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.
58 C H A P T E R 5 This report summarizes the results of an analysis that was based on the survey of representa- tives from 44 state DOTs regarding policies and practices that have been implemented to manage different types of micromobility vehicles, including bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters. While the research noted that different states took various approaches regarding micromobility, the intent of the analysis was not to compare individual states but rather to document the general state of practice in micromobility regulations at the state level. Both the literature review and survey data indicate that micromobility is mainly regulated by local jurisdictions (cities or towns), while state DOTs typically play a significantly smaller role in establishing micromobility rules and guidelines. The current synthesis focuses primarily on state DOT approaches to micromobility regulations, and no attempt was made to investigate and describe in any level of detail regulatory practices related to managing micromobility at the local level. Overall Findings The key findings obtained from the surveyed DOTs include the following: ⢠Most of the DOTs classify micromobility vehicles as motorized or non-motorized personal mobility devices (65.1% of responding DOTs for bicycles, 58.1% of responding DOTs for e-bikes, and 48.8% of responding DOTs for e-scooters). Ten surveyed DOTs (23.3% of responders) classify e-bikes and e-scooters as motor vehicles, with all the corresponding requirements. Additionally, e-bikes are not defined in the state statutes of two states, while e-scooters are not defined in the statutes of five states. Mostly, however, micromobility vehicles are treated in regulations the same way as bicycles, regardless of the formal definition in the statutes. ⢠The most common actions by DOTs related to micromobility management at the state level include developing recommendations (24 DOTs, or 61.5% of responders), developing stan- dards 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 respond- ers), and promoting micromobility (17 DOTs, or 43.6% of responders). Seven of the surveyed DOTs (17.9% of responders) are not engaged in any activities related to managing or regu- lating micromobility. ⢠Only one surveyed DOT is involved in regulating shared micromobility vendors, and 97.6% of responding DOTs do not regulate shared micromobility companies in their state. ⢠The majority of surveyed DOTs (85.4% of responders) do not seek input from micromobility vendors in the process of developing micromobility policies, and 14.6% of responding DOTs do seek such input. Summary of Findings
Summary of Findings 59  ⢠While developing micromobility strategies and initiatives, state DOTs collaborate and inter- act with various stakeholders at all levels, including city and county governments (64.9% of responders), MPOs and TPOs (64.9% of responders), transit agencies (45.9% of responders), nonprofit organizations (43.2% of responders), and other stakeholders. ⢠Ensuring equitable treatment of all users ranks as the most important factor for regulating shared micromobility companies (an average ranking of 2 out of 5), followed by ensuring adequate safety of all transportation modes (an average ranking of 2.3 out of 5) and provid- ing mobility to underserved populations (an average ranking of 3 out of 5). Reducing conges- tion (an average ranking of 4 out of 5) and achieving environmental goals (an average ranking of 4.7 out of 5) rank as the least important factors. ⢠Different methods of micromobility regulation include state legislation (2.4% of responders), local ordinances (24.4% of responders), regulation at both state and local levels (56.1% of responders), other methods (7.3% of responders), and no methods (9.8% of responders). ⢠In most cases, municipalities (53.7% of responders) are in charge of regulating micromobility. Other regulating entities include state DOTs (4.9% of responders), other state agencies (4.9% of responders), other entities including the department of safety, legislation, and facility own- ers, or various combinations of cities, counties, and the state (22% of responders). ⢠Enforcement of micromobility regulations mostly occurs at the local level, where local agen- cies apply local ordinances (47.6% of responders) or local agencies apply or enforce state laws (14.3% of responders). Only two surveyed DOTs (4.8% of responders) reported enforce- ment that involves state agencies applying state laws. Over half of surveyed DOTs (51.3% of responders) stated that their DOT has no role in regulating micromobility, 30.8% of respond- ers are involved in establishing micromobility infrastructure design standards, 25.6% of responders see the role of the DOT in enforcing ADA compliance, and 20.5% of responders see their regulation role in terms of establishing data collection and reporting standards. ⢠The data show that the speed of micromobility vehicles allowed in the state can be regulated by the following entities: municipalities (34.1% of responders), state DOTs (4.9% of responders), both state DOTs and municipalities (24.4% of responders), other entities including the state legislatures, a combination of state, municipal, and county governments, and state depart- ments of public safety (24.4% of responders). ⢠A large percentage of DOTs are not involved in setting the maximum speed for micro mobility vehicles. Depending on vehicle type, the percentage of DOTs that do not regulate the speed varies from 23.1% of responders for Class-1 e-bikes to 81.8% of responders for regular bicycles. Maximum speed is not set by DOTs in almost half of the responding states for standing and sitting e-scooters. The most common maximum speed for micromobility vehicles is 16-20 mph or 26-30 mph. Maximum speeds for e-bikes are