Next Generation Advisory Committee
Thursday, 1 Oct 2020 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting
Participation Options for Non-Broadcast Virtual Meetings: Due to COVID-19, the City of Littleton is providing virtual coverage of public meetings for our boards and commissions to protect the health of citizens and staff. Meetings will not be held in person until further notice.
To participate during the public comment portion of this meeting, or to listen to the meeting live, please call (669)-900-6833. When prompted, enter the Webinar ID: 968 7950 3360. Contact Ryan Thompson at 303-795-3876 with any questions regarding this process.
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of September 3, 2020 Meeting Minutes a) Attachment: Areas of economic significance planning map v2 6-22-20 b) Attachment: Littleton Blvd Improvement to Land Value Analysis
4. Public Comment
5. Member Introductions a) What is your favorite place you have traveled and why? b) What TV shows are you watching right now?
6. By-laws, Protocols, and Standards a) Attachment: NGAC Bylaws b) Attachment: Robert’s Rules Overview
7. Break (5 min)
8. Micro-mobility in Littleton a) Attachment: Transportation Master Plan Chapter 7: Mobility Trends, Adopted October 2019 (Full TMP Report attached in NGAC member email) https://www.littletongov.org/home/showdocument?id=21031 b) Attachment: “Shared Micromobility in the U.S. 2018.” National Association of City Transportation Officials Report c) Attachment: District of Columbia Dockless Low-Income Customer Plan
City of Littleton Page 1 NextGeneration Meeting Agenda 1 Oct 2020
d) Attachment: District of Columbia Dockless 2020 Sharing Vehicles Permit Application e) Attachment: DDOT Bike and Scooter Corrals f) Link: Safe Dockless Parking. DDOT Communications, 10 Oct 2019. https://youtu.be/_KphZveCjNg g) Attachment: “Understanding and Tackling Micromobility: Transportation’s New Disruptor.” Governors Highway Safety Association, August 2020. (pay particular attention to the section on Safety beginning on page 9) h) Attachment: “Analyzing the Potential of Geofencing for Electric Bicycles and Scooters in the Public Right of Way.” 17 Jan 2020. i) Attachment: “Did Your Rented E-Scooter Suddenly Shut Down? Blame the Invisible Geofence.” The Los Angeles Times, 17 Sept 2019. j) Attachment: City of Fort Collins Traffic Code PART 21 - OPERATION OF BICYCLES, ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLES AND OTHER HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLES k) Link: “Are You Being Tracked?! Huge E-Scooter Controversy Surrounding Location Data and Privacy Sharing.” Rogue Rocket, 6 Aug 2019. https://youtu.be/ha9v5EB128s
9. Committee Reports a) Sustainability Committee b) Zoning/ULUC Committee c) DIEB Committee
10. Announcements a) Staff Report, Ryan Thompson b) City Council Representative Report, Pam Grove c) General Announcements
11. Adjournment City of Littleton September 3, 2020 Next Generation Advisory Committee 6:30 – 8:30 PM September 3, 2020 Meeting Minutes Littleton Center 2255 West Berry Avenue Littleton, CO 80120
Type of Meeting: Regular monthly, Zoom
Meeting Number: 4
Minutes
1. Agenda item: Roll Call
City of Littleton Members Present: (2) Ryan Thompson, Pam Grove
NGAC Members Present: (10/15) Iftin Abshir, Lauren Burgess, Alyssa Campbell, Josh Hall, Jenny Makis, Charlee Ottersberg, Catherine Riggs, Cassie Sander, Abbie Steiner, Larry Thompson, Carson Wedding, Lydia Phillips, Faith Krech, Emily Przekwas, Ashley Ferris
2-3. Agenda item: Approval of Agenda / 8.6.20 Minutes
Overview: Approve agenda: Alyssa Second: Lydia Approved (10 in favor) Approve minutes: Josh Second: Alyssa Approved (10 in favor)
4. Agenda item: Public Comment
Overview:
Commenter #1: Pam Chadbourn
- District 1 in downtown Littleton - Thank you for reports on sustainability and land use code o Positive comments presented in various committees and meetings o Shout out to Iftin and the subcommittees - Historic preservation board added a definition for sustainability to the phase 2 code amendments - These will go to the middle of September, and feels there is great work to be done - Happy we are talking about the mid-century modern district on Littleton blvd. o The map shows Geneva village as a historic area, but it will be changed under the new code amendments o If this happens we could lose borrowed greenspace o We need a midcentury modern overlay district to help save Geneva Village
Close at 6:38 PM
5. Agenda item: Guest Speaker, Jennifer Henninger, Community Development Director
