transportation and consider the connections between public transportation and other modes such as non-motorized modes, rails, commercial motor vehicles, waterways, aviation, and so on. Micromobility travel, including bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters, as well as walking, can also be included in statewide transportation plans. More DOTs are including micromobility in these plans as emerging modes that provide an increasing share of trips, particularly in urban intercity travel. Vehicle Type Classification in Statute Number of DOTs % Bicycle Motor vehicles 10 23.3% Non-motorized or motorized personal mobility device 28 65.1% Personal consumer product 1 2.3% Other 4 9.3% Not defined/classified 0 0.0% Electric Bicycle Motor vehicles 10 23.3% Non-motorized or motorized personal mobility device 25 58.1% Personal consumer product 1 2.3% Other 5 11.6% Not defined/classified 2 4.7% Electric Scooter Motor vehicles 4 9.8% Non-motorized or motorized personal mobility device 20 48.8% Personal consumer product 3 7.3% Other 9 22.0% Not defined/classified 5 12.2% Notes: N = 43 for bicycle and electric bicycle; N = 41 for electric scooter. Table 1. Frequencies of common definitions of micromobility vehicles.

State of the Practice 27   (N = 42) Other, 5.6% Other, 44.4% Active Transportation, 18.2% Active Transportation, 63.6% Compliance, 0.0% Compliance, 12.1% Motor Vehicles, 3.0% Motor Vehicles, 18.2% Policy, 2.9% Policy, 37.1% Planning, 19.5% Planning, 58.5% Safety, 7.9% Safety, 39.5% Operations, 0.0% Operations, 20.6% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 FULL TIME PART TIME Figure 2. DOT divisions with dedicated staff members managing micromobility. (N = 39) 61.5% 33.3% 35.9% 25.6% 28.2% 28.2% 53.8% 46.2% 43.6% 46.2% 17.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS ENACTING POLICIES FUNDING PILOT PROJECTS PROMULGATING STATE REGULATIONS PROVIDING TRAINING TO STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE OR LOCAL ENTITIES DEVELOPING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE PERFORMING DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION PROMOTING MICROMOBILITY CONDUCTING RESEARCH INITIATIVES NONE Figure 3. Actions by DOTs related to managing micromobility.

28 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices Twenty-six of the DOTs surveyed for this study (61.9% of responders) include micromobility in their long-range statewide transportation plans, while 16 (38.1% of responders) do not. Figure 4 demonstrates the shares of DOTs that do and do not include micromobility in their statewide transportation plans. e primary motivation for including micromobility in a statewide transportation plan is planning for future improvements in the overall transportation system, where micromobility can play a role. Twenty-two surveyed DOTs (88.0% of responders) indicated planning for improve- ments in the overall transportation system as one of the motivations for including micromobility in the state transportation plan. Ten DOTs (40.0% of responders) indicated that outlining policies and strategies for regulating micromobility was a motivation for including micromobility in the state transportation plan, nine DOTs (36.0% of responders) included micromobility for the purpose of detailing how it will meet performance measures, while six DOTs (24.0% of responders) included micromobility for other reasons. Since responders were allowed to select multiple options, per- centages do not add up to 100. Figure 5 summarizes the motivations of surveyed DOTs for includ- ing micromobility in state transportation plans. Other comments provided by DOTs regarding micromobility include the following: • It oers a look at how active transportation meets performance measures • Micromobility is mentioned in the bicycle and pedestrian section of the plan, but no policies and strategies are specic to micromobility • Micromobility is included in non-motorized transportation education materials • E-bikes are promoted in the Statewide Bicycle Plan Some responders also noted that their state transportation plan only included bicycles and no other types of micromobility, such as e-bikes or e-scooters. 61.9% 38.1% Included Not included (N = 42) Figure 4. Micromobility in statewide transportation plans.

