National Academies Press: OpenBook

E-Scooter Safety Toolbox (2023)

Chapter: Chapter 5 - Additional Resources

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Data Tools and Methods
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Additional Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27253.
×
Page 38

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.

24 Additional Resources Case Studies The following five case studies were developed as part of the BTS-10 project, each highlighting the unique ways agencies have approached e-scooter safety in their communities. The summaries highlight city efforts specific to one theme or issue. Please note that the summaries document unfolding events and agency approaches, many of which have not been thoroughly evaluated to determine the effectiveness or equity in relation to safety outcomes. C H A P T E R 5 See Chapter 8 of NCHRP Web-Only Document 5 for a more thorough summary on all e-scooter safety topics within each community, and information sources and processes used to develop each summary. Chicago, IL: E-Scooter Safety Through Sidewalk Riding and Parking Management The shared micromobility program in Chicago is co-led by the Chicago Department of Trans- portation (CDOT) and the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP). The city is looking to shared micromobility, which includes shared e-scooters as well as bike share and e-bike share programs, to help meet its goals to improve equitable access to transportation options while reducing motor vehicle congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. When first introduced in the city, the exact operational domain for e-scooters was not universally understood, and sidewalk “clutter” and the potential for conflicts with pedestrians was noted as a source of concern. The city conducted two 4-month, thoroughly documented pilot programs to inform the development and adoption of an official city e-scooter sharing ordinance. This case study focuses on sidewalk riding and parking management and the resulting ordinance. Managing Sidewalk and Other Riding Areas Chicago deliberately defined and regulated e-scooter operations within service areas around the city during the pilot phases and used geofencing to set boundaries for the initial service areas. The first pilot phase covered about 50 square miles, or one fourth of the city’s total area. The second pilot expanded to cover 212 square miles. In addition to rules restricting riding on all sidewalks, the city maintained additional ride- restricted locations controlled by geofences across the city during the pilot phases. Geofencing prevented riding in locations such as the Bloomingdale Trail (the 606), the Lakefront Trail, and

Additional Resources 25   the Central Business District, the campuses of DePaul University, Loyola University, the Univer- sity of Illinois at Chicago, and the University of Chicago. While the geofencing of trails like the Lakefront Trail had proven problematic in the 2019 pilot phase, the city saw a non-compliance rate of only 0.2% for that location and for the Central Business District in 2020. As of 2022, e-scooters are allowed in the downtown loop, but are still prohibited on the Lakefront Trail, the Bloomingdale Trail (the 606), the Chicago Riverwalk, and O’Hare Airport (City of Chicago 2022; City of Chicago 2021). Numerous evaluations of geofencing technology were conducted around specific events and particular locations such as the 606 Trail. The city also explored Global Positioning System (GPS) and geofencing, radio frequency identification (RFID) and dedicated short-range com- munications as potential options for controlling parking, restricting e-scooter riding areas, and reducing speeds where necessary (City of Chicago 2020a). The city determined that the technology was “moderately successful” but did notice improvements in the technology between the 2019 pilot and the 2020 pilot (City of Chicago 2020b). Two of the three shared micromobility operators stated on applications for the second pilot in 2020 that they had the potential to implement sidewalk riding detection technology; however, none of the vendors were able to deliver this technology during the pilot term. The technology is required in the final ordinance, and the city will have the opportunity to evaluate it once the new licensees’ devices are deployed. The technology is intended to reduce sidewalk riding but not eliminate it entirely (City of Chicago 2021). E-Scooter Parking and Lock-To Requirements The pilot programs’ processes and outcomes informed Chicago’s Scooter Sharing Business Rules (City of Chicago 2022), a new business license for shared micromobility programs adopted in 2021. The license includes goals to reduce conflicts with pedestrians caused by disorganized parking and sidewalk riding. The license agreement between the city and the shared mobility program operators requires that all shared e-scooter devices have “lock-to functionality and hardware” and “photo validation and geofencing technology” to ensure parking compliance, as well as “sidewalk riding detection and software” to reduce sidewalk riding. Operators are required to have the ability to regulate shared e-scooter devices at the fleet level, and must be able to disable, slow and stop a ride, or prevent a ride from beginning remotely. All e-scooters are required to have a bell (City of Chicago 2022). Public information pieces (like that shown in Figure 7) were used as complementary efforts to reduce sidewalk riding and improper parking. The city found that the number of complaints dropped significantly after the lock-to require- ment was put in place, though a survey of nonriders showed that parking was still high on the list of concerns of the general public. Of the complaints that the city did receive in 2020, the most frequent were around e-scooters locked to private property, or devices locked to city-owned sign poles that designated a disabled resident parking space (City of Chicago 2021). The city also looked at how the parking of e-scooters might have impacted transit riders, and included a requirement that they not be parked closer than 10 feet from a bus stop or rail entrance (City of Chicago 2020b). Lessons Learned and Next Steps The pilot programs’ processes and outcomes informed a new business license for shared micro- mobility. While lock-to policies support efforts to reduce sidewalk parking, sidewalk conflicts remain an issue. Chicago is focusing on expanding their bicycle network and encouraging e-scooter riders to utilize bicycle facilities as often possible. During the initial e-scooter pilot program in 2019, the city of Chicago updated their municipal code and included e-scooters in a category they defined as “Low Speed Electric Mobility Devices” (City of Chicago 2020a).