generally consistent with the three-tier e-bike classification. ⢠DOTs can impose safety equipment requirements for micromobility vehicles, although this does not happen often: 41.5% of responders do not impose any equipment requirements, 36.6% of responders require micromobility vehicles to have reflectors, and 31.7% of responders require headlights. ⢠Other safety requirements that can potentially be addressed by DOTs include wearing helmets while riding on micromobility vehicles (23.1% of responding DOTs), establishing a minimum age to ride (28.2% of responders), prohibiting tandem riding on scooters (5.1% of responders), and other safety requirements (33.3% of responders). Over half the DOTs are not involved in establishing safety requirements for micromobility vehicles. ⢠Survey data indicate that ensuring adequate safety for riders and pedestrians is the top chal- lenge related to micromobility (70% of responders reported it to be one of the main chal- lenges), followed by issues with the definition or classification of micromobility vehicles (45% of responders) and obtaining reliable data on micromobility trips and incidents (40% of responders). Other commonly cited challenges include technology development that is
60 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices outpacing regulations (30% of responders), ensuring that micromobility modes improve overall transportation system performance without creating additional traffic (25% of respond- ers), maintaining uniform approaches to micromobility in different geographic areas (22.5% of responders), and other challenges. ⢠DOTsâ most important goals for regulating micromobility are safety (62.5% of responders), integration of micromobility with other transportation modes (52.5% of responders), improving mobility (50% of responders), reducing the VMT of passenger vehicles (17.5% of responders), and other goals (17.5% of responders). ⢠All but two surveyed DOTs (95.1% of responders) reported not being involved in regulat- ing the operations aspects of shared micromobility, which may includeâbut are not limited toâissuing operator permits, establishing permitting fees, regulating fleet size, and regulating hours of service. ⢠Twenty-five surveyed DOTs (61% of responders) are not engaged in the planning, operation, and maintenance of micromobility infrastructure, while 16 DOTs (39% of responders) are involved in certain aspects of planning or maintaining micromobility infrastructure. ⢠As a general rule, issues related to micromobility device parking are handled at the local level by entities that have traffic control jurisdiction. Thirty-seven DOTs (90.2% of responders) reported that cities and towns in their states regulate where and how micromobility vehicles can be parked. State DOTs are involved in regulating parking issues of micromobility vehicles in four states (9.8% of responders), while in five states, other entitiesâincluding counties and various combinations of state, counties, and local jurisdictionsâregulate parking. ⢠Similar to parking regulations, municipalities in most of the states have a key role in regu- lating where micromobility vehicles are permitted to operate. Thirty-four surveyed DOTs (82.9% of responders) reported that municipalities regulate where micromobility vehicles are allowed to operate in their states. Eleven DOTs (26.8% of responders) indicated that state DOTs regulate where micromobility vehicles may operate, while eight DOTs (19.5% of responders) listed other entities. ⢠While micromobility-sharing companies often use technological solutions (e.g., geofencing, GPS) to manage the service area where shared vehicles operate, 58.5% of responding DOTs reported that technology use is stipulated by municipalities and other local entities without any involvement from state agencies. ⢠Twenty-six DOTs (61.9% of responders) include micromobility in their long-range statewide transportation plans, while 16 DOTs (38.1% of responders) do not. The primary motivation for including micromobility in statewide transportation plans is planning for future improve- ments in the overall transportation system (88% of responding DOTs), followed by outlining policies and strategies for regulating micromobility (40% of responders) and detailing how micromobility will meet performance measures (36% of responders). ⢠Ensuring the safety of all transportation modes ranks as the most important reason for includ- ing micromobility in state transportation plans (an average ranking of 1.4 out of 5), while regulating other modes to accommodate micromobility (an average ranking of 4.3 out of 5) and incorporating micromobility into congestion management efforts (an average ranking of 4 out of 5) rank as least important. ⢠While 26 DOTs (65% of responders) do not collect micromobility data, three states (7.5% of responders) indicated that they collect and manage data internally (by state DOT personnel). One DOT outsources data collection and management to third parties, four DOTs work with local agencies to gather data, while six DOTs use other ways to collect and manage micro- mobility data. ⢠Three of the surveyed DOTs (7.3% of responders) reported that they have some policies in place at the state level addressing equity aspects of shared micromobility, while 38 DOTs (92.7% of responders) do not. Equity policies for shared micromobility companies are in place in Iowa, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
