Going Small The transition to urban micromobility 2 Content overview
Transition to urban micromobility 3-4 Forefront of urban movement – Key insights 11 Key challenges for our cities 5 Global Young Advisory Network – Policy approach – Seven cities 6-7 About us 12 Operator approach – Seven operators 8-9 User change response behaviour 10 3 Transition to Urban Micromobility
We live in an increasingly connected world. Background Key Client Questions/Findings The ways in which we live work and play is highly influenced by interaction with others, use of The rise of micromobility stems from the following: Operators are deployed in cities without notice due to technology and sharing of spaces and resources. rapid initial growth and rising investment capital. Deploy- • Emerging trends in the everyday lives of urban area ment in cities also improves the rides per unit ratio, which Transit in cities is also experiencing a shift residents are impacting their mobility patterns and ensures a sustainable business model. towards shared mobility: ride hailing, carpooling needs. and short-term car lease have all experienced Price per kilometre is higher compared to traditional public • Circular economy growth encourages more travelers transport and targets a specific demographic, typically from a rapid rise in urban areas worldwide. to share ride or carpool. higher-income areas. This trend of small single-person flexible modes • Increased access to information via smart phones, There is no evidence deployment is linked to neighborhoods’ of transport termed as micromobility includes: rise of digitalization and technology advancements. income. Deployment primarily occurs in central areas mopeds, bicycles and scooters, electric or manual, due to higher public density. Smaller operators may focus docked or dockless. In just a few years they • Flexible workplaces can help smooth the daily traffic on more regional areas as to complement transport in have experienced rapid growth, often without flow and increase demand for hours traditionally non-centred areas. prior engagement with cities, leading to regula- seen as off-peak. tory and operational challenges. Cooperation and joint planning prevail as operators and cities • Rise of new transport modes and increased demand collaborate on deploying and developing infrastructure/policy for short trips to city centre. We examined the models and interrelationships to manage micromobility. which exist between micromobility operators, Future ready cities have advantages: they have long-term users and cities where they are located. We transport plans and a strong nexus to complement the assessed the emergence of various models micromobility technology. of regulation and operation as micromobility Capacity Flexibility has spread to cities across the world, and iden- — The transition Small toGoing urban micromobility tified characteristics of successful ventures as VEHICLE CAPACITY well as insights that could be applied to future operations. Train
Bus Flexi-bus Car-sharing Car-sharing Private car Definition (station-based) (free- loat)
Use of small scale devices (e-bikes, e-scooters and Scope mopeds) to address key mobility gaps within our trans- portation network (walking/cycling, public transport Dock-based Dock-free and driving). Rental moped Shared moped Shared moped Private moped Rental bike Shared bike Shared bike Private bike
Micromobility Rental scooter Shared scooter Shared scooter Private scooter
SERVICE FLEXIBILITY Flexibility in O-D, route, time of use 4 Transition to Urban Micromobility
1 ro acti e ity olicy Stable an NOW a roach 2 e acti e icromobility ser ices ell unctioning intro uce to cities mar et 3 ree entry FUTURE 4 utla e
Around the globe the approach to policy and regulation on micromobility A “pro-active” approach is the preferred option can be classified into four (4) categories: in which cities, local regulators and operators collaborate to put appropriate policy and regu- lation in place. “Free entry” ultimately results in 1 Pro-Active: “re-active” measures following negative atten- Regulations imposed before technology tion. A complete micromobility ban (“outlawed”) implementation in the city. is not suitable either as this can discourage innovation and lessen the intermodality potential. 2 Re-Active:
Regulations imposed after technology implementa- tion in the city and incidents occurred (i.e. user inju- ries, complaints from residents/commuters).
3 Free Entry:
Technology implemented without any regulations in place.