26 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox Based on that revised code, e-scooters are allowed to operate anywhere bicycles are allowed, specifically in all bicycle facilities or multi-use paths, though some paths are still prohibited for shared e-scooter devices. The city has continued to explore solutions offered by shared micro- mobility operators via the devices themselves. Denver, CO: Focusing on an Integrated System and Complete Network for E-Scooter Safety In Denver, shared micromobility includes e-scooters and e-bicycles as part of the city’s overall strategy for shifting all trips from single occupancy motor vehicles to safer, more sustainable modes such as transit and active transportation. To date, e-scooters riders have taken millions of rides, and crashes have been rare. Additionally, shared micromobility programs have successfully been integrated into the greater Denver transportation mobility landscape thanks to regional coordination. Like many other cities, Denver first experienced e-scooters on streets when operators launched fleets across the city without city permission. To enable better evaluation of this new mode, the city initiated a pilot program under the Transit Amenities Program in 2018, which enables the city to permit third-party commercial activities in the public space if the service enhances transit in Denver. The current shared micromobility permit continues to emphasize the integration of shared micromobility with other modes of travel and the importance of providing accessible, diverse options for moving around the city. Figure 7. City of Chicago Scooter Flyer for Web in English. Source: Lawson (n.d.).

Additional Resources 27   Operating Domain Following the launch of e-scooters in Denver in 2018, questions about ideal operating domain arose due to existing city and state laws. Colorado law as well as the city transportation code initially defined e-scooters as “toy vehicles,” which meant that users were only allowed to ride e-scooters on the sidewalk. It quickly became clear that, even with speed caps, e-scooter travel speeds were such that riding on the sidewalk generated safety concerns for pedestrians. In January 2019, the city approved an ordinance defining e-scooters as “electric mobility scooters” and designating all bicycle facilities for e-scooters operation. The revised code specifies that where no bicycle facility is available, e-scooters are allowed on public roads where the speed limit is less than 30 mph, and riders may use the sidewalk only if there is no bicycle facility available and when the road is higher speed (Denver Public Works 2019). The state of Colorado also changed the statewide ordinance to more clearly define electric scooters (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2020). Studies to Identify and Address Safety Concerns During the pilot program, DOTI collected data to create an overall snapshot of safety. DOTI conducted an online survey that captured 2,708 responses, as well as intercept surveys that captured in-person feedback from another 52 people. The city looked at police-reported crash data from Denver Police Department and the Denver Department of Public Health & Environment, and Denver Public Health (City of Denver 2021). Field observations played an important role in Denver’s pilot program data collection. DOTI data collectors observed people riding e-scooters during the morning, midday, and evening peaks, and these data were collected from locations primarily in downtown Denver. Parking behavior observations also were collected during these time periods. Data collectors recorded near misses during the field data collection. Observational data was collected through Esri ArcCollector. DOTI staffers recorded operator violations during unannounced field visits to sites around the city during the pilot deployment (City of Denver 2021). City staff used these data to help them understand safety concerns, examine locations needing attention, and inform e-scooter policy and planning as the pilots progressed. Education and Engagement Marketing and community engagement is a central focus of Denver’s ongoing shared micro- mobility program. Licensed vendors are required to provide marketing and communication plans describing how they will address equitable community engagement, and how they will cultivate new riders and grow the rider base overall. Vendor qualifications include experience with comprehensive outreach, and specifically reaching out to underrepresented user groups. Shared micromobility operators are required to conduct annual user surveys, and results of these surveys must be shared with the city (City and County of Denver 2020). Denver requires that all shared micromobility vehicles display messages regarding the rules of riding and interacting with people on foot or riding bicycles. Operators must share their outreach plans for rider education around parking with DOTI and create in-app messaging to alert users to the existence of designated geofenced areas (City and County of Denver 2020). During the pilot program, the city gathered user and stakeholder feedback on an ongoing basis. The city uses a 311 system in addition to PocketGov to collect general comments. DOTI launched an online survey to collect more specific shared e-scooter feedback, in addition to intercept surveys during field observations. Additionally, ongoing meetings were held with groups such as the Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure advisory group, the Mayor’s Multimodal and Pedestrian committees, the Denver Streets Partnership, the Arts and Venue