State of the Practice 29   Reasons for Managing Micromobility DOTs were asked to rank in order of importance from 1 to 5 (1 being the most important and 5 the least important) the following ve approaches to addressing micromobility needs in statewide transportation plans: • Planning for infrastructure to support micromobility modes • Ensuring integration of micromobility with other modes of transportation • Regulating other modes to accommodate micromobility • Incorporating micromobility into congestion management eorts • Focusing on ensuring the safety of the transportation system for all modes Twenty surveyed DOTs view ensuring the safety of the transportation system for all modes as the most important approach to addressing micromobility needs, while only one DOT sees plan- ning for infrastructure to support micromobility modes as the most important. Twenty DOTs also view the integration of micromobility with other transportation modes as the second most important approach in a state transportation plan. At the same time, regulating other modes to accommodate micromobility received the greatest number of lowest rankings. Fourteen DOTs ranked this approach as the least important in a state transportation plan. Figure 6 presents the ranking of these ve approaches to micromobility in state transportation plans. Overall, ensuring the safety of all transportation modes was ranked as the most important by surveyed DOTs (average ranking of 1.4), while regulating other modes to accommodate micro- mobility and incorporating micromobility into congestion management eorts were ranked as least important (average ranking of 4.3 and 4.0, respectively). Figure 7 presents a summary of the average ranking for the ve DOT approaches to addressing micromobility in state transportation plans. Note that the rankings do not have cardinal properties and can only be used to order from lowest to highest. Shared Micromobility Shared micromobility refers to the short-term rental of dierent types of vehicles such as bicycles, e-bikes, or e-scooters available in a given geographic area. Shared micromobility services are represented by a variety of vendors, including Lime, Bird, Spin, Jump, Razor, Skip, Coast, and (N = 25) 10 9 22 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 OUTLINING POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR REGULATING MICROMOBILITY DETAILING HOW MICROMOBILITY MEETS PERFORMANCE MEASURES (SAFETY, MOBILITY, SUSTAINABILITY, RESILIENCE, ETC) PLANNING FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OTHER REASONS Number of DOTs Figure 5. Motivations for including micromobility in state transportation plans.

Ra nk in g 1: 1 Ra nk in g 1: 0 Ra nk in g 1: 2 Ra nk in g 1: 0 Ra nk in g 1: 20 Ra nk in g 2: 9 Ra nk in g 2: 20 Ra nk in g 2: 0 Ra nk in g 2: 2 Ra nk in g 2: 2 Ra nk in g 3: 6 Ra nk in g 3: 11 Ra nk in g 3: 2 Ra nk in g 3: 4 Ra nk in g 3: 0 Ra nk in g 4: 6 Ra nk in g 4: 2 Ra nk in g 4: 5 Ra nk in g 4: 11 Ra nk in g 4: 1 Ra nk in g 5: 1 Ra nk in g 5: 0 Ra nk in g 5: 14 Ra nk in g 5: 7 Ra nk in g 5: 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Infrastructure planning Integration with other transportation modes Regulating other modes Incorporating micromobility in congestion management Ensuring safety for all modes N um be ro fD O Ts Actions by DOTs to address micromobility in state transportation plans (N = 25) Figure 6. Ranking of DOT approaches to addressing micromobility needs.

State of the Practice 31   others. Personal micromobility, on the other hand, refers to the use of micromobility vehicles that are owned by riders and are not part of sharing programs. Regulatory approaches to personal and shared micromobility may vary at both the state and local levels. Almost all DOTs surveyed for this study (41 DOTs or 97.6% of responders) indicated they do not regulate shared micromobility companies in their state, and only one surveyed DOT reported being involved in regulating shared micromobility vendors—the District of Columbia, acting in its role as a municipality rather than a state DOT. The data from the survey, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggest that the majority of regulatory actions concerning shared micro- mobility companies are implemented at the local rather than state level. Input from Stakeholders There are several approaches that DOTs and other government agencies take with regula- tions. DOTs might develop regulations without any input from micromobility companies and impose or enforce regulations in a traditional manner. Alternatively, DOTs can treat micro- mobility companies like partners and seek their input in developing guidelines and regulations. It is not clear which approach yields better results and should be preferred. The data indicate that the majority of surveyed DOTs do not seek input from micromobility companies in the process of developing policies, practices, and planning. Only six DOTs (14.6% of responders) seek input from micromobility-sharing companies, while 35 (85.4% of responders) do not seek input while developing micromobility regulations. Although most DOTs do not seek input from micromobility companies, managing and regulat- ing micromobility still involves interaction with a large number of stakeholders. When devel- oping micromobility strategies and initiatives, state DOTs collaborate and interact with various stakeholders at all levels, including councils of governments, city or county governments, metro- politan planning organizations (MPOs) and transportation planning organizations (TPOs), regional planning agencies, transit agencies, academic or research institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Twenty-four of the surveyed DOTs (64.9% of responders) reported working with city governments during the process of developing micromobility strategies and policies. (N = 25) Note: A ranking of 1 is most important; a ranking of 5 is least important. 2.9 2.7 4.3 4.0 1.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Infrastructure planning Integration with other transportation modes Regulating other modes Incorporating micromobility in congestion management Ensuring safety for all modes AVERAGE RANKING Figure 7. Average ranking of DOT approaches to addressing micromobility.

