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.

50 C H A P T E R 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation Definitions Bikes and e-bikes are defined the same way in Minnesota state statutes. E-scooters (as well as mopeds) are defined slightly differently and there is some confusion about the language regard- ing how different devices are defined (particularly scooters versus e-bikes). Recently there have been efforts to better clarify the specifics between different devices based on speed, weight, and so on. Bikes and e-bikes are essentially regulated in the same way. Standing scooters are treated similarly to e-bikes in terms of where they can be ridden, helmet requirements, and so on, but they are defined slightly differently in the code. Regulations regarding where micromobility vehicles can operate (streets, sidewalks, and bike paths) are left to individual municipalities and each local jurisdiction can have its own rules. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is not involved in those regulations and is not aware of any conflicts between the statutes and local regulations regarding the operation of micromobility vehicles. Roles in Regulating Micromobility MnDOT plays three major roles in regulating micromobility at the state level: regulatory, infrastructure, and programmatic. The regulatory role has to do with statutes that come from the legislature. While MnDOT does not directly oversee regulations, the state legislature asks MnDOT to provide comments on proposed regulations concerning micromobility. For example, if a proposed bill is looking to change the maximum speed or weight classification of micromobility vehicles, or define shared mobility, MnDOT is asked to provide feedback. The infrastructure role involves determining where to make infrastructure investments in state facilities, including adding bike paths, walking paths, trail networks, and other facilities usable by micromobility vehicles. MnDOT also has a statewide network of bike and pedestrian counters that track the usage of these facilities. MnDOT provides technical resources to local jurisdictions and recently developed a planning guide (of best practices) to assist local planners in building bike and pedestrian infrastructure. The programmatic area covers various statewide programs related to pedestrian and bicycle movement (e.g., the “safe routes to school” program). MnDOT is looking for ways to support such programs. Additionally, MnDOT is investigating opportunities to do pilot projects and innovative programs around the state with private sector shared mobility providers (including micromobility providers) in order to support the growth of these services. Case Examples

Case Examples 51   Local jurisdictions are mainly responsible for enforcing regulations and determining the operational requirements (e.g., how many vendors are allowed to operate within a certain area, which vendors are allowed to operate, helmet requirements, additional regulations, and whether vehicles can ride on streets or sidewalks). There are also local programs to improve safety for micromobility users (e.g., the “Vision Zero” program). Local jurisdictions also make their own investments in infrastructure—bike lanes and facilities—on local roads. MnDOT is not involved in the enforcement of micromobility regulations. The enforcement is left entirely to municipalities. MnDOT participates in a monthly call with all municipalities that have micromobility programs to discuss issues and challenges. MnDOT also holds an advisory role and provides the DOT’s perspective. But the actual enforcement—setting the rules, making sure they are followed—is all done locally. The regular calls began about a year ago in order to increase coordination between local jurisdictions (since different municipalities have their own rules and regulations regarding shared micromobility) and to share challenges and successes to learn from each other. The main participants include the communities around the Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul) that have shared micromobility programs. MnDOT attends as a guest and these meetings are more collaborative. Unless there is a compelling need to step in, MnDOT prefers to leave rulemaking to the local jurisdictions. The bike and pedestrian planning department at MnDOT works with MPOs and regional planning commissions while planning various types of infrastructure (e.g., state highways and facilities), but MnDOT is unaware of their department working directly with these planning organizations on developing micromobility regulations. Since MnDOT does not directly regulate micromobility, there are no specific challenges asso- ciated with regulations that can be listed here. Data Collection MnDOT does not currently collect the data. Data collection is all done locally. For example, the city of Minneapolis receives a micromobility data feed locally. MnDOT has a network of bike and pedestrian counters that help track the counts of users (bicycles, pedestrians, different kinds of vehicles) of these facilities around the state. MnDOT is in the process of creating a data warehouse for bike and pedestrian data that would also include non-state counters. Some of the local municipalities have their own networks of counters and they are separate from the state counters. The envisioned data warehouse would be an online portal where all count data from the entire