4 Outlawed: Technology implementation is banned by the city. 5 Key Challenges for our Cities
Parking and littering issues might become one of the key challenges to arise from the micromobility services emergence. As a result of the arrival of micromobility services, As micromobility vehicles are a new feature in the urban the various aspects of traffic safety have been landscape and transportation system, objections are a primary focus of policy makers. Traffic safety raised in regard to their negative impact on cities due challenges are a common concern for cities. to littering and reckless parking. P Traffic Safety 1 2 Parking and Littering
Unseized Policy & Intermodality ? Potential 6 Regulations 3 Unclear Policy Integration of micromobility services to existing The policy and regulations around micromobility transport modes remains a key challenge and a key services remain a key challenge for policy- opportunity. A WSP study on unseized opportunity makers around the world due to the aggressive
suggests the use of micromobility services to solve growth approach. As a result, unclear policies — The transition Small toGoing urban micromobility last mile issues in existing transportation systems. have a direct impact on the user response.
5 4
Biased Negative Vehicle Life Public Opinion Cycle
As history has shown, the public tend to view new The growing supply of electric scooters can support features introduced in our transportation systems more governments in meeting the zero-emission vehicles negatively than other transport modes. This can lead to adoption standards. However, quantifiable objections are irrational opinion. For instance, a micromobility related raised regarding the life cycle of these vehicles. Could accident can be perceived as worse than a car accident. their contribution to sustainable urban transports be jeopardized by their short life cycles? 6 Policy Approach – Seven Cities
Auckland Dubai London San Francisco The Lime e-scooter operator was the first Micromobility has been available in the There are 32 local authority districts in San Francisco has followed a “Pro-active” micromobility entrant in Auckland back in region since 2013, with 85 rentals spots in Greater London, each governed by a London approach as one of the first US cities to October 2018. Other operators now include Downtown Dubai, the Dubai Marina and borough council. This situation can be a develop regulatory and permit frameworks Wave, Flamingo and Onzo, who are taking the Palm Jumeirah. However, the integration hurdle for widespread rollout of micro‑ to cover the rapidly emerging micromobility part in the second phase of the e-scooter was intended for casual use around parks mobility across the city. Most new entrants and shared bicycle options in the city. Back assessment trial, which is ending in October and tourist areas. E-scooters were intro- have elected to pursue pilot operations with in January 2018, JUMP launched operation 2019. In the first phase trial, safety and duced into the market in early 2019 with one or two boroughs, before scaling up. of 250 e-bikes as part of an 18-month trial appropriate regulation were major concerns. global brands such as Qwickly and KIWI The launch of Mobike as a shared bicycle program. At the time JUMP was the only There were 155 random braking events implementing dockless scooter options. service coincided with TfL’s Code of Con- company able to meet San Francisco’s pri- reported across New Zealand, as a result In March 2019, the Roads and Transport duct for dockless bicycle operators. This orities for a safe, equitable and accountable of a glitch in the e-scooter technology Authority (RTA) “outlawed” rental of demonstrates a “Pro-Active” response from shared bicycle service. Currently, JUMP which caused the wheels to lock during e-scooters, stating, “The RTA is currently the city to put regulations in place before bicycles cover the core area of San Francisco, use. For the second phase, a 15 km/h speed considering the technical and legislative widespread use. A similar approach is along with some key communities defined limit will be imposed and geofencing GPS requirements to allow the operation of being followed with e-scooters, with the as “disadvantaged communities in the city”. technology will identify e-scooters parked electric scooters in addition to the conditions UK government currently banning their The San Francisco Municipal Transport outside of designated areas. Non-compliant and commitment of scooter drivers.” The use until appropriate operating regulations Agency is in the process of expanding the e-scooters will need to be removed within RTA position only applies to the rental are developed. Stationless Bikeshare Permit citywide to three hours or be fined. All e-scooter riders of e-scooters and does not extend to the between 10,000 and 11,000 shared bicycles must be 18+ years old and possess a valid purchase of the equipment for personal and e-bikes. driver’s licence. Helmet use is optional. use. E-scooters can also be used in closed areas or if permitted, within certain parks / campuses. It is generally agreed that suitable legislation is required for safety and usage of the equipment, prior to services being reintroduced. Requirements are currently under study by the RTA. 7