- Here to discuss the mid-mod mile - Hoping we can have tonight be a discussion - Zoning will need to take a close look at this study, how does it get integrated into the future of Littleton - We have a lot of properties that are either under utilized, or could be redeveloped, or make sure they are preserved o One way to do this is to create a district o The code is a way to do this to make it an amenable process for all involved - Economic aspects: o Shared slides (to be included in minutes) o Map shows the different sales and use tax along with amount generated o 78% of the cities revenue comes from sales tax o The Littleton Corridor has contributed significantly to sales tax generation increases from 2015-2019 § Perceives Littleton Blvd to become a zone of economic significance o Home Depot + Lowes + King Soopers has helped the city during the COVID crisis - Josh: Loves that this map shows just how big the shopping centers have an impact - Littleton Blvd improvement to land value analysis o This calculation does not reflect that historic landmarks or assets o The darker the green, the better the use from an economic perspective. The redder, to more indicative that it is not being used to its greatest potential o This shows sales tax impact - Iftin: as a part of the process to evaluate the parcels, do you take into the needs of the community? For example, the ARC thriftstore could serve the surrounding community based on? o Yes, this is taken into consideration, it looks into parking lots and their use. Can we change habits by reducing parking o Or, could you take part of the parking lot that has parking underneath o The focus is how you are using the land - From Railroad to Broadway 232 individual parcels o This means you need to take the needs and voices into consideration o Also needing to take the citizens, the people who use it as a throuroughfare. o Are all the needs being met? - Questions for the committee: o What is missing? § Abbie: Donut Shop § Josh: Restaurants + Banks o Does it feel walkable § Josh: no § Charlee: no, it feels like people go faster o What would make it feel more walkable: § Alyssa: The parking is difficult, which makes it feel less walkable o Iftin: There was talk about a circulator bus, is this still a conversation? § It is a funding issue § There was talk about going from the museum, and downtown Littleton, and Littleton Blvd § The city is trying to cobble funds for a transportation/accessibility study • Feels that some of the parking challenges could be addressed with this study o Kit: Downtown Littleton feels more walkable, but Littleton Blvd has more pedestrian friendly areas § Example: pedestrian crossways o Josh: the enclosure o Ashley: the way the buildings are make it feel more walkable downtown o Alyssa: has more destination location, vs downtown that is more stop in, explore type of businesses o Charlee: Do the parking lots prevent people from feeling close to the buildings? o Jenny: a safety perspective, it feels more nerveracking. It is a faster speed. It just doesn’t feel as safe. o Lydia: downtown Littleton feels like it has wider sidewalks vs Littleton Blvd. o Iftin: Windemere West feels more safer, Windemere East feels more suburban and more destination oriented. § Suggestion: could there be more street scaping could make it feel more green and more covered with a buffer. - Schedule for Phase 2 o Sept 15 – Ordinance on first reading to Adopt Phase 2 amendments to Title 10 of the existing code o Sept 22 – City Council Study Session on Phase 2 Amendments
2 o Oct 6 – Ordinance on second reading to adopts Phase 2 Amendments o Nov 16 – Envision Studio: Focus on Corridors and Mixed Use - Thank you for taking the time to provide the comments, they were well received - If you want more information on the mid mod mile, can be put in touch with Andrea
6. Agenda item: Introduction of New Members
Overview: Iftin Abshir: Somali to better connect with Herritage, Reading Catch 22, Tyrants Tomb, A dance of Dragons, listening to cult of Trump, Reading kiss the girls and make them Cry, The Revolution Lauren Burgess: Choose Spanish then Sign Language Reading: Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself Alyssa Campbell: Fluent in Italian, love the culture and the country. Currently reading Ninth House Josh Hall: French, gorgeous language, Reading: Biography of George Washington Charlee Ottersberg: Sign-Language, and reading Girl on the Train Catherine Riggs: Spanish because it would help in healthcare and I could visit my brother in law in Peru in the future. Abbie Steiner: Spanish because I work with a number of communities who prefer this language. Reading: reading a lot about child development and parenting Lydia Phillips: I would want to be fluent in French because it would help with her class. Reading daughter of the forest. Faith Krech: Italian because she studied there and would like to get it back. Reading the Couple Next Door. Ashley Ferris: Spanish because so many of my students speak Spanish, Her body and other Parties\
7. Agenda item: Discussion: Littleton Blvd Mid Mod Mile