state would be accessible. Bike and pedestrian counters can distinguish between a pedestrian and a bicycle, but not between a bicycle and a scooter, so scooters are counted together with bikes. Multimodal Integration MnDOT is also working on building a multimodal trip-planning application (mobility-as-a- service) and platform that will include a planning component to see how people are planning and booking trips on all types of mobility options (e.g., public transit, micromobility). The type of data needed for this application was not defined yet. This regional mobility-as-a-service plat- form is funded by a Federal Transit Administration grant and an innovation grant to build a regional platform. It will combine an application and an open-source data feed for multimodal trip plan- ning, integration, and so on. MnDOT is also involved in a Flex Pass project (in Minneapolis) that involves developing a unified pass—a subscription service for multimodal trip planning (for parking, transit, bikes,

52 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices and scooters). This is the state’s first step toward having a “mobility wallet”—a single place that offers access to a variety of mobility options for a flat fee. These are pilot projects that, if suc- cessful, can be expanded to the entire state. The pilot is in the planning and development stage. MnDOT expects this project to start at the beginning of 2022 and last for a one-year testing period. The decision on whether to continue or expand the project to other parts of the state will be made after the testing period is complete in early 2023. This pilot project is expected to help MnDOT identify different transit technologies to invest in to improve transit planning, coordination, and integration with other modes (such as micromobility). Additionally, the pilot can help assess the efficiency of the transit service and evaluate the effect of the mode shift from personal cars toward shared mobility. Personal Versus Shared Micromobility MnDOT has a shared mobility program that aims to build partnerships with shared mobility providers and shepherd new technologies (including micromobility). At the same time, MnDOT is also involved in building micromobility infrastructure (bike paths, trails, etc.) that can be used by all micromobility vehicles, shared and personal. The support MnDOT provides to the local jurisdictions in planning pedestrian and bike infrastructure is also relevant to both personal and shared micromobility. MnDOT has a statewide multimodal plan looking at how all of the different policies and invest- ments address multimodal goals, economic and environmental resilience, and equity issues— ensuring that all Minnesotans have equal access to transportation. Micromobility fits into that plan. Miscellaneous Projects The Greater Minnesota Shared Mobility Program focuses on increasing and sharing knowl- edge on shared mobility. MnDOT trains transit agencies around the state to identify potential pilot programs in shared mobility that can include micromobility. The Twin Cities shared mobility collaborative is another group involved in sharing knowledge about shared micromobility. It is a local group of public and private stakeholders whose purpose is to help support the growth of shared mobility. The group meets quarterly, focusing on different shared mobility pilots and technologies. Right now, there is no funding mechanism for projects under this framework, but if the state decides to set up a long-term funding mechanism for proj- ects through that initiative, regulations will be needed to administer grants. Comments The issue of state preemption in regulation is interesting. There are examples around the coun- try related to ride hailing, where state regulations override local regulations. In Minnesota, the state regulatory approach is: unless there is a strong reason to override local regulations, such as safety, MnDOT stays out of regulations. However, different states have different approaches. Maryland Department of Transportation Definitions Micromobility vehicles, including bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters, are defined in Maryland state statutes and are all treated as bicycles in terms of where they can ride, helmet requirements, and other operational requirements. Micromobility vehicles mostly ride on the streets. Maryland

Case Examples 53   law prohibits bicycles from riding on the sidewalk unless local jurisdictions allow it. In most cases, bicycles and other micromobility vehicles are prohibited from riding on sidewalks. Montgomery County goes even further and prohibits e-scooters from riding on sidewalks as well. While the state lays out an umbrella regulation, local regulations can change it (or impose stricter rules) as needed. Since the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is leaving micromobility regula- tions to local discretion, there is no real conflict between state and local regulations. Roles in Regulating Micromobility MDOT is attempting to coordinate with the state legislature to design state-level regula- tions that would treat micromobility based on how micromobility vehicles are used rather than what they look like. The state’s focus includes issues of safety and people with disabilities. For example, a recently passed state law requires a nonvisual access to information regarding micro- mobility devices (e.g., so users can identify scooters