28 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox Alliance Group, and neighborhood associations to receive feedback and input around e-scooters (Denver Public Works 2019). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Formally licensed shared micromobility operators must ensure that at least 30% of their fleet are deployed in designated “Opportunity Areas” in Denver each day. Opportunity areas are neighborhoods in Denver where aggregated indicators relate to historical disinvestment. The city expects that operators identify approaches to reducing barriers to e-scooter use for those who are low income, unbanked, or have no credit card or smartphone access. For example, one provider offers lower rates for trips that start or end in an opportunity area. Additionally, companies are locked into the equity policies with their contracts and cannot change policies or rates mid- contract. Denver also requires operators to provide a certain number of free passes for riders each year, to grow the rider base and expand the reach of shared micromobility. The request for proposal contains requirements for non-discrimination policy in employment, and workforce develop- ment must be representative of the demographics of the city. Finally, licensees in Denver must comply with Diversity and Inclusion requirements for doing business with the city. Lessons Learned and Next Steps While sidewalk riding continues to occur in Denver, it has declined substantially and is viewed as a window into gaps in the bicycle network while demonstrating the urgency of building out the transportation system for human scale, low-speed vehicles. In the wake of the revised side- walk policy, Denver has refrained from taking a heavy-handed approach to enforcing the new laws against sidewalk riding. Acknowledging the learning curve around a novel mode of trans- portation, and understanding that sidewalk riding is often an indication of riders feeling unsafe, Denver has opted to focus on rider education as opposed to issuing citations (Bouchard 2019). The Denver Regional Council of Government’s Micromobility Working Group acknowledges that some shared-use, multi-use paths might be considered sidewalks by some people (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2020). Coordination with provision of parking and integration and connections to transit and bike- share hubs remains critical for the long-term shared micromobility program. The city of Denver’s Request for Qualification (RFQ) requires “interoperability with other transportation systems,” and requests the inclusion of bicycles and e-bicycles along with e-scooters (City and County of Denver 2020). Nashville, TN: Updating Regulations and Plans to Address E-Scooter Safety Concerns The largest city in Tennessee, Nashville is a tourist friendly city. Over the past four years, e-scooters have had an unstable presence in the city. The first e-scooter vendor to launch in Nashville in May 2018 introduced 100 scooters to downtown Nashville with no warning to the local government. Despite a “cease-and-desist” letter from the Nashville Metropolitan Govern- ment (Metro) to the vendor, with orders to remove e-scooters off the public sidewalks and rights-of-way until the introduction of legislation to regulate the devices, the vendor continued to operate and increase the number of e-scooters. A threat to impound the e-scooters halted opera- tions. After legislation passed in late August 2019, the vendor and other e-scooter companies immediately began making plans to dispatch e-scooter fleets in downtown Nashville. An e-scooter fatality in May 2019 again shook up the future of micromobility in Nashville with calls to ban the devices. The mayor called for action and in June 2019 legislation was written

Additional Resources 29   by Metro to prohibit powered scooters within the area of the metropolitan government; however, the legislation failed to pass, and e-scooters were allowed to return to the streets. Since then, the local government has formally acknowledged scooters as an important travel option to help mitigate traffic congestion and advance sustainability goals. However, Nashville experienced two scooter rider fatalities in the fall of 2021 and residents continue raising concerns regarding the need to build safer and more protective infrastructure. Evolving Regulations In August 2018, Metro signed legislation that detailed safety, parking, operation, fee, use, and fleet size regulations for all electric scooter operators. The document included that e-scooters must have a “top motor-powered speed of less than 20 mph” and that the devices “shall not be operated upon a sidewalk within a business district.” However, this regulation did not pro- hibit the devices from the sidewalk altogether: outside of the business district, people riding an e-scooter on a sidewalk shall yield to pedestrians and provide an audible warning before passing pedestrians. Riders are required to follow the rules of the road, and helmet usage is encouraged. The legislation also required operators to educate users on where and how to properly use and park the e-scooter devices. Rules passed in July 2019 placed new limitations on e-scooter operators. Slow and no ride zones were described: a slow zone is an area where speeds cannot exceed 8 mph and no ride zones include metropolitan greenways and parks. The legislation also went a step further from 2018, requiring operators to produce helmet promotional and educational activities. Operators are allowed to use technology where “reasonable and practical” to follow these definitions of slow and no ride zones. Another major regulation (Luxen 2019) included Prohibition of the operation of SUMDs (Shared Urban Mobility Devices) after 10  p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends and Metro holidays, unless the operator institutes an impaired user function, as a prerequisite to riding the SUMD after these hours. One example of an impaired user function is Bird’s Safe Start program, which launched in July 2021. The program requires a potential user from the hours of 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. to verify they can safely operate an e-scooter device by entering a keyword into the app. Those who cannot successfully enter the keyword are denied access and the app recommends they find a different mode of transportation. At this time, the effectiveness of this innovative approach has not been tested and validated by a third party, but research on this approach is ongoing. Last, it was made clear that if any e-scooter company wishes to continue operating in Nashville, they must be compliant with all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Official rules about e-scooting after the 2019 ordinance change in Nashville are not immediately apparent on the Nashville Department of Transportation’s (NDOT) website but are available via local news outlet reporting (Timms 2019). Planning and Policy Changes The transportation management landscape in Nashville has experienced substantial change over the last few years, as the Metro Public Works department evolved into NDOT. In addition to plans, local Nashville government developed more policies to assist in safety management. In May 2019, Metro proposed the installation of mandatory parking “corrals” to end sidewalk parking, which was causing obstructions to pedestrians. Nashville began installing the manda- tory e-scooter parking corrals in June 2019. Most were stationed next to already existing bicycle parking corrals to provide an easy transition for users and for ease of maintenance. Lessons Learned and Next Steps The current e-scooter program is not apparently spearheaded or managed by any full-time staff member in Nashville metropolitan government. Some elements are managed by municipal