Overview: What do you feel about the importance of the mid mod mile? Should we be looking at this for the future? What ideas do you have should this become a district? o Alyssa: I feel like Littleton Blvd could become similar to the Baker district. This is because it is not quite downtown, but has the mixed-use potential § It is a great entry way into downtown without having to go downtown § Could act as a gateway area § Would like to see more green-scaping than Baker o Iftin: What is retail going to look like in the future? How can we maintain our tax base? § The mid mod feel could promote a shopping district o Lydia: more restaurants would be nice o Iftin: Historic preservation still plays a role on Littleton blvd, it is just a different feel § Ryan to provide the study from lats years session o Joshua: has the infrastructure to support a shopping district, but I would like to see more arts/culture o Iftin: Kate Eckels talked about how promoting the arts helps increase the economic viability of a city o Alyssa: it is a great corridor to host first Friday walks because of the parking space and the openness o Kit: would like to think about the neat business in the area already § How can we revitalize the good that is already there? Do they need capital to spruce things up o Alyssa: are most privately owned or rented? § Jennifer: very little if anything is owned by the city. The city does have some revitalization grants and historic preservation grants • Historic preservation grants wouldn’t be available unless they have designation on the building or as a district • With the budget cuts, these grants programs may lose money • Could also look to DOLA o Look to a creative arts designation > then there is grant funding that comes along with that designation. What does housing look like in the future for Littleton Blvd o Iftin: How could we be sure that it stays affordable and avoid gentrification? o Affordability is key o Areas of designation: typically looking to the east of Windemere 3 o Ryan: is there thoughts that we may need to build up o Jennifer: Adaptive reuse is an option, is there a taste for height? § When looking at attainable housing, the city doesn’t have the funds to subsidize the housing, but we could add to our codes % requiring attainable • This comes with give and take however § The reason why Vita and Bacon Social is a good land value is because of the height § When we talk mid century mod that are still options that have height. § Do we keep the mid mod or do we mix it up § What character are we going for? o Abbie: I’m sure you’ve had a lot of opinions either way § We might want to make Littleton more attractive to replicate the stretch of Broadway and Alameda and think about the increase of mixed buildings § One thing that makes downtown Littleton so different is the feeling of closeness to the street. The space is so spread out § Bringing some of the buildings closer to the streets + mixed use could help to transform the lots § KKC was able to help us think differently about how we use the spaces o Iftin: affordable housing height allowance could be an interesting approach (looking to Denver) § If we allow the market to dictate what happens, profit rule § Could taller height allowances be allowed for Sustainability or Affordable Housing, could we allow higher buildings. § Would love more Mid Century Modern Buildings put in there. o Josh: could Littleton Blvd be a space to go higher? o Iftin: still wants access to sunshine for health and solar panels § Book suggestions: Love your city, Better not Bigger o Ashley: if people are invested in the mid century architecture: § Reading about this could help draw interest and help get people to appreciate this architecture o Iftin: has a real opportunity to preserve this work § Eugene Sternberg has a lot of buildings and a historic walking tour could be really neat
8. Agenda item: Committee Reports
Overview: - Sustainability Committee o Sept 14 meeting with Public Works § In person meeting that is socially distance with masks • This will be live streamed as well § Will be meeting with Keith Reester to look at areas that could benefit from sustainability efforts § If you are interested in attending, please get in touch with Ifitn o Did not meet in August because there were no pressing issues o Pam Grove sent out information on the PEL study o Iftin to send out info on the Powers Park Project o Iftin no longer will be liason, Josh will be the Liason moving forward - Zoning/ULUC Committee o Attachment: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study § Pam sent this out o Next Meeting September 10 - DIEB Committee o Meetings will be the 4th Thursday of the month o Mission: To provide a voice to underrepresented and oppressed populations in the City of Littleton and to recommend changes based on those voices and experiences. § Would like to be a voice and recommend actionable items o Subcommittee Goals and Focus § Education and Information Surrounding Policing § Community Resources • Immigrants