when they are left on sidewalks). MDOT’s role also includes making sure that MPOs are exchanging and sharing information across local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions manage the licensing of shared mobility companies, data gathering (estab- lishing data collection requirements), and studying effects on safety. The state highway safety office is also involved with collecting safety data. While not officially required to provide data to MDOT, some local jurisdictions have been collecting and reporting on data in coordination with local hospitals and health offices, and this information is shared with MPOs and MDOT. The State Highway Administration and Highway Safety Office help local jurisdictions identify and analyze relevant roadway data, but MDOT is not responsible for crash data pertaining to off-road infra- structure (including shared use paths) where police reports may not have been filed. Enforcement of micromobility regulations is mainly done at the local level, but the state coordi- nates with local jurisdictions and helps provide guidance and resources to support safety-related activities. The MDOT Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) is also more directly involved in regulating how devices are used on or around their facilities. MDOT MTA attempts to accommodate devices on and around their light rail and commuter trains, and coordinates with local jurisdictions to provide parking locations at station areas where appropriate. MDOT MTA has developed practices and protocols for dealing with micromobility devices and may be involved in enforcement activities in which shared use (bus or bike) lanes have been set aside (e.g., on many corridors in Baltimore City). MDOT MTA is also involved in determining safety outcomes related to how micromobility devices interface with surface light rail infrastructure, particularly for surface-level track crossings (where users of e-scooters, in particular, have faced difficulty). MDOT has presented data and best practices to MPOs and advocates to help advance the notion that micromobility regulations should focus more on how the vehicles are used, rather than on what particular attributes any given device may have. Local jurisdictions, which are pri- marily responsible for enforcement and which negotiate directly with private sector companies providing shared mobility services, are expected to help lead the development of regulations on where and how the mobility services can be used. MDOT and MPOs have been actively encour- aging forums in which local jurisdictions can compare notes and coordinate actions, particu- larly to address potential interjurisdictional issues that arise in accepting shared micromobility operations. Participants exchange information and best practice techniques (e.g., to help ensure that the right mix of devices is available in ways that reflect broader policy concerns of diversity and access). They also share information and pointers regarding how to ensure that proper data are collected and that private sector partners are being held accountable, where appropriate, for

54 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices the education and enforcement of the use and storage of their vehicles. MDOT seeks to ensure a level of uniformity across jurisdictions (so roadway users can predict the behaviors of others and know what is expected), but local jurisdictions are generally not pushing for state-level interventions. Data Collection MDOT is doing a study through the U.S. DOT about using micromobility data and doing exposure analysis and assessment. MDOT has an agreement in place for data collection in the D.C. area, but this is strictly for the study and is not expected to be expanded for the entire state or done on a regular basis. Mobility companies are providing the data for this study. In the early days of bikeshare, MDOT collected data on the use of bikeshare programs. How- ever, MDOT no longer actively collects the data but now monitors it from a safety perspective. The focus is mainly on bike and pedestrian count data, and even with that, it is difficult to dif- ferentiate between different types of micromobility vehicles. Some new technologies can differ- entiate between people walking, biking, or scootering, but it is tough to do and so far, it has not been implemented. MDOT is encouraging the placement of counters on trails (using a company called Eco- Counter) but does not yet have a systematic placement of counters. Multimodal Integration MDOT MTA is actively promoting multi-mobility corrals for bike and scooter storage at some of the major transit stations. MDOT MTA is also pursuing streetscape efforts to include bicycles and is doing bus lane coordination with the city, which includes bicycles. Some of the frustrations include devices left on the platform near train stations and crashes with vehicles left near rail tracks (light rail runs at street level). Other challenges include obstacles for mobility-impaired individuals, preventing access to sidewalks, and blocking pedestrian pathways. MTA is developing a shared mobility plan that addresses micromobility. The transit admin- istration has been active in accommodating bikes on buses and rails. Shared-mobility e-scooter devices are not allowed on buses, but bicycles are allowed. A primary goal for MDOT is to ensure that a level of standardization is in place to support safety