30 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox data curators, others are included in transit plans, and others still within pedestrian and bicycle planning and engineering. There are no guiding documents or evaluation plans published on scooters, in contrast to other cities that have conducted formal pilots with published perfor- mance metrics and evaluations. Under the NDOT, there may be more opportunities to form better coordination and more systematic evaluation and integration into the existing transportation system. The local advocacy organization, Walk Bike Nashville, has embraced e-scooter riders as an important constituent group and has leveraged the highly visible increase in demand for bike lanes and other supportive infrastructure in a way that increases their ability to convince decision-makers to invest in safe infrastructure. Indeed, the data shows that e-scooters outnumber bicycles by a factor of four in Nashville, highlighting the importance of this new mode in creating a critical number of riders to support infrastructure investment and more robust micromobility program development. Portland, OR: Laying the Safety Foundation with a Framework for Equity and Evaluation Portland’s e-scooter program consists primarily of standing e-scooters and a small percentage of seated e-scooters (PBOT and Alta Planning & Design 2020). Portland is considered a national leader in e-scooter programs, particularly given PBOT regulatory framework and evaluation practices related to e-scooters. The framework and evaluation have allowed PBOT to center and measure progress toward goals related to sustainability, traffic safety, equity, and mobility (Portland Bureau of Transportation 2019a). Key to this framework were pilot programs in 2018 and 2019 that used multiple research methods, including observations, surveys, focus groups, and MDS data analysis, to evaluate e-scooter vendors’ performance and tweak the program to better achieve its goals for the next round. Public Engagement, Outreach, and Safety Messaging Practices During the first pilot, PBOT hosted a range of outreach events, including tabling at community events, hosting helmet giveaways, and soliciting community input via in-person engagement, surveys, and focus groups (PBOT 2019a). PBOT also built on outreach conducted as part of other transportation programs, such as Portland’s Walking While Black focus groups. Additionally, brand ambassadors—employed by shared mobility operators—have been active on Portland’s streets to educate the public on how to safely operate e-scooters and to model helmet wearing (PBOT 2019a). PBOT also required each shared micromobility company to have a helmet distribution plan and worked with operators to develop safety materials; operators gave out 2,200 helmets in the first pilot. During the second pilot in 2019, PBOT worked with Forth Mobility on safety workshops throughout the community (Portland Bureau of Transpor- tation 2019a; Portland Bureau of Transportation and Alta Planning & Design 2020). Additionally, PBOT worked with partners to create educational videos specifically around e-scooters sharing the right-of-way with disabled Portlanders. PBOT also maintains a web page (https://www.portland.gov/transportation/regulatory /escooterpdx) with many sub-pages to provide information about its e-scooter program to the public. Anonymized e-scooter ridership data (Ride Report 2022b) are available in a public-facing dashboard so people can see how e-scooter trip patterns have changed over time. During the first pilot, PBOT found that most riders learned rules via e-scooter operator apps, so PBOT increased the messaging obligations and required specific information to appear in the app and at time of sign up and rental. Current regulations require that shared micromobility users receive interactive safety messaging that tests their understanding of the rules. Some operators