32 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices The same number of DOTs also work with MPOs and TPOs. Seventeen DOTs (45.9% of responders) collaborate with transit agencies in developing micromobility strategies, while 16 (43.2% of responders) work with councils of governments and nonprofit organizations. It is worth noting that there is a substantial overlap between DOTs that collaborate with the different groups of stakeholders. There are 27 DOTs that interact with multiple stakeholders while devel- oping micromobility strategies and few DOTs that do not cooperate with any outside entities. The data show that 19 DOTs collaborate with city governments and MPOs at the same time while developing micromobility policies. Essentially the same DOTs involve councils of governments, city governments, and MPOs in developing micromobility strategies. Four DOTs either do not work on micromobility issues altogether or do not collaborate with external stakeholders while developing policies and strategies. Figure 8 shows a more detailed list of stakeholders that DOTs work with to develop micromobility policies and regulations. Since responders were instructed to list multiple organizations, percentages do not add up to 100. DOTs might work directly with these stakeholders or might interact with them within special statewide committees established to oversee micromobility or other emerging modes of trans- portation (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees, public transportation advisory com- mittees, and so on). 43.2% 64.9% 29.7% 64.9% 40.5% 8.1% 10.8% 8.1% 5.4% 45.9% 40.5% 43.2% 24.3% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Councils of governments City governments County governments MPOs/TPOs Regional planning agencies Chambers of commerce Private sector operators Land owners Developers Transit Agencies Academia/Researchers Nonprofit organizations Other organizations PERCENT OF DOTS WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS (N = 37) Figure 8. Partners that DOTs work with to develop micromobility strategies.

State of the Practice 33   Surveyed DOTs were asked to rank reasons for regulating shared micromobility companies from most important (1) to least important (5). This question received a low response rate, which is not surprising since only one DOT indicated being involved in regulating shared micro mobility. In fact, some of the responses to this question reflect hypothetical reasoning rather than actual reasons employed for regulating. The ranking is based on responses from only three DOTs; therefore, extreme caution should be exercised in interpreting the results. Ensuring equitable treatment of all users was ranked as the most important reason for regu- lating shared micromobility companies, followed by ensuring adequate safety of all transpor- tation modes and providing mobility to underserved populations. Reducing congestion and achieving environmental goals were viewed as the least important factors. Figure 9 summarizes the average ranking of reasons for regulating shared micromobility companies. Note that the rankings do not have cardinal properties and can only be used to order from lowest to highest. Regulatory Activity There are different ways that micromobility (both personal and shared) can be regulated in individual states. Over half of the surveyed DOTs (23, or 56.1% of responders) reported that micromobility in their state is regulated by both the state legislature and local ordinances. Ten DOTs (24.4% of responders) reported that micromobility is primarily regulated and managed by local ordinances, while four DOTs (9.8% of responders) indicated that micromobility is not regulated in their states. Only one of the surveyed DOTs reported that micromobility is mainly regulated by state legislation. Figure 10 summarizes how micromobility is regulated. The “other” ways of regulating micromobility reported by three DOTs include regulations at state, county, and local levels, as well as different regulatory treatment for different micromobility vehicles (e.g., bicycles are regulated by state legislature, while all other types of micromobility are handled by local ordinances). When asked what entities regulate micromobility in the state, most DOTs (53.7% of respond- ers) reported that mainly municipalities (cities or towns) manage and regulate micromobility vehicles in their state. In two states, the state DOT and other state agencies are each responsible for micromobility regulation, while no regulations exist in four states. Additionally, nine states (22.0% of responders) reported that micromobility is regulated by other entities, including the 3.0 4.0 4.7 2.0 2.3 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Provide mobility to underserved Reduce congestion Achieve environmental goals Ensure equitable treatment of all users Ensure adequate safety of all modes AVERAGE RANKING (N = 3) Note: A ranking of 1 is most important; a ranking of 5 is least important. Figure 9. Ranking of reasons to regulate micromobility companies.