outcomes, particularly to protect pedestrians. MDOT points out that primary attention for regulation should address how micromobility devices are operated (e.g., speed limits and use of right-of-way) rather than getting bogged down in defining the wide range of form factors and power levels of such devices. As an example, staff members point out that cars have the power to go much faster than may be allowed on a given roadway, but this does not preclude the use of a race car on a residential street. Maryland has, however, adopted the three-tier definition for legislatively defining e-bikes. Although staff members in MDOT have been trying to push in that direction, this is not currently how the statutes are being written. E-bikes are defined as bicycles and are specifically described by power (500 watts or less) and maximum speed (20 mph or less). Maryland adopted legislation acknowledging the three-tier system for e-bikes. E-bikes are not allowed on state park trails, but counties and municipalities can allow them on their trail systems. Personal Versus Shared Micromobility In terms of regulating personal and shared micromobility, MDOT is moving toward a more balanced approach. Right now, the focus of regulations is on shared micromobility companies,

Case Examples 55   but as these devices become more common, regulations will likely move more into personal micromobility. Also, the distinction between personal and shared micromobility is becoming less relevant as many personal micromobility devices continue to appear. The COVID-19 pan- demic increased this trend and boosted personal e-bike sales. Miscellaneous Topics There are efforts by MTA to ensure that there is space allocated for safe storage of micro- mobility vehicles at MTA property, but there is no uniform implementation across all station areas. MDOT has not been directly involved in that effort except through some grant programs that provide funding and support for the designing and construction of micromobility storage sites. Maryland SB607 (“Motor Scooter and Electric Low Speed Scooter Sharing Companies – Nonvisual Access”), which passed in 2020 and became effective in January 2021, addresses motor scooters and nonvisual access of information about the devices for visually impaired indi- viduals. The goal of this legislation is to make sure that companies are accountable for where they place micromobility devices and for potentially creating obstacles. This bill requires shared micromobility companies to provide labels on devices so a visually impaired person can contact the scooter company and report that the device is improperly placed or parked. It also requires shared micromobility companies to provide nonvisual access to their websites. Some of the challenges with defining micromobility on the basis of how the devices are used (as opposed to how they look) is that the legislature is not used to this approach (e.g., Segways are classified as pedestrians rather than as bikes). This is not how legislators did things in the past so they are not responding well to MDOT suggestions. There is also a need to be more descriptive with the crash reporting of micromobility vehicles to be able to identify the types of vehicles involved. Micromobility vehicles are often categorized as bikes in crash reports. MDOT is looking to partner with the University of Washington to develop better data about infrastructure and how well infrastructure can suit different types of devices (including micro- mobility). The needs of scooters and bikes also coincide with the needs of wheelchairs (e.g., having ramps in place, having good information available) as well as pedestrians. North Carolina Department of Transportation Definitions Bicycles are defined in North Carolina state statutes and are essentially treated as vehicles. Therefore, bicycles and motor vehicles have to abide by the same rules. Bicycles can go anywhere motor vehicles can go except controlled access freeways. E-bikes are treated the same way as bicycles and the same road rules apply to both e-bikes and bicycles. At the same time, there is nothing defined at the state level regarding e-scooters and they are regulated and managed mainly at the local level by municipalities. A driver’s license is not required for operating a bicycle. State law requires bicyclists under the age of 16 to wear a helmet and the same rule applies to e-bikes, but there are no helmet require- ments for e-scooters at the state level. Currently, there is nothing in North Carolina state statutes about riding on sidewalks, but there are local policies in place that have restrictions for sidewalk riding either across the municipality or in certain areas of the city or town (e.g., downtown). Each jurisdiction has different rules. From the state’s perspective, bicycles can (and should) be on the