Singapore Stockholm Toronto There are currently numerous micromobility Stockholm adopted a “Re-active” approach. The Toronto Bike Share network has 360 operators available in Singapore: e-scooter During the last year, several operators have docking stations, over 3,750 bicycles and companies Lime, Neuron Mobility, Telepod entered the market. The city is now facing is used in over 2 million passenger trips and PopScoot as well as shared bicycle several challenges implementing policy and each year. However, all other micromobility operators MoBike, Ofo Bike, Anywheel and regulation. Rapid uptake of micromobility operators are currently “outlawed” by the Moov. The “Re-active” approach to regula- devices and lagging regulation has con- City of Toronto. To justify its decision, the tions was a source of opposition, notably tributed to several accidents including one city expressed concerns regarding public regarding the dockless devices. There as user fatality. As a result of public concerns, safety, parking, littering and the operators’ been several reported incidents of speed- Stockholm has signed a letter of intent integration to the existing cycling infra- ing and people abandoning these devices (not legally binding) with several micro- structure. E-scooter operators Lime and recklessly causing damage and limiting the mobility operators. The intent is to ensure BIRD are attempting to work with the City — The transition Small toGoing urban micromobility number of devices available to customers. regulations (prohibited parking, operating of Toronto and get proactive legislation in Singapore is implementing several regula- zones, speed limits on several streets) place. Lime has piloted its e-scooter service tions to help control safety and the uptake are aligned with the interests of the city. in the nearby university-centric city of of micromobility, such as speed limits and Furthermore, the City of Stockholm has Waterloo, ON with the goal of establishing designated parking areas. As of July 1, 2019, awarded a 400 million SEK contract to the trust before expanding to Toronto and other it will be a serious offence to ride an un- Swedish mobility company VOI to operate Canadian cities licensed micromobility device. Singapore the city’s rental bicycle service. Over 7,500 will also limit the fleet size of operators new bicycles are set to be introduced, thus under licences. demonstrating a collaborative approach with these operators. 8 Operator Approach – Seven Operators
Bird - Santa Monica Circ - Abu Dhabi Cityscoot - Paris Jump - San Francisco
Bird is one of the largest e-scooter oper- Circ was the first company to offer e-scooter Cityscoot has been providing Parisians with JUMP launched with a trial in San Francisco ators. It started in Santa Monica in 2017, services in Abu Dhabi in July 2019. As part an electric moped sharing service at a in January 2018 and was later acquired by where it now owns 1,500 units, the initial of a trial period, e-scooter could be used in pay-per-minute rate since 2016. The absence the transportation network company Uber, cap set by the city. The competition between a small area, mostly within the CBD. Prices of subscription fees makes Cityscoot an expanding in 28 cities. It has since deployed e-scooter company is fierce, which has led are competitive to taxis. The trial’s objective attractive first/last-mile solution. The 500 dockless e-bikes. They can be hired at to various collaboration initiatives. Bird is to investigate demand and determine service also covers districts farther from highly competitive prices and JUMP offers offers free helmets to all its riders and expansion requirements. the centre. Growth has been constant. Its a Boost plan for low-income riders. San introduced the Save our Sidewalks pledge 3,500 vehicles have been used more than Francisco is expanding its permit process to encourage users to park responsibly. 4.5 million times. for shared bicycle. 9
Key Insights Operators tend to appear without notice in their first city and rely on lobbying to access their next deployment loca- tions. Initial growth is very fast, as the investment capital rises quickly in the early stages of operations and fixed costs are low. Micromobility modes and especially e-scooters are usually priced higher per kilometre than public transport. However, in the early stages, the novelty factor may compensate for the price Lime - Auckland Mobike - London U-Bicycle - Vancouver difference