34 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices department of safety, legislation, facility owners, or various combinations of these entities (e.g., state, counties, and municipalities or other state agencies, counties, and municipalities). One DOT also reported dierent regulatory jurisdictions for dierent types of vehicles; bicycles are regulated by the state DOT while other types of micromobility are regulated by municipalities. Figure 11 summarizes DOT responses regarding the entities that regulate micromobility. Survey data show that the enforcement of micromobility regulations essentially occurs at the local level, where local agencies apply local ordinances (20 DOTs or 47.6% of responders) or local agencies apply or enforce state laws (6 DOTs or 14.3% of responders). Only two surveyed DOTs (4.8% of responders) reported that the enforcement of micromobility regulations in their states involves state agencies applying state laws. Eleven DOTs (26.2% of responders) also reported various combinations of entities involved in micromobility enforcement, such as local agencies applying local and state laws; state agencies and local agencies applying state laws; and state patrols, county police, and city police enforcing both state and local laws, and so on. Figure 12 summarizes what levels of government are involved in the enforcement of micromobility regula- tions. Note that various combinations of entities are captured by the “other” category. Given that most of the regulation and enforcement of micromobility occurs at the local level without involving the state DOT, it is not surprising that most of the surveyed DOTs (51.3% of responders) stated that their DOT has no role in regulating micromobility in their state. Yet, 12 surveyed DOTs (30.8% of responders) reported that their DOT is involved in establishing micromobility infrastructure design standards, 10 DOTs (25.6% of responders) see the role of the DOT in enforcing ADA compliance, and eight DOTs (20.5% of responders) see their regulatory role in terms of establishing data collection and reporting standards, such as with Mobility Data Specication. [Mobility Data Specication (MDS) is a standard for exchanging data between mobility operators and cities or other regulators. MDS allows regulators to collect and analyze 2.4% 24.4% 56.1% 9.8% 7.3% By state legislation By local ordinances Both at state and local level None Other (N = 41) Figure 10. The primary level of regulation of micromobility.

State of the Practice 35   data from mobility operators in a standardized format and communicate with them in real time using digital code.] Transportation and parking infrastructure in many cities was traditionally designed around personal vehicles with possible accommodation for other common transportation modes such as transit and walking. However, widespread use of micromobility vehicles in some urban envi- ronments, particularly shared services, necessitates that cities rethink street design standards to accommodate the safe operation of low-speed vehicles and minimize conicts with other modes. Additionally, new approaches may be required in designing sidewalks and other public spaces to ensure micromobility vehicles can be parked and stored safely without obstructing (N = 41) 9.8% 4.9% 4.9% 2.4% 53.7% 2.4% 22.0% None State DOT Other state agencies Counties Municipalities MPO/TPO Other Figure 11. Entities that regulate micromobility. (N = 42) 4.8% 14.3% 47.6% 7.1% 26.2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% State agencies applying state laws Local agencies applying/enforcing state laws Local agencies applying local ordinances None Other Figure 12. Levels of government that enforce micromobility regulations.

36 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Both cities and states can play a leading role in implementing infrastructure design standards that accommodate new micromobility modes. This may involve including dedicated space for active transportation users in street design, including designated parking areas for micromobility vehicles in the right-of-way, requiring more curb space during road construction, increasing parking space requirements (to include micromobility) for commer- cial establishments in urban areas, requiring micromobility vehicles to be locked to dedicated physical infrastructure when parked, and other combinations of design standards and policies. Some other roles that DOTs have regarding micromobility include planning, monitoring devel- opment and intervening as needed, providing educational materials to help local governments understand micromobility and maximize its benefits, and funding and implementing pilot pro- grams. Overall, seven surveyed DOTs (17.9% of responders) reported being involved in these “other” types of activities. Figure 13 summarizes the roles of DOTs in regulating micromobility. DOTs were asked to identify the level of regulation for specific micromobility deployment requirements, including areas in which the service is provided, hours of operation, equipment used, safety requirements, and others. More than 60% of responding DOTs indicated that all these deployment requirements are determined and managed at the local level. Establishing safety requirements was the area with the largest involvement by both DOTs and local regula- tions. The data show that both local jurisdictions and state DOTs are involved in establishing safety requirements for micromobility in seven states (18.9% of responders). Other micromobility deployment requirements that DOTs are involved in include estab- lishing limitations on the percentage of vehicles per given geographic area, vehicle caps, other equipment requirements, and developing data privacy laws. A typical “other” area for local juris- dictions is establishing standards for equity of community access to micromobility. Developing guidelines and policies for micromobility device storage is one of the “other” areas addressed by both DOTs and local jurisdictions. Figure 14 presents different levels of regulation for select areas of micromobility deployment. All but two surveyed DOTs (95.1% of responders) reported not being involved in regulat- ing operations of shared micromobility, including but not limited to issuing operator permits, (N = 39) 51.3% 12.8% 25.6% 0.0% 20.5% 30.8% 2.6% 17.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% None Establish equipment and safety standards for the vehicles Enforce ADA compliance Regulate payment system for device rentals Establish data collection and reporting standards (Mobility Data Specification) Establish micromobility infrastructure design standards Oversee micromobility standards established by municipalities Other Figure 13. Main roles of DOTs in regulating micromobility.