56 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices road but can also be permitted on the sidewalk. The local perspective varies by jurisdiction. Local jurisdictions can choose to allow or restrict riding on the street or sidewalk. There are different bikeshare and e-scooter–sharing programs around the state, and local jurisdictions established their own rules and ordinances to regulate the use of micromobility. There are no known regulatory conflicts between local jurisdictions and the state level (particu- larly because micromobility is not regulated at the state level). Roles in Regulating Micromobility Local jurisdictions develop their own ordinances for scooters and establish the structure in which micromobility vendors will operate within local jurisdictions. That is done outside of the state’s/North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) overview. The state does not currently have a role in regulating e-scooters but does play a significant role in bike regulations. NCDOT has established guidelines and standards on how bicycles operate, which are similar to those that apply to vehicles, but there are some other stipulations. Local jurisdictions often adopt the state approach but can have additional, more restrictive regulations regarding where and how bicycles can operate. The enforcement of micromobility regulations is done at the local level by municipalities and at their discretion. While NCDOT does coordinate closely with MPOs in general, that coordina- tion is not directly related to micromobility regulations. Data Collection NCDOT collects count and crash data on bicycles and pedestrians. It has a contract with NC State University’s Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) to collect count data for bicycles, e-bikes, pedestrians, and scooters (it cannot distinguish between bikes and scooters yet). The data is collected from state counters as well as counters managed by MPOs/ regional planning organizations (RPOs) and local governments. This is a growing program. NCDOT tracks the data on bikes and pedestrians and produces an annual report. NCDOT also receives data from NCDOT’s Traffic Safety Unit, which tracks pedestrian and bike move- ment at intersections. NCDOT works with the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center to develop reports and analyses of the crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and (soon) e-scooters, as well as maps of the locations of the crashes. Data collection is NCDOT’s program, but ITRE facilitates it. NCDOT purchases counting equipment and ITRE installs, maintains, and monitors it. As the program grew over time, equip- ment ownership was transferred to the local jurisdictions or MPOs where the equipment was located. While NCDOT does not install any more equipment at this point, it receives data from other entities around the state and is working to establish a data warehouse (at one location). ITRE maintains and evaluates the data, applies correction factors, and produces annualized reports. Given the measurement approach (using passive infrared counters), it is currently not possible to distinguish between e-scooters and bicycles. All kinds of vehicles that pass by are counted. Inductive loops in the ground (electromagnetic equipment) that react to metal are able to dis- tinguish between bicycles and pedestrians, but this equipment is not able to register e-scooters because of the material they are made of (which is different from a bike’s). Crash data are used to identify safety concerns. NCDOT’s Traffic Safety Unit utilizes the data to identify places where crashes occur or to proactively analyze where crashes may occur. Also,

Case Examples 57   micromobility data (specifically crash data) are used for a statewide strategic prioritization pro- gram to identify which projects to fund. Crash data help drive how projects are evaluated. Count data are less comprehensive, but NCDOT hopes to establish a program where such data will be incorporated into Complete Streets project evaluations, planning efforts, and so on. There are many areas where the data can be used. Multimodal Integration Bikes are treated as vehicles and integrated as such into multimodal transportation. NCDOT has a Complete Streets policy (revised in 2019) that evaluates how to incorporate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit connections into roadway and bridge projects. The policy uses broad definitions of transportation options and does not explicitly mention scooters, but it is implied that scooters can be incorporated in that policy as well. In the future, this policy can be refined to incorporate some of the evolving modes of transportation, but as of now, it focuses mainly on accommodating biking, walking, and transit connection while implementing highway construction projects. NCDOT recently adopted NCMoves, which is a new statewide transportation plan that includes bicycles and may include other micromobility vehicles as well. NCDOT has a planning grant program that has funded over 200 bicycle and pedestrian plans across the state for almost 20 years. This program has been well received. NCDOT is currently planning to reevaluate and redevelop the bike and pedestrian program into a more multimodal program that would include transit connection and micromobility options. The goal is to focus on a trip (how a person goes from point A to point B) rather than any specific mode. This is a new direction for NCDOT, and there is an opportunity to integrate this approach into the state’s comprehensive transportation plans. While there are no regulations in place regarding e-scooters, NCDOT is supportive of the first-mile/last-mile solution that scooters can provide. Personal Versus Shared Micromobility Micromobility regulations and laws in North Carolina are geared mainly toward personal micromobility vehicles. There is a growing number of shared micromobility vehicles, especially in large cities, but the laws are primarily designed for personal devices (such as bikes and e-bikes).