Additional Resources 31   have delivered additional weekly in-app messaging campaigns to their users (PBOT and Alta Planning & Design 2020, PBOT 2019a). PBOT also developed materials about e-scooter laws and etiquette in multiple languages and distributed them physically (5,000 fliers) and digitally (Portland Bureau of Transportation 2019a). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts A key goal of Portland’s e-scooter program is to reduce “impacts of racial disparities that exist in our transportation system” (Maus 2022). PBOT has sought to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in and through its e-scooter programs in several ways. First, PBOT aims to ensure that e-scooters are available in traditionally underserved areas. During the pilots, e-scooter companies were required to deploy at least 100 e-scooters in traditionally underserved eastern neighborhoods each day, with defined boundaries for the deployment (PBOT 2019a; PBOT and Alta Planning & Design 2020). In the next contract, the geographic footprint will be expanded, and operators will be required to maintain a minimum service level in neighborhoods city- wide (Maus 2022). Portland also requires that printed materials be offered in multiple languages (City of Portland 2020). Second, PBOT aims to ensure that individuals with low income and people without access to banking or credit can participate in the program. On the ground, this translates to a mecha- nism to pay cash to rent an e-scooter, as well as a discount program for lower-income users (Maus 2022). PBOT also is working to develop an integrated transportation app that would facilitate and incentivize multimodal travel among qualified Portlanders for the next phase of the e-scooter program (Maus 2022). The agency worked with community groups and affordable housing providers to promote options for riders with low income (PBOT 2019a). Additionally, PBOT aims to reduce the cost of e-scooter rides, with rentals capped at $1 to unlock and $0.35 per minute of use. PBOT also required the submission of an economic opportunity plan for job provision for individuals from historically underserved communities (City of Portland 2020). Further, the new contract requires companies to pay employees a salary and provide benefits, in contrast to the contractors they have used in the past. Finally, PBOT has aimed to create opportunities for users with disabilities. For the initial pilot, PBOT teamed with Rooted in Rights to create an educational video (https://www.portland.gov /transportation/escooterpdx/news/2019/12/3/pbot-teams-disability-rights-oregon-rooted-rights -lime) for people with disabilities. PBOT prioritized vendors who offered seated e-scooters, which provide additional stability and balance during use (Portland Bureau of Transportation and Alta Planning & Design 2020; Santacreu et al. 2020). Additionally, PBOT is attempting to enhance the ability of disabled users to access customer service and log complaints. For example, in the RFP for the 2023 contract, PBOT requires companies to integrate their customer service portal and complaint process with the city’s 311 system in a way the systems “are continually accessible to riders and community members with various types of disabilities” (Maus 2022). Safety Outcomes and Lessons Learned A key aspect of Portland’s e-scooter program has been evaluation of behavior and preferences through data gathered via rider and public surveys, observations, MDS data analysis, focus groups, and online complaints during the pilot programs. PBOT worked with a local university and consulting firm to evaluate each of its first two pilot programs and publish related reports, the 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report (Portland Bureau of Transportation 2019a) and the 2019 E-Scooter Findings Report (Portland Bureau of Transportation and Alta Planning & Design 2020). PBOT’s evaluation suggests that there were relatively few e-scooter injuries for the number of rides made over the evaluation periods. Indeed, within the more than 2.3 million e-scooter trips

32 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox ridden in Portland since 2018, there have been no fatalities, and injury rates are considered comparable to those of pedestrians and bicyclists. Key among the evaluation findings is that an established bike network provides e-scooter users a safe space to ride that does not negatively impact pedestrians. Additionally, e-scooters have become a reliable mode of transportation for people throughout the city. Perceptions of risk can reflect both riding a scooter and being near a scooter ridden by someone else. In Portland, focus groups comprised of Black Portlanders and East Portlanders (a more racially diverse area than inner Portland) revealed that, in addition to concerns about a lack of safe bicycle infra- structure, these communities are concerned about racial profiling and harassment, not having a helmet, and lacking a safe place to learn to ride an e-scooter (PBOT and Alta Planning & Design 2020). Safety concerns pertaining to being around e-scooter riders were most likely to be associ- ated with sidewalk riding. For people with disabilities, there is a fear of encountering e-scooters that are ridden or parked on the sidewalk, balance and vision challenges, and fears of being hit by drivers (PBOT and Alta Planning & Design 2020). Washington, D.C.: Institutionalizing a Safe System Approach to E-Scooter Safety Washington, D.C., has a long-term goal to provide a safe, appealing, connected network of protected facilities that will serve the entire city for people using bicycles as well as shared micromobility (Government of the District of Columbia 2021). Washington, D.C., has defined e-scooters in the municipal code and distinguishes e-scooters from bicycles, e- bikes, and personal mobility scooters. Washington, D.C., permitting requires that operators maintain staffed offices locally, and permits are conditional upon requirements for equitable distribution of e-scooters and other terms. The city offers fleet size bonuses to operators with strong performance, which include safety and equity performance metrics; installation of parking infrastructure; and sup- port of adaptive device ridership. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) requests that operators conduct evaluations of messaging and educational campaigns and report results (Government of the District of Columbia 2019). Researchers from George Washington University and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety investigated e-scooter crash and injury patterns using emergency department data from Washington, D.C. The analysis found that a significant number of injuries resulted from single vehicle crashes. A large proportion (58%) of shared e-scooter crashes took place on sidewalks, and many were caused by poor pavement conditions or road features such as driveway lips. However, though fewer e-scooter riders were injured while riding in the road, those involved in crashes on the road were more severely injured (Cicchino et al. 2020a). A second study comparing e-scooter injuries with bicyclist injuries also found that about one-third of e-scooter crashes occurred with first-time e-scooter riders, and most often occurred when riders operated the e-scooter on a sidewalk. Mechanical issues with e-scooter devices also were responsible for some crashes, and a small number of pedestrians were injured due to a crash with an e-scooter rider (Cicchino et al. 2020b). Since these studies, Washington, D.C., has taken a multi-pronged Safe System approach to provide safer riding environments for e-scooters and to address the challenges of novice riders. Safety Management Approaches When the Washington, D.C., municipal code was updated in 2021, it integrated language to support safety via the e-scooter permitting process in ways informed by the Safe System approach, described in the following paragraphs. In Washington, D.C., operator permits require GPS-equipped e-scooter devices with the capability to erect geofences upon request from the city. Operators must alert riders to geofenced