State of the Practice 37   establishing permitting fees, regulating eet size, and regulating hours of service. Of the two DOTs that are involved in regulating operations, one is a unique case since it is a state, county, and city DOT, and the other is only involved in regulating a limited micromobility pilot deploy- ment that is implemented on transit agency (state government) property. Figure 15 displays the shares of surveyed DOTs that are and are not involved in regulating operations of shared micromobility. Regulations, Planning, and Maintenance of Infrastructure Micromobility vehicles oen need infrastructure in place to make their use safe, convenient, and practical. In many cases, local jurisdictions are tasked with ensuring adequate investment in infrastructure to accommodate micromobility. However, state DOTs may also be engaged with planning, operating, and maintaining micromobility infrastructure, such as parking corrals, geofences, sidewalks and paths, and on-street infrastructure. Twenty-ve surveyed DOTs (61% of responders) reported that they are not engaged in planning, operation, and maintenance, while 16 DOTs (39% of responders) indicated that they are involved in certain aspects of micromobility infrastructure. Figure 16 demonstrates the surveyed DOTs that are and are not engaged in planning, operating, or maintaining micromobility infrastructure in their states. (N = 39) 1 0 1 1 2 29 28 25 23 9 2 1 3 7 1 6 7 6 6 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Area in which the service is provided Hours of operation Equipment used Safety requirements Other deployment requirements NUMBER OF STATES DOT Local level DOT and local level None Figure 14. Levels of regulation for micromobility deployment requirements.

38 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices (N = 41) 4.9% 95.1% DOT is involved DOT is not involved Figure 15. DOT involvement in regulating operations of shared micromobility. (N = 41) 39.0% 61.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% DOT IS ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING DOT IS NOT ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING Figure 16. DOT engagement with planning, operating, and maintaining micromobility infrastructure.

State of the Practice 39   As a general rule, issues related to micromobility device parking are handled at the local level by entities that have trac control jurisdiction. However, in some states, DOTs also play a lead- ing role in establishing rules and policies regarding where and how micromobility vehicles can be parked or docked (i.e., where parking corrals are placed, designated parking locations versus sidewalks, and the distance of micromobility parking areas from driveways and buildings). irty-seven surveyed DOTs (90.2% of responders) reported that cities and towns in their states regulate where and how micromobility vehicles can be parked. State DOTs regulate parking issues of micromobility vehicles in four states (9.8% of responders), while other entities, includ- ing counties and various combinations of state, county, and local jurisdictions, regulate parking in ve states. Additionally, two states reported that no entities address micromobility parking in their states. Figure 17 summarizes which entities across the country regulate where and how micromobility vehicles can be parked. Similar to parking regulations, in most of the states across the country, municipalities play the key role in regulating where micromobility vehicles are permitted to operate. irty-four surveyed DOTs (82.9% of responders) reported that municipalities (cities or towns) regulate where micromobility vehicles are allowed to operate in their states. Eleven DOTs (26.8% of responders) indicated that state DOTs regulate where micromobility vehicles may operate, while eight (19.5% of responders) listed other entities including the state legislatures, transportation facility owners, state DMVs, and counties. Figure 18 summarizes the entities that regulate where micromobility vehicles are permitted to operate. Micromobility-sharing companies oen employ technological solutions to manage the service area where their vehicles operate. One example is geofencing the area to limit vehicle use to a specied geographic area and prohibit unauthorized use outside of this area. Micromobility companies (e.g., Bird, Jump, Lime) also have the ability to track vehicles with GPS for the pur- pose of collecting trip data and matching available vehicles with renters. e use of such technologies to track vehicles and manage service area can be either stipulated in the agreements between government entities and micromobility companies or implemented voluntarily by micromobility companies. e majority of surveyed DOTs (24 DOTs or 58.5% of responders) reported that the use of the technology to manage service area for shared micro- mobility is handled by municipalities and other local entities without any involvement from the state agencies. Sixteen DOTs (39.0% of responders) stated that they are not involved in establish- ing requirements for the use of technologies to manage shared micromobility service areas, while (N = 41) 4.9% 9.8% 90.2% 12.2% None State DOT Municipalities Other Figure 17. Entities that regulate where micromobility vehicles can be parked.