Lime joined Auckland’s e-scooter trial Mobike is a dockless bicycle operator, U-Bicycle has been operating 500 non- Deployment has not shown to be in October 2018. In May 2019, Lime was active in central London and its western electric bicycles in Vancouver and Victoria correlated with neighborhoods’ income, despite initial launch taking place in chosen as one of the three operators to pro- suburb, Ealing, since September 2017. Rides since October 2017. A virtual drop zone central areas. Initiatives that improve ceed to phase 2, which will include 1,875 lasting less than 20 minutes are cheaper system is used instead of physical stations. equity, a key concern for city officials, scooters. Lime has applied for operating than public transport. Monthly passes The pricing scheme is very competitive and have been taken in some cases. in the outer suburbs as well. Initial trial can be purchased. Transport for London the service locations are complementary to findings showed that approximately half operates a public shared bicycle service that the existing public shared bicycle system. After operators have been active in a of the citizens see e-scooters as a positive Mobike is geographically complementary to. The Richmond and Victoria municipalities city for a period, they usually develop — The transition Small toGoing urban micromobility innovation. have reacted positively to the operator and a cooperative spirit and start planning the City of Vancouver has positioned cycling with the authorities, which helps ensure as a key objective in its Transportation their long-term acceptance.Improving Plan 2040. the company’s public perception from a disruptor to a collaborator is critical for an operator’s future. Traffic safety and environmental issues can be top issues in this matter. Finally, the city itself and whether it is future ready plays an important role as well. Provided the infrastructure and legal framework are in place, operators that are communicative and align their activity with the city’s goals can become a part of the urban transport system. 10 User Change Response Behaviour
As operators and cities make an effort to create Incentivizing Social Rules Use of Data to Improve Levels of Service for the best conditions for use, the development Vulnerable Users and growth of urban micromobility as mode What are the social rules around shared path use and good behaviour (i.e. parking, overtaking behaviours)? Given of transport certainly relies on the main stake- High usage and few near misses indicate a good level of the minimal rules of use, does this lead to less different service of path for people with physical disability, older holder – users. How do users then respond to acceptable “use practices” that emerge in different places? path users, and those carrying loads or pushing strollers. this relatively new mode of transport in our What is the longer-term effect of these? Could positive Equally, gaps in the data (no-use zones) could indicate a cities? behaviours be incentivized back to users? The idea being low level of service or areas of severance. that a self-governed approach focused on consideration WSP has identified key human behaviour change of other users may lead to positive behaviour change, as Future Transport Mode Only for the Young? response and insights to consider for long-term opposed to a rule-governed approach. feasibility of micromobility in our cities. The next generation of users are travelling differently Cost Model Incentivizes Maximum Speed (with a lower motivation to be reliant on the car) and demand greater mobility choice. Micromobility offers new Currently, most models motivate faster travelling behaviour, choices, even looking at the subtle differences between rather than travelling to the conditions. Some consideration bicycle and e-bike use in relation to trip purpose and of a distance-time interaction in the model may lead to motivation. Younger age groups are more likely users improved behaviours. of micro-mobility services, such as e-scooters, and more Key Findings Users willing to try new smart mobility technology as it appears Does Micromobility Lead to Inequities in in the market. Older age groups are more likely to state Creating an environment that provides Transport Provision? they will never use this technology. the optimal user experience relies on the interaction between the micromobility Are older, physically disabled, parents with strollers and Does Micro-mobility Encourage Greater Social service operators, the city and users as other people with reduced mobility less inclined to use Interaction and Help to Reduce Social Isolation? illustrated below: them? Policy-makers need to make sure that provision of these modes does not result in other modes becoming Anecdotal evidence suggests that when people are riding less economically viable and being removed and therefore micromobility devices in mixed-use areas there is a great- creating more gaps in provision. er degree of interaction with other users, driven in part by safety concerns, but also as people often enjoy using them. Operators How Will We Allocate Space in the Future to the What are any other social benefits and dis-benefits? Strategic rame or Different Modes? olicy an regulation Including of Social Sustainability Framework n rastructure an ser ices Particularly given that there will be new and emerging S ace allocation ollaboration transport modes that we have not yet considered? Can we Do we require regulation to ensure transport equity for engage with the micromobility providers in developing those who do not own a smartphone or credit card? Users City streetscapes? Do cities need to ensure that placement meets the needs of users in economically deprived areas? ee s Ser ice Technology alues ser inter ace eha iour Opti al ata ulture user olicy com liance e perience 11 Key Insights