4 o Looking at a speaker from LIRC • Homeless • Mental Health • Early Childhood Education • Community Education
9. Agenda item: Announcements
Staff Report:
o CENSUS o Fill out the census, it ends by the end of the month o Pass these stories of getting people to fill out the census onto Ryan o Compliments from planning commission, historic preservation board, and city council on our work on ULUC and sustainability reports o Weekends on Main o Ryan is now working with special events and special event permitting o This will run through mid-October o Merchants Meeting next week
Council Report:
General Announcements:
o Bemis Library has Books and Blankets o Outdoor story time, requires a reservation o Bryce Jackman: Silly fun outdoor program o Reservations Required o September 19 o Details went out in Littleton Report and on Library Website o Make sure you are using your Littleton email due to Open Records Act o Everyone should access to a shared drive on OneDrive
10. Agenda item: Adjournment
- Motion to adjourn – Josh - Second – Abbie - Motion Passed – 8:07 pm
5 Legend Potential areas of ecnomic significance Percent center contributes to total of its tax area 2019 Total tax revenue (all businesses) by finance dept. tax district
Percent of tax revenue center provided in 2019 vs 2015 0.6% - 1.6% $555,764 - $620,886 1.6% - 6.2% %5.5 - %41.7 $620,887 - $1,333,327 %41.7 - %78.0 6.2% - 18.5% $1,333,328 - $1,922,055 Total tax area tax revenue 18.5% - 41.1% %78.0 - %100.0 $1,922,056 - $3,343,150 %100.0 - %150.4 41.1% - 87.7% $3,343,151 - $4,868,971 %150.4 - %186.7 Workforce population density (centers of workforce) City of Littleton More workforce in area Areas of Economic Significance
Sales tax district (Littleton finance department) Planning Map v2 Note: Littleton Village commercial was not present Less workforce in area in 2015 (no percent tax revenue 2019 vs 2015)
The Belleview Connection Shopping Center!(
Arapahoe Center(! !( Riverside Downs Shopping Center Shopping Center
(! The Restaurants at $1,326,955 Broadway Square Riverbend Shopping Center Shopping Center (! $4,868,971
$1,333,327 $1,922,055 (! (! (! n(!r w te la n a d e z za Columbine Valley o C la a (! o g P l Littleton Square n P Shopping Center W pi n n Shopping Center p to w o le la h itt d (! S L o o The Shoppes W $1,209,925 at Columbine Valley
Broadway Estates (! Shopping Center
Sunset Strip (! Shopping Center
Broadridge Plaz(!a Shopping Center
$555,764 (! $2,491,670 Littleton Village Aspen Grove (! $1,141,075 Lifestyle Shopping Center !( Meadows (! Dry Creek Station at Platte Canyon
Southbridge Plaza!( $3,343,150 !( Shopping Center The Market at SouthPa(!rk Westview Shopping Center Shopping Center ! South Broadway $620,886 ( Car Care Center !( !( Southpark Oakbrook Shopping Center Shopping Center ± Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ± Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
Improvement Value to Total Value The Lower the percent, the more valuable the land is than the improvement
<10% 10%-19% 20%-29% 30%-39% 40%-49% 50%-59% 60%-69% 70%-79% 80%-89% 90%-99%
By-Laws of the Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee
Purpose: The Next Generation Advisory Committee is commissioned by City Council to provide community input and recommendations to the Mayor, City Council, and City Staff as to matters impacting next generation (ages16-36) of Littleton's citizens, visitors, businesses, leaders, and families and to encourage thoughtful consideration of policy making, city planning, and community building by the City of Littleton.
The Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee agrees to the following By-Laws. These By- Laws supersede and replace any and all prior By-Laws of the Committee.
1. Definitions:
○ Meetings: has the meaning described in Section 4.4 and Section 6. ○ Committee: Committee refers to the Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee, which shall have a perpetual existence. ○ Constituency: all 16-36year olds who live, work, or attend school in Littleton. ○ Goals: Goals are defined in Section 2.2. ○ Members: Members are defined in Section 3.1. ○ Littleton Public Schools: aka Arapahoe County School District No. 6 ○ Officers: Officers are defined in Section 4.3
2. Mission and Goals:
2.1 Mission: To support the City Council’s vision statement with thoughtful, considerate and insightful recommendations, suggestions and feedback, on matters of City policy that directly impact the attraction and retention of young residents and employees. 2.2 Goals: To provide insight from the 16-36 year old demographics’ perspective on Council policy initiatives and goals. This Advisory Committee shall explore topics that are important to the young professionals, including, but not limited to, education, employment and economic opportunity, access to local government services, housing, the environment, transportation, city planning, codes, zoning, and overall increased civic engagement.