40 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices one DOT is involved in setting such requirements. Figure 19 summarizes DOT involvement in establishing requirements for managing shared micromobility service areas with technology. Safety and Equity Considerations e speed of micromobility vehicles is a key safety feature that can be regulated by dierent levels of government. Only two surveyed DOTs (4.9% of responders) reported that they regu- late the speed of micromobility vehicles in their states, while 14 (34.1% of responders) stated that municipalities (cities or towns) regulate the speed of micromobility vehicles. Additionally, 10 DOTs (24.4% of responders) indicated that both the state DOTs and municipalities oversee this regulation, and 10 (24.4% of responders) reported that the speed is regulated or handled by other entities, including the state legislature, a combination of state, municipal, and county governments, the state department of public safety, and other state and local entities. Figure 20 summarizes the entities that regulate the speed of micromobility vehicles. A large percentage of DOTs are not involved in setting the maximum speed for micromobility vehicles. Depending on the type of vehicles, 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. e most common maximum speed for micromobility vehicles is 16–20 or 26–30 mph. One DOT reported that the maximum speed of all types of micromobility vehicles is limited to 51–55 mph. Eight surveyed DOTs (61.5% of responders) reported 16–20 mph as the maximum speed for Class-1 and Class-2 e-bikes. Four (30.8% of responders) stated that the maximum speed of Class-3 e-bikes is limited to 16–20 mph, while another four limit the maximum speed of Class-3 e-bikes to 26–30 mph. Maximum speeds for e-bikes reported by surveyed DOTs are generally consistent with the three-tier e-bike classication. ree DOTs (27.3% of responders) indicated the maxi- mum allowed speed of standing e-scooters to be 16–20 mph, while one DOT reported limiting standing e-scooters to 11–15 mph. Note that this survey question asked about the maximum speed established by a state DOT. erefore, the responses do not reect maximum speeds that may be established at the local level. Figure 21 displays the maximum speeds established by state DOTs for dierent types of micromobility vehicles. (N = 41) 7.3% 26.8% 82.9% 19.5% None State DOT Municipalities Other Figure 18. Entities regulating where micromobility vehicles are permitted to operate.

State of the Practice 41   (N = 41) 2.4% 39.0% 58.5% Yes No Handled by local entities Figure 19. DOT requirements for shared micromobility companies to manage service areas using technology. In some instances, DOTs impose safety equipment requirements for micromobility vehicles, although this does not happen oen. In fact, 17 surveyed DOTs (41.5% of responders) indi- cated that they do not impose any equipment requirements on micromobility vehicles. Fieen DOTs (36.6% of responders) require micromobility vehicles to have reectors, and 13 (31.7% of responders) require them to be equipped with headlights. Additionally, 14 DOTs (34.1% of responders) implement other equipment requirements for micromobility vehicles, including the following: • A front headlight and a red reector are required for bicycles at night. • Headlights are only required if the vehicle is operated half an hour aer sunset and up to half an hour before sunrise. • E-bikes have the same requirements as bicycles. • A front light and a back reector are only required for bicycles. • Bicycles are required to be equipped with a front white light and a back red reector or light. Figure 22 summarizes the micromobility equipment requirements imposed by state DOTs. Note that since responders were allowed to select multiple types of equipment, percentages in the gure do not add up to 100.

42 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices Other micromobility safety requirements may include wearing helmets while riding on vehicles, establishing a minimum age to ride, and prohibiting tandem riding on scooters. Nine surveyed DOTs (23.1% of responders) reported imposing helmet requirements for micromobility riders, 11 DOTs (28.2% of responders) have minimum age requirements for riding, two DOTs (5.1% of responders) have rules regarding tandem riding on scooters, while 13 DOTs (33.3% of responders) have implemented other micromobility safety requirements. Other reported safety requirements mostly describe how the specic helmet and minimum age requirements are applied, including the following: • A person under the age of 15 cannot drive a Class-3 e-bike without an adult. • Class-3 e-bike riders under 18 are required to wear a helmet. • Helmets are required for persons under the age of 16. • Low-speed vehicles cannot be driven on roadways over 35 mph. • e minimum age for e-scooter and Class-3 e-bike riders is imposed by state code but not technically by the state DOT. • Helmet requirements for bicycles are established at the state level; other micromobility vehicles are regulated at the local level. • A helmet is required for scooter riders 18 years and younger and for bike riders 12 years and younger. • Riders under 16 cannot use e-bikes on public highways. • Riders under 18 years of age (ages 16 and 17) are required to wear a helmet. (N = 41) 12.2% 4.9% 34.1% 24.4% 24.4% None State DOT Municipalities State DOT & municipalities Other Figure 20. Entities that regulate the speed of micromobility vehicles.

State of the Practice 43   (N = 13) 9 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 4 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Bikes E-bikes - Class 1 E-bikes - Class 2 E-bikes - Class 3 Standing e-scooters Sitting e-scooters Number of DOTs N/A 6-10 mph 11-15 mph 16-20 mph 26-30 mph 51-55 mph 55+ mph Figure 21. Maximum speed of micromobility vehicles set by state DOTs. (N = 41) 41.5% 31.7% 36.6% 34.1% NONE HEADLIGHTS REFLECTORS OTHER Figure 22. Micromobility equipment requirements imposed by state DOTs.