Additional Resources 33   areas via communication channels and by slowing the vehicle to 3 mph or 0 mph. Cost incen- tives may be used to discourage violation of geofenced boundaries. One vendor tested side- walk riding detection technology, but the technology is not yet required of all permit holders (Pascale 2021). In Washington, D.C., all e-scooters must have a speed governor that regulates their speed to 10 mph, which is lower than many other cities’ caps. Some fear that this cap will encourage sidewalk riding because e-scooter users cannot go as fast as motorists on the roadway. The city enacted a 20 mph default speed limit for motorists in 2020, a measure that may help mitigate the potential for sidewalk riding due to the lower speed differential between e-scooter riders and motorists. Town council updated rules governing shared fleet vehicles in 2020. The city requires e-scooter devices to be capable of emitting an audible signal to alert pedestrians of their presence, as a way to help manage conflicts between e-scooters and pedestrians. Additionally, e-scooter vendors are required to certify that all their vehicles meet international electrical standards for personal e-mobility devices. Vendors must submit company procedures for “ensuring that the vehicle fleet is safe for use and well maintained” (Government of the District of Columbia 2020). Finally, DDOT has required that all e-scooter models be inspected prior to deployment. The responsibility for educating users on laws and regulations for riding e-scooters in Washington, D.C., rests largely on shared micromobility operators, but the city has also created educational material. Through the city’s GoDCgo platform, which promotes sustainable transpor- tation options, DDOT recently launched an expansive website containing a range of information, including route maps, cost comparisons, and benefits of using shared micro mobility. Educational materials target nonriders and riders to ensure that users and non-users alike understand the rules that keep all road users safe (DDOT n.d.b.). The city has created educational materials in digital and video format, including a video on issues related to sidewalk riding and parking that impede areas for people with disabilities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KphZveCjNg). The video features residents with disabilities explaining why e-scooter riders should not park in certain locations. Washington, D.C., also funds a Bike Ambassador program to promote the use of bicycles and shared micromobility in the city (Fischer 2020). In 2021, the city added a lock-to policy to the municipal code to prevent shared micromobility devices from obstructing the right-of-way and impeding pedestrian travel (Council of the District of Columbia 2022). Operators are required to educate the public about the new regulation, and, as it came into effect, required photo parking validation to ensure compliance with the new rule. They also encouraged operators to promote the new policy via financial incentives to riders, while offering operators incentives to install parking “hubs” to reduce parking violations. The city has doubled the mileage of the bicycle network in recent years and is actively installing additional shared bicycle and micromobility parking (DDOT n.d.a.) (Figure 8). The regulation includes a mandate for DDOT to construct at least 1,000 parking racks per year through 2025. Riders of shared micromobility devices are encouraged to ride in bicycle facilities where available. DDOT is working to build out the city’s bicycle network at a rapid pace (Lazo 2022). DDOT is also installing corrals and hubs in all eight wards of the city to improve sidewalk safety (Government of the District of Columbia 2021). Additionally, DDOT is considering how to ensure that pave- ment conditions in the bicycle facilities are safe for people on bicycles and e-scooters. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Improving multimodal availability for everyone is a key goal of the Washington, D.C., MoveDC plan (Government of the District of Columbia 2021). The city is working to ensure that shared micromobility is made available in all wards of the city. Equity Emphasis Areas (EEAs) are defined by DDOT based on methodology developed by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. EEAs are locations that have been historically marginalized and where higher