Summary of Findings 61Â Â More involvement by state DOTs in planning and regulating micromobility can potentially bring more coordination to the rules and policies across different geographic areas within each state and ensure that local communities are fully benefiting from emerging transportation modes. Collecting accurate and consistent data on micromobility operations can be an important component of decision making. State and local governments can benefit from access to better data on the usage patterns and safety records of various micromobility modes, which may help inform design-effective regulations and oversight practices. Collecting detailed micromobility data is a challenge for some state entities. State DOTs often collaborate with local jurisdictions or micromobility-sharing companies to collect data on micromobility vehicles, contract with research institutions to collect and analyze data, and continue adapting their own collection methods to capture operations and the crash statistics of various types of micromobility devices. Further refinement of this process may be able to ensure that decision makers at all levels have access to detailed, accurate, and up-to-date data on micromobility. Study Limitations One of the limitations of the current study is that it only looks at micromobility regulations at the state level, managed by state DOTs. Since micromobility is mostly regulated at the local level (by counties, cities, and towns), the results presented in the current synthesis do not capture the full spectrum of policies and approaches employed to manage and regulate micromobility operations in the country. All findings and recommendations presented in this study apply only to the role of state DOTs in regulating micromobility. The results presented in this synthesis are based on primary data collection obtained through a survey of state DOTs and may have been affected by survey design and subject to other limita- tions associated with stated-preference surveys. No attempt was made to independently verify the accuracy of all the information provided by DOTs through the survey and/or interviews. Additionally, in the attempt to find the balance between the desire to obtain useful information and the need to reduce the burden on DOTs to provide the data, the survey was kept relatively short and most of the questions had predetermined multiple-choice answers. Only a few ques- tions allowed for open-ended answers. Consequently, the results presented in this study may lack context and only report on the state of practice in regulating micromobility, not explaining the reasons for using certain approaches. Finally, survey responders do not always provide answers to all survey questions. Instead, they often skip certain questions or provide partial answers. As a result, findings from different ques- tions in this study are based on different numbers of responses, limiting the representation of the data and the ability for direct comparison between different questions. In view of these limita- tions, the results of this analysis should be interpreted with caution. Future Research During the past few years, American cities have seen a dramatic growth in shared micro- mobility services, from bikeshare programs to dockless e-bikes and e-scooters. There is a general expectation that wide use of shared micromobility modes will improve mobility for underserved population groups and ensure equitable access to transportation for all users. However, further investigation is needed to better understand the travel costs associated with emerging micro- mobility modes to determine if they can offer an affordable way of travel to the majority of the traveling public. Micromobility operators can use complex pricing schemes for device rentals that may obscure user understanding of the incremental cost of travel. The transportation community
62 Micromobility Policies, Permits, and Practices can benefit from further research of the true cost of travel associated with micromobility modes as well as user perception of the cost of travel. Additionally, future research can focus on evaluat- ing trends in micromobility growth in different states over time to identify the effect of climate, terrain, local and state regulations, and other contributing factors. While shared micromobility is often viewed as a solution to the first-mile/last-mile problem, it is still not clear how well micromobility can be integrated with other transportation modes and what effect it will have on these modes. Micromobility trips can complement transit ridership and displace car trips, but they can also compete with transit and other active transportation modes, such as walking. Further research is warranted to clarify the net effect of wider use of micromobility modes on transit ridership, traffic congestion, energy use, GHG emissions, and the overall cost of travel in urban areas. Data will be instrumental for this analysis. Transportation planners, government oversight entities, and the state and local levels can ben- efit from best practices in designing micromobility infrastructure for both shared and personal micromobility vehicles, as well as retrofitting it in the existing built environment in urban areas. Future research may also investigate how various development approaches implemented by munic- ipalities, such as transit-oriented development and Complete Streets policies, may affect the success of micromobility. The jurisdiction of transportation facilities where micromobility vehicles operate may directly affect the approaches used for regulating micromobility. While state roads are managed by state DOTs, local roads are in the jurisdiction of counties or cities that are responsible for setting and enforcing usage rules. This may affect how micromobility is treated and what entity regulates operations of micromobility on different types of transportation facilities. Investigating the dif- ferences in regulatory approaches to managing micromobility vehicles operating on local or county roads versus state roads, as well as factors affecting these differences (e.g., road jurisdic- tion and functional classification), are important areas of future research that can benefit trans- portation planners and policy makers.