44 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices Finally, 21 surveyed DOTs (53.8% of responders) do not impose any safety requirements on micromobility vehicles or riders. Figure 23 summarizes the types of micromobility safety requirements implemented by state DOTs. Note that the percentages do not add up to 100 since responders were allowed to choose multiple responses. e safety of micromobility vehicles can also be addressed by combining micromobility regu- lations with smart infrastructure approaches, such as Complete Streets policies, that focus on designing the entire right-of-way for prioritized use by slower modes of transportation (biking, walking, etc.) and reducing conicts between modes. Another challenge associated with shared micromobility services includes ensuring equita- ble access to this new transportation mode by all users, particularly by overcoming racial and income divides. Government entities that approve micromobility-sharing pilots oen have poli- cies in place requiring providers to ensure that equity is maintained. is is mostly addressed by local jurisdictions that issue permits to micromobility providers. State DOTs also play a role in addressing equity issues of shared micromobility, but this is not as common. ree 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. Figure 24 summarizes the share of states that do and do not have policies to address the equity of shared micromobility. Data Collection Data is an important component of informed decision making. Local and state decision makers must have accurate and consistent data on various aspects of micromobility to better under- stand the eects of this new transportation mode and develop eective approaches to integrate it into the overall transportation system. Safety and performance metrics, as well as the data that allow quantifying the environmental eects of micromobility, are usually the types of data col- lected and reported. Most of this data collection occurs at the local level where local jurisdiction requires operators to collect and report data on a regular basis to government entities overseeing micromobility deployment. (N = 39) 53.8% 23.1% 28.2% 5.1% 33.3% None Helmet requirements Minimum age to ride Tandem riding on scooters Other Figure 23. Micromobility safety requirements implemented by state DOTs.

State of the Practice 45   e majority of surveyed DOTs (95.1% of responders) do not require micromobility operators to collect or report any data on the operations of their vehicles. For the few DOTs that require data collection, operators capture data on the number of micromobility trips, trip lengths, crashes involving micromobility vehicles, injuries involving micromobility vehicles, and other metrics. Note that some of these metrics are collected by the D.C. DOT, which is both a state and a city DOT. e other collected metrics reported by surveyed DOTs include data on criminal activities involving dockless vehicles (e.g., contacts with police, re, or emergency medical technicians) and cases where data are not collected consistently throughout the state but are rather tracked for a specic limited-scale pilot. Figure 25 summarizes the types of data required by state DOTs from micromobility operators. Regardless of whether state DOTs require micromobility providers to collect and report data, they may still be interested in obtaining such data. Dierent DOTs use dierent approaches for collecting and managing micromobility data. Figure 26 summarizes how they collect and manage data. While 26 surveyed DOTs (65.0% of responders) do not collect micromobility data, three DOTs (7.5% of responders) indicated that they collect and manage data internally (by state DOT 7.3% 92.7% Policies in place to address equity No DOT policies to address equity (N = 41) Figure 24. DOT policies addressing the equity of shared micromobility.

46 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices personnel). One DOT outsources data collection and management to third parties, four DOTs work with local agencies to gather data, and six DOTs use other ways. Table 2 summarizes the other ways DOTs collect and manage micromobility data, as reported by the surveyed DOTs. Similar to other aspects of micromobility data, most DOTs (87.8% of responders) do not establish any standards for collection. A few DOTs may establish standards regarding the col- lection or storage of micromobility data, data privacy, and other aspects of data management. Three of the surveyed DOTs have standards regarding micromobility data collection, one DOT has standards regarding data storage, two DOTs reported having data privacy standards, and 95.1% 4.9% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 4.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None Micromobility trips Trip length Crashes involving micromobility devices Injuries involving micromobility devices Other metrics (N = 41) Figure 25. Types of data required by state DOTs from micromobility operators. 65.0% 7.5% 2.5% 10.0% 15.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% N/A (Does not collect/manage micromobility data) Collect and manage data internally by state DOT personnel Outsource to third parties to collect and manage data Work with local agencies to gather data Other (N = 40) Figure 26. How DOTs collect and manage micromobility data.

State of the Practice 47   three DOTs implement other data handling standards. Other data handling standards reported include developing data protocols related to facility use (e.g., bike and pedestrian counts at inter- sections), encouraging local jurisdictions to compare notes on structuring data requirements for shared mobility permits, creating a database for bicycle and pedestrian data, and establish- ing standards for the data format to be uploaded to the database (not exclusively related to micromobility data). Figure 27 summarizes the micromobility data standards established by state DOTs. Challenges and Opportunities Surveyed DOTs were asked to choose up to three main challenges they face with micro- mobility from the list of potential challenges. Ensuring adequate safety to riders and pedestrians State Method of Data Collection/Management CO Works with councils of governments/MPOs to collect micromobility data on a limited basis. DC Works with another state agency to collect/manage data. LA Data collection method depends on roadway ownership. MD Local agencies gather data on shared-mobility devices. State DOT is working to better collect/manage data regarding all bikes, etc. MN None currently collected but plan to collect trip data to be outsourced to a third party. NC Works with the university transportation research center to collect and maintain bike/pedestrian count data and crash data. Table 2. Other ways of collecting and managing micromobility data. 87.8% 7.3% 2.4% 4.9% 7.3% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 None Data collection Data storage Privacy Other data standards (N = 41) Figure 27. Micromobility data standards established by DOTs.

48 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices emerged as the top challenge for state DOTs related to micromobility (70% reported it to be one of their main challenges), followed by issues with the definition or classification of micromobility vehicles (45%) and obtaining reliable data on micromobility trips and incidents (40%). Other commonly cited challenges included technology development that is outpacing regulations (30%), ensuring that micromobility modes improve overall transportation system performance without creating additional traffic (25%), and maintaining uniform approaches to micromobility in different geographic areas (22.5%). Figure 28 summarizes the main challenges that DOTs face regarding micromobility. Since responders were asked to choose several response options, the percentages in the graph do not add up to 100. Some other reported challenging areas related to micromobility include the following: • Lack of DOT experience with the new transportation mode (micromobility is a new field of transportation). • Inconsistent ordinances from one local community to another. • Increase of demand on limited resources. • Defining categories of micromobility devices on the basis of how they are used, rather than how they look. • Managing the volume of potential data and data privacy requirements. • Micromobility being under local authority and the state having little influence in local jurisdictions. • Lack of state legislation regulating micromobility. Based on the survey responses, the DOTs’ most important goals for regulating micromobility are safety (25 DOTs, or 62.5% of responders), integration of micromobility with other transpor- tation modes (21 DOTs, or 52.5% of responders), improving mobility (20 DOTs, or 50.0% of responders), reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of passenger vehicles (seven DOTs, or 17.5% of responders), and other goals (seven DOTs, or 17.5% of responders). Other reported goals for regulating micromobility included equity, coordinating with local jurisdictions, staffing and 45.0% 30.0% 70.0% 20.0% 40.0% 25.0% 22.5% 2.5% 17.5% Definition/classification of micromobility Technology development is outpacing regulations Ensuring adequate safety Curb space management Obtaining reliable data on trips and incidents Improvement in transportation system performance Maintaining uniform approaches in different areas None Other challenges (N = 40) Figure 28. Challenges that DOTs face with micromobility.

State of the Practice 49   figuring out what entity manages and oversees micromobility, and developing infrastructure that supports safe and efficient micromobility trips. Additionally, one DOT emphasized that it has no explicit goals regarding micromobility outside of bicycles and pedestrian activities. Achieving environmental benefits was the least important goal for surveyed DOTs in regulat- ing micromobility (four DOTs, or 10% of responders). Nine DOTs (22.5% of responders) indi- cated that they do not have any goals for regulating micromobility. Figure 29 summarizes state DOTs’ main goals for regulating micromobility. The fast pace of technological advancement in micromobility creates challenges for regulating this new transportation mode. The legislative process tends to be reactive and slow to address fast changes in the transportation sector. State DOTs around the country often stay away from regulating and managing micromobility, allowing local jurisdictions that are most affected by this technology to regulate it for the jurisdictions’ citizens. DOTs may be asked to comment or provide feedback on proposed legislative language related to micromobility, but for the most part they are not actively engaged in regulating and managing micromobility at the state level. However, another approach demonstrated by surveyed states is to work on incorporating micro- mobility into statewide planning efforts and aligning it with DOT goals related to shifting modes from personal autos to other modes, active transportation safety, connectivity, equity, and other goals. Typical efforts by DOTs to accommodate the fast pace of technological advancement in micromobility also include monitoring the developments in micromobility around the country, attending conferences and webinars, discussing best practices and lessons learned, and funding research and demonstration projects. While the emphasis is usually placed on shared micro- mobility, personal micromobility is also receiving more attention lately. As micromobility modes grow in popularity and capture a higher market share, government entities at all levels (local, regional, and state) will be forced to address the regulatory uncertainty to ensure clear, consistent, and effective guidelines and oversight for these emerging transportation technologies. Figure 29. Main goals for regulating micromobility. (N = 40) 62.5% 10.0% 52.5% 17.5% 50.0% 15.0% 22.5% 17.5% Safety Environmental benefits Integration with other modes Reducing VMT Improving mobility Ensuring consistent treatment of all modes None Other goals