Data Sharing - A Key Driver for Well-founded Decisions Policy and Regulation Key The introduction of micromobility services to our cities Insights has created a formation of asymmetric information between policy makers and operators. Policy makers Policy/regulatory aspects which have been favourable are lacking information in order to make well-founded to the development of micromobility, while keeping decisions. Best practice examples have indicated that data safety and the best interests of the public in check, sharing will enable policy makers to make decisions based include the following: on empirical data to really understand the impact of • Imposed speed limits (reduced speed in high micromobility services before developing policies. traffic areas)
Digital Maturity in Our Cities Enables Long-term Transparency in Mitigation of Carbon and Life • Data sharing incentive structure to integrate and optimize services with existing transit Consumer Behaviour Cycle of Scooters The electric scooter market size is expected to reach USD While the growing supply of electric scooters are supporting • Minimum age requirement 42 billion in 2030. Risk capital has flocked around the mi- governments in meeting the standards for the adoption of zero-emission vehicles, quantifiable objections are • Geo-fencing operations and designated parking cromobility start-ups in recent years and few people deny zones the market consensus – the increase of micromobility raised against the sustainability of these vehicles (life cycle). In order to keep the discussion around the environmental services will rewrite our approach to urban last-mile trips. • Operating permit & capacity cap (number of On-demand micromobility rental services accelerates impact stringent, the life cycle of electric scooters should e-scooters/bikes allowed to operate) the growth of the e-scooter owners market subsequently be transparent and showcased by the operators in order fuelling the paradigm shift of last-mile trips. to avoid criticism for disadvantageous contribution to • Development of life cycle related KPIs to ensure environmental sustainability. By doing this, operators sustainability of fleet
incentivize residents’ consumers and regional governments — The transition Small toGoing urban micromobility Urban Planners to Adapt – A New Feature in the to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Further, valuable Urban Landscape input to the discussion would be for cities to investigate Policy makers and regulators need to adapt – urban and which trips that are being replaced and how to focus transport planners as well as the micromobility services resources to replace trips with higher greenhouse gas has become a new feature of our urban landscapes. Do our emissions. urban and transport planners need to consider micromobility in their thinking? Partnering Up in Order to Reach Forefront of Urban Movement Reaching the Plateau of Innovation by As our thinking of urban movement is changing, operators Competition and cities need to collaborate in order to reach the most Cities can benefit from the competition that drives last-mile optimal synergies for users. The right balance must be innovation. Hence, an outlawing-scenario would therefore struck between the city and operators for appropriate policy not contribute to innovation in the city. As well, regulated and regulation to phase in micromobility. The alternative markets could have a macroeconomic impact creating jobs approach would be that cities and operators work on their and synergies with established companies. own towards the same vision. Global Young Advisory Network
UK SE SE George Buxton Hamza Harrami Nikos Papakatsikas [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
About Us
WSP is one of the world’s leading professional services consulting firms. AU/US CA NZ We are dedicated to our local communities and propelled by international Todd Nguyen Nick Roberts Shifani Sood brainpower. We are technical experts and strategic advisors including [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] engineers, technicians, scientists, architects, planners, surveyors and envi- ronmental specialists, as well as other design, program and construction management professionals. We design lasting solutions in the Transpor- tation & Infrastructure, Property & Buildings, Environment, Power & En- Additional Members of the Network ergy, Resources and Industry sectors, as well as offering strategic advisory services. With approximately 49,500 talented people globally, we engineer projects that will help societies grow for lifetimes to come. US AU CA Daniel Beard Chen Whittle Preeya Shah
US UK wsp.com Lyne-Marie Bouvet Julianna Moats
AU NZ Ravi Kaberwal Claire Rusin