34 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox proportions of people with low-income or minority groups reside. Operators must deploy 400 devices in EEAs each day and are incentivized to work to increase trips beginning or ending in the EEAs (Government of the District of Columbia 2019). Operators in Washington, D.C., must make reduced-price rides available to people with low- income (https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/2019 .7.29%20Dockless%20Vehicles%20LICP.pdf). For anyone with an income below the established individual and household levels, operators must offer free unlimited half hour rides. In addition, shared micromobility permit holders are not allowed to charge higher rates for trips originating in any particular part of the city. Cash payment options and the ability to access e-scooters without a smartphone must also be provided. Last, operators must provide a free helmet to any rider upon request. Lessons Learned and Next Steps The shared micromobility program in Washington, D.C., has one of the highest ridership rates in the country. Offering one of several multimodal opportunities for travel around the city, the e-scooter program appeals to a large share of tourist riders and includes fleets with standing and seated e-scooters alongside docked and undocked bike and e-bike share (NACTO 2020). The city is currently piloting shared electric mopeds (DDOT n.d.c.). In addition to a strong focus on creating a safe built environment for people riding nonmotorized vehicles, the city has invested in education and outreach and has implemented requirements for equitable distribution and access to shared e-scooter fleets (Figure 9). In terms of user and nonuser feedback, the city maintains a 311 number in addition to a shared mobility e-mail address. Representatives from DDOT regularly attend advisory committee meetings to share updates and receive feedback from residents and board members. E-scooter rider feedback is collected via shared micromobility operators and reviewed by DDOT. As the program evolves, more robust tools to evaluate the measures in place are needed. Key Information Sources The following resources may provide additional examples and useful information for use in various safety activities. Figure 8. Washington, D.C., Parking Hub. Source: DDOT (n.d.a).

Additional Resources 35   Equity Resources • Arrested Mobility (Equitable Cities n.d., https://arrestedmobility.com/episodes/) – This podcast offers a deep and nuanced conversation around disparities found in traffic enforce- ment, including helmet and sidewalk riding laws pertinent to e-scooters, and showcases perspectives from researchers and community members alike on the impacts of inequitable practices and how they can be reduced or addressed. • Equity in Bike Share Research (Transportation Research and Education Center, Portland State University n.d., https://arrestedmobility.com/episodes/) – This website hosts a collection of reports, articles, and presentations that describe how cities are working to make bikeshare programs more equitable and how to engage underserved communities in the process. Fatality and Injury Data Resources • 2020 FARS Coding and Validation Manual (NHTSA 2022b; https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov /Api/Public/ViewPublication/813251) – Page 29 of this resource includes information on coding data elements for “person on motorized personal conveyances.” • Micromobility Poster (CSCRS 2020, https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads /2020/09/MicromobilityCoding_Poster_v2_FINAL.pdf) – Provides a visual guide to apply ICD-10-CM codes related to e-scooter injuries. Figure 9. Example outreach materials produced in Washington, D.C. Source: DDOT (n.d.d.).

36 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox • Micromodes website (Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2022, https://www.micromodes.org/) – Presents an overview of micromobility, a data explorer tool to visualize e-scooter fatality trends in the United States and worldwide and access the dataset, and a form for reporting incidents to include in the dataset. Public Safety Information Examples • Scoot Smart Video (PBOT 2019b, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX3rIcFIZZU) – Provides an example of a public information video about e-scooter safety and regulations. • Electric Scooter Safety Video – English (City of Chicago 2019, https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=VDusb9vNK1Q) – Provides a widely used example of public safety information about e-scooters, typically shared at the launch or expansion of a program, including some- times as hangtags on the devices themselves. Reports or Web Collections • Understanding and Tackling Micromobility: Transportation’s New Disruptor (Governors Highway Safety Association) (Fischer 2020, https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-08 /GHSA_MicromobilityReport_Aug31Update.pdf) – Published in 2020, this report highlights challenges associated with micromobility—including oversight, funding, data collection, enforcement, infrastructure, and education—that can be better understood and addressed by State Highway Safety Offices. • Micromobility (FHWA) (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center n.d., https://www .pedbikeinfo.org/topics/micromobility.cfm) – This FHWA and NHTSA-funded website, hosted by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, provides a curated collection of micro- mobility-related resources, including case examples, policy resources, research reports, webinars, and more. Glossary of Key Terms This glossary defines or clarifies selected terms considered central to this document. These terms may differ from definitions used by other agencies or in other contexts, though widely accepted definitions are used where possible. E-Scooter An electric scooter or e-scooter is a form of micromobility. While legal definitions vary in different regions, this report defines an “e-scooter” as a two- or three-wheeled device powered by an electric motor, consisting of a platform between the front and rear wheels that the rider stands on (and in some cases a seat that the rider sits on) and a steering column with handlebars that allow the rider to steer, accelerate, and brake. In contrast with electric bicycles and mopeds, e-scooters have no pedals. Geofencing The practice of using GPS or RFID to create geographic boundaries that can be applied to shared micromobility devices. Geofencing may be used to send notifications to riders when they cross a boundary (such as entering a designated “no ride” zone) or, in some cases, to auto- matically slow the micromobility device’s speed or stop it altogether. Geofencing can also be used to enforce parking requirements for micromobility devices.