3. Membership:
3.1 Members. There shall be one class of members who will be comprised of individuals between the ages of approximately 16-36 years old who live or work in Littleton, including a) not more than three members enrolled at Heritage, Littleton or Options High Schools (students living within the City limits but attending other high schools may also be members), b) one member enrolled at Arapahoe Community College (ACC), and c) at least three but no more than seven at-large members not enrolled at LPS or ACC who live or work in Littleton.
3.2 Selection of Members. Any openings on the Committee shall be filled through
By-Laws of the Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee
appointment by the City Council based on recommendations from Littleton Public Schools, ACC, or the committee.
3.3 Expectations of Members. Members are expected, amongst other things, to: (i) attend at least 75% of the Committee meetings throughout the year, (ii) be an active and accountable participant. Members should also stay current with City policy initiatives, as well as attend/watch City Council meetings.
4. Committee:
4.1 General Purpose. The Committee shall serve as a meaningful voice to ensure that the Constituency is engaging with the City of Littleton.
4.2 Number, Tenure, and Qualifications. The number of Members shall be no fewer than seven (7) and no more than fifteen (15) as determined by City Council. There shall be one-year and two-year terms. Members representing LPS and ACC shall serve a term of one year and generally may not serve more than two consecutive one-year terms. At-large members shall serve a term of two years. At-large terms shall be staggered so as to no more than half of the terms end in a single year. At-large members generally may not serve more than three consecutive two-year terms. A majority of the Members must be City of Littleton residents. All Members must live or work in Littleton and be between 16 and 36 years of age.
4.3 Officers. Any and all Members may nominate Members to the serve as Officers. At the first meeting, and annually thereafter, the Committee shall elect members for a one-year term as follows: (i) Chair of the Committee, (ii) Vice-Chair of the Committee, (iii) Secretary, and (iv) any other officers the Committee determines are necessary. Each officer of the Committee shall hold office until the next annual election meeting and until his or her successor has been elected. The Chair may not serve more than two consecutive terms. However, for good cause, as determined by the Committee and approved by the Committee, this term limitation may be waived for a Chair whose contribution or participation will be difficult or impossible to replace. Any officer elected or appointed by the Committee may be removed by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of all Members, whenever in their judgment the best interests of the Committee would be served thereby.
4.3 (a) Chair. The Chair shall be the primary executive officer of the Committee and responsible for opening the meeting, facilitating the meeting, and ensuring each member has the opportunity to speak, and closing the meeting, as well as being the primary contact for the Council liaison and City of Littleton.
4.3 (b) Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair shall be the secondary executive officer of the Committee and, in the Chair’s absence, shall in general supervise all of the business and affairs of the Committee. In general, the Vice-Chair shall perform all duties incidental to the office of Vice-Chair and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Chair or the Committee from time to time.
By-Laws of the Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee
4.3 (c) Secretary. The Secretary shall (i) keep the minutes of the meetings of the Committee and submit said minutes to the City Clerk; (ii) maintain contact information of each Member, including mailing address and email address, and (iii) in general perform all duties incidental to the office of Secretary and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned by the Chair or by the Committee, including for collecting and organizing all nominations for Officer positions.
4.4 Regular Meetings. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly and shall maintain minutes of its meetings to be submitted to the City Clerk.
4.5 Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Committee by resignation, removal, or otherwise, and any vacancies to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of Members may be filled via appointment by City Council. Any Member filling a vacancy shall complete the term of the departing Member whose vacancy is being filled.
4.6 Compensation. Members as such shall not receive any compensation for their services on the Committee.
5. Advisors: 5.1 City Council. A member of the City Council shall serve as a liaison to the Committee in an advisory function.
5.2 City Staff. A staff member of the City of Littleton, as appointed by the City Manager, may serve as a the staff representative to the Committee to assist as necessary to carry out its duties and functions.
6. Expectations for Meetings:
6.1 Order of Business. At the meeting of the Committee the following shall be the order of business:
a. Roll Call: The Committee Secretary shall keep record of the attendance at each meeting and insure a quorum is in attendance.
b. Agenda: Prior to the the meeting, the Committee Chair, with the assistance of participants, will develop the agenda.
c. City Council Liaison Activity Report: The Council liaison may or may not bring questions or policy initiatives to the meeting for input from the constituency. If items are brought, the Council liaison will summarize the issue and the Chair will facilitate a discussion on the topic.
7. Amendments to Bylaws:
7.1 Amendment. These Bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new By-
By-Laws of the Littleton Next Generation Advisory Committee
Laws may be adopted by the City Council.