Additional Resources 37   ICD-10-CM According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2021), the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), 10th Revision, Clinical Modification, is a “morbidity classification published by the United States for classifying diagnoses and reason for visits in all health care settings.” It is based on a classification list established by the World Health Organization (WHO) to help standardize the coding of external causes of injury or disease. Micromobility A class of small transportation devices used for personal transport or goods delivery. They are typically low speed (max speed of 30 mph/48 km/h or less), light weight (100 lbs/45.4 kg or less), and partially or fully motorized (usually by an electric motor). They can be part of a shared fleet or rideshare program or can be individually owned. They may also be referred to as personal transportation devices. Operator The terms operators, vendors, providers, and micromobility companies are used interchange- ably in this report to describe the industry/firms providing e-scooter and shared micromobility- related services, including the devices, apps, maintenance and distribution services, and other required reporting or other customer service components. The term operator does not refer to the user or rider of the micromobility devices. Risk The probability of an incident, injury, or other negative outcome at a specific location within a defined time period. While true risks are rarely known, the transportation field creates estimates of injury risk by identifying attributes of locations on a roadway network that are associated with high crash or incident frequencies or severities (see crash predictor definition). Road Safety Assessment A road safety assessment (RSA), or audit, involves a formal and systematic review of the roadway and surrounding built environment for the purpose of qualitatively assessing and diagnosing a safety problem in light of future plans or proposed changes (FHWA 2022b). Safe System The Safe System approach aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users through a holistic view of the road system that anticipates human needs and performance limitations and manages kinetic energy transfer to levels that the human body can tolerate (FHWA 2020). Safety While many in the transportation profession look to crash data as a primary measure of safety, safety is more than the absence of crashes. Safety is a sense of well-being, belonging, comfort, and protection from any form of risk, harm, or injury. In this report, the project team aims to differentiate safety from crashes and injuries and to acknowledge the social factors affecting safety, beyond traffic-based risks.

38 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox Shared Risk and Protective Factors Using the SAMHSA definition, “Risk factors are characteristics at the biological, psychological, family, community, or cultural level that precede and are associated with a higher likelihood of negative outcomes,” which in this report focuses on e-scooter injuries or perceptions of danger. “Protective factors are characteristics associated with a lower likelihood of negative outcomes or that reduce a risk factor’s impact. Protective factors may be seen as positive countering events” (SAMHSA 2019). A shared risk and protective factor approach refers to prioritizing risk and protective factors linked to multiple forms of injury in prevention planning, partnership, and programmatic efforts, as opposed to focusing on different injury outcomes separately (e.g., e-scooter vs. pedestrian vs. bicyclist vs. driver). Shared Micromobility According to the NACTO, shared micromobility is “Shared-use fleets of small, fully or partially human-powered vehicles such as bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. These vehicles are generally rented through a mobile app or kiosk, are picked up and dropped off in the public right-of-way and are meant for short point-to-point trips” (NACTO 2019). Transportation Equity Transportation equity involves eliminating racial, economic, and social inequities in who benefits from, pays for, and decides on transportation investment decisions, and ensuring safe, sustainable, and convenient transportation options for all. According to PolicyLink, four prin- ciples of equitable transportation policy are: 1. Increasing access to economic opportunity and employment for all; 2. Improving access to jobs and fairly distributing the work of building and fixing critical infrastructure in local communities; 3. Creating healthier, more sustainable communities by supporting safe, smart, affordable alternatives to highway dominated metropolitan sprawl; and 4. Including local residents in all stages of the decision-making process” (Rubin 2009).

Next: Acronyms »
E-Scooter Safety Toolbox Get This Book
×
 E-Scooter Safety Toolbox
Buy Paperback | $64.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since their introduction in the United States in 2017, the use of electric scooters (e-scooters) has expanded to the streets and sidewalks of many cities, and all indicators point to continued growth.

BTSCRP Research Report 9: E-Scooter Safety Toolbox, from TRB's Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program, presents findings from a multiyear research effort that sought to build on existing research to date, identify key gaps in knowledge and data related to e-scooter behavioral safety, and develop evidence-based guidelines that can enhance the coordination of behavioral safety programs and countermeasures with a broader toolbox of approaches to improve safety for all road users.

Supplemental to the report are BTSCRP Web-Only Document 5: E-Scooter Safety: Issues and Solutions and a presentation.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!