8. Statement of Non-Discrimination:
8.1 Notwithstanding any provision of these Bylaws, the Committee shall not discriminate against any director, officer, employee, applicant, or participant on the basis of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.
9. Committee Tenure:
9.1 Sunset. The Committee and these by-laws shall be in effect for two years, at which time, City Council will review the Committee and determine whether or not to continue, modify, or dissolve.
Adopted this ____ day of ______, 2020.
By:
______Jerry Valdes MAYOR
PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Adopted 02/02/2016 Amended 02/07/2017 Amended 05/15/2018 I. Purpose and Intent The Charter of the City of Littleton provides the founding document for all issues concerning protocols and standards of conduct as a primary reference, and the City of Littleton is committed to maintaining high ethical standards. The city operates in a representative democracy to serve the citizens of Littleton and ensure the community’s needs are met. Public servants have a special responsibility to carry out their duties with integrity. In order to preserve the confidence and trust of the public, the Protocol and Standards of Conduct provides uniform rules to guide the conduct of the city’s council and board and commission members, hereinafter referred to as boards.
Non-substantive changes to this document may be made and then distributed to council.
II. Meeting Protocols
A. Public input and observation are an important part of the democratic process. Council/ boards should make the public feel welcome and should refrain from showing any sign of partiality, prejudice or disrespect toward an individual participating in or attending a public forum. Members of city council/boards should be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony. City council will accept any written comments if they include the name and address of the sender. Comments to be included in the city council's packets will be sent to the city clerk no later than 3 p.m. on the Thursday before the Tuesday meeting. If there are issues that need to be addressed after packets are provided, any correspondence received by the city clerk by 5 p.m. on the Monday before a Tuesday public hearing will be disseminated to city council via email and will be collated; any documents received after 5 p.m., until noon Tuesday will also be sent via email. Any documents received on the day of the Tuesday will be copied and provided to city council at the Tuesday night meeting. .
B. The Mayor or Chair serves as the presiding officer over the meeting. In the event of the absence or unavailability of the Mayor or Chair, the Mayor protem or vice chair serves as the presiding officer Council expects civility among and between council, boards, and members of the public while in meetings. Any person who makes offensive, insulting, threatening, insolent, slanderous or obscene remarks or 1 becomes disruptive, boisterous or who makes threats against any person or against public order and security while in the council chamber shall be removed at the direction of the presiding officer from the meeting, unless permission to remain is granted by the majority vote of the council members present.
C. Council/boards should show respect for each other at all times. Disagreement and debate are constructive and expected. An effective council/board is composed of members who are able to agree to disagree without personalizing issues.
D. Members of the council/boards and the public are expected to refrain from sidebar conversations to the greatest extent possible so as not to detract from the speaker who has the floor.
E. Because scheduled meetings are the intended forum for public debate and dialog, council expects all council/board members to keep an open mind without prejudgment, to work collaboratively to identify promising options, to openly discuss and evaluate options, and to listen to the concerns of other council/boards prior to making a decision. Additionally, it should be understood that acknowledgement of individual opinions and ideas, especially those that differ from one’s own, is what allows the best discussion and decision for the community.
F. Council/boards are expected to attend meetings having reviewed all the materials and to be prepared to ask questions, make comments, and discuss all issues.
G. To attain efficiency, council/boards should simply state, “I agree” rather than restating a point.
H. Council/boards should ask the mayor/chair to intervene if discussion becomes repetitive.
I. Council/boards should consider the best interests of the city and the ramifications to all the citizens and businesses while considering issues.
J. Council/boards should refrain from undermining the council/board as a whole or undermining an individual member. Members should feel comfortable communicating the reasoning for their voting decision. However, after the decision has been made, the member should support the body and move forward.
K. It is improper during roll call for any council/board members to state or attempt to state the vote or sentiments of any absent council/board member.
L. Any council/board member who is unable to attend a scheduled meeting shall notify the mayor/chair or city manager at least 24 hours in advance of said meeting, if possible.
M. Council/boards agree to bring non-substantive changes to items on the agenda to staff outside of a public meeting and retain substantive items for public discussion with council/board. 2
N. The city council is responsible for making policy. The city staff is responsible for implementing policy. Council members and staff should understand the difference between creating policy and implementing policy and be respectful and supportive of each role. In the development of policy recommendations to the city council, alternatives should be evaluated and addressed by staff.
O. The city council desires to have all city council, planning board, historic preservation board, board of adjustment, board of appeals, and licensing authority regular, special, and study session meetings televised and recorded. When creating any working groups or committees, the city council shall determine whether the purpose of the committee warrants its meetings being recorded and televised.
III. Confidential Information
Council members in their role will be provided information that is confidential. This may include information confidential as a matter of law or privileged information provided by the city attorney. Disclosure of the information to outside parties is a violation of the confidential attorney-client or legal privilege The privilege is owned by the city council as a whole. Only the city council acting at an open meeting can waive this privilege. It is a breach of these protocols and a violation of their duty for any individual council member to provide confidential information to an outside third party. This protocol shall not be construed as prohibiting the city manager and city attorney from distributing confidential information to other city management staff to the extent reasonably necessary to implement council direction or fulfill their responsibilities to the organization. Any other person receiving such information is also subject to the privilege and may not waive the privilege
IV. Making Public Statements
A. When giving a written or oral personal public opinion concerning issues facing or involving the city, all council, board or commission members shall refrain from making statements on behalf of the city or the body upon which he or she serves, unless such person has explicitly been authorized by the respective body. When acting as, or perceived as acting as, a representative of the official body he or she represents, an individual must always uphold the approved council, board or commission point of view.
B. It is recognized that social media is a communication tool used by council members to communicate their views to the public. It is appropriate for council members to use social media to explain their position, in the same manner that any other form of media would be used. However, council members should refrain from using social media to undermine the body by criticizing other council members and or staff for their positions or votes on matters before the council. Council members represent the city and their social media pages in their capacity as a council member reflect upon the city.
C. Criticism of staff shall be done through the City Manager, not in the public or social media. 3
D. Any comments made by a council/board member at a meeting of another board should be assumed to be the council/board member’s personal views or opinions and not the official position of the council/board unless stated otherwise.
E. Council reports are intended to communicate to other council members about meetings and information that are of value and beneficial to the body as a whole.
V. Council/Boards and City Employee Communications
A. To foster open communication and the public policy-decision making process, it is the desire of council to ensure an evenness of communication between council/boards and staff as well as between council/board members. This means all council/board members expect to receive information that is relevant to the council/board’s policymaking authority and deliberations as well as to the education and knowledge of individual members.
B. Council through the City Manager designates staff to serve as support for boards and commissions. It is expected that board and commission member shall work with the designated staff in fulfilling the mission of the board or commission.
C. All city council and board and commission members shall use city email for email communication on any city issues.
D. Council/boards should seek direction from the city manager if there is any doubt regarding the appropriate level of contact with city employees.
E. Council/boards should make reasonable attempts to notify the appropriate city staff members in advance of public meetings about key questions and discussion points that they would like addressed during the public meeting.
F. For routine questions or requests (e.g., code complaints, questions regarding agenda items), council/boards should contact the city manager’s office or the appropriate city department director with information about the request. These requests can be made at any time rather than waiting for a formal referral at a council/board meeting. It is the responsibility of staff to ensure an evenness of information when questions are asked of staff that relate to an issue that might come before the council/board and disseminate information accordingly. Legal questions should be initiated through the deputy city attorney whenever possible and appropriate.
G. Requests for additional information or reports that staff determines would take a significant amount of staff time/resources shall be referred to the city manager for review and possible consideration by the council/boards as a whole and agreed upon as something that merits an investment of city resources.
H. Critical comments about specific city employees’ performance should only be made to 4 the city council appointees that include the city manager, the city attorney and the municipal judge through correspondence or conversation outside the public setting.
I. All boards shall be given sufficient and reasonable advance notice of a council meeting for which the board either will be the subject of an agenda item or is being requested to participate in the council meeting agenda, allowing for scheduling and preparation.
VI. Involvement in Administrative Functions
A. Members of council/boards shall refrain from influencing the recommendations made by staff or the information provided by staff to the council/board as a whole.
B. Members of council/boards should have the same information for decision-making purposes. The council/boards may expect staff to provide each member with identical information on items scheduled for deliberation, even when requested by only one member.
VII. Council Conduct with Boards and Commissions
A. The city council has established several boards and commissions as a means of gathering more community input. Citizens who serve on most boards or commissions are advisors to the city council. They are a valuable resource to the city’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect. Council members should refrain from having any ex parte communications with boards concerning issues and/or applications before any quasi-judicial body.
B. Since the attendance of three or more council members constitutes a legal council meeting, council members should advise the city clerk at least 24 hours in advance of their planned attendance or at another function where discussion of city business is anticipated so that appropriate and timely public notification can be prepared and posted.
VIII. Council Meetings with Boards and Commissions
A. To elevate the communication between individual boards and council and to even the flow of information, the council may meet with the council-appointed boards at a study session at least yearly, or on an as-needed basis as requested by the board/commission or the city council.
B. To facilitate positive relations between the boards and the council, the mayor may appoint a council liaison to the fine arts board, library board, and museum board. The council may, at its sole discretion, choose to appoint liaisons to other boards and commissions as it deems appropriate. The role of the liaison shall be to convey current and relevant information on council activities to the individual board or commission.
5
IX. Council/Board and Commission Conduct With the Public
A. Council/boards should be cordial, welcoming, and respectful to the public in all situations.
B. Council/boards should be welcoming and respectful to speakers without exception.
C. If necessary, public comments received during a public meeting will be followed up by staff at a later time or as directed by the council/board. It is not anticipated nor expected for staff to respond during that meeting unless specifically requested by the council/board.
D. Questions from the council/board to speakers should seek to clarify or expand information. Members should avoid challenging or criticizing speakers. If a speaker is off the topic or exhibits behavior or language that is disruptive or disrespectful, the mayor or chair should interrupt, focus the speaker, and reestablish the order and decorum of the meeting.
X. Personal Expectations
A. Responsibility.
1. I understand that the community expects me to serve with dignity and respect and be an agent of the democratic process. 2. I avoid actions that might cause the public to question my independent judgment. 3. I do not use my office or the resources of the city for personal or political gain. 4. I am a prudent steward of public resources and actively consider the impact of my decisions on the financial and social stability of the city and its citizens.
B. Fairness.
1. I promote consistency, equity and non-discrimination in public agency decision- making. 2. I make decisions based on the merits of an issue, including research and facts. 3. I encourage diverse public engagement in decision-making processes and support the right of the public to have access to public information concerning the conduct of the city’s business.
C. Respect.
1. I treat my fellow city officials, staff, commission members and the public with patience, courtesy, civility, and respect, even when we disagree on what is best for the community and its citizens.
D. Integrity.
1. I am honest with all elected officials, staff, commission members, boards, and the 6 public. 2. I am prepared to make decisions for the best interest of the public whether those decisions are popular or not. 3. I take responsibility for my actions even when it is uncomfortable to do so.
7 Next Generation Advisory Committee Agreements Together • Meeting Schedule o Monthly o First Thursday of each month unless otherwise posted o 6:30 – 8:30 PM. Continuation of meeting approved by vote after time expires.
• Presence at city council meetings o One NGAC member present at every city council meeting. o NGAC in attendance will give a quick recap of the council meeting at the beginning of the NGAC meeting
• Community Report o Members will provide information about the community in a brief report to the committee at each meeting. o Topics can include community engagement, City involvement, etc.
• Phone usage o Tolerated during meetings o Please mute phone prior to the commencement of the meeting.
• Communication o Approved meeting minutes will be posted at www.Littletogov.org the week following the meeting. o Agenda will be submitted to city staff later than one week prior to the scheduled meeting time. o Meeting minutes will be submitted to City staff no later than one week after scheduled meeting time. o Absence from meetings to be communicated to Secretary. o Members are not permitted to speak to the press on behalf of the City of Littleton without prior consent from the Director of Communications, Kelli Narde.
• Attire o Business casual
116 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: TRANSIT
Chapter 7. Mobility Trends
117 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: MOBILITY TRENDS
INTRODUCTION
Beyond mode-specific policies, capital investments, Transparency: the public and stakeholders have a programs, and strategies, Littleton is committed to strong desire to be involved in planning and for the providing excellent service to the traveling public in City to be transparent in allocation of resources. general. The ability to respond to citizens’ mobility needs Technology: transportation technologies are is likely to be affected by a variety of forces as this changing and advancing rapidly. There is a desire Transportation Master Plan evolves. Achieving the vision to be prepared for the impacts these technologies for the future, set forth in the Envision Littleton process, will have on our ability to move around the City and will require a holistic view of mobility. Major technological the region. advancements are occurring in the transportation industry that could change everything from how cars Cost-effectiveness: there is an acknowledgment function to how people plan each day’s travel. As these that resources are limited, and that transportation technologies evolve, the City must be prepared to infrastructure costs have increased significantly in remain flexible in order to ensure that these technologies the past several decades. Therefore, it will be serve overarching mobility and safety goals. Finally, the important to innovate and use every dollar City must remain transparent in its efforts to plan and effectively. program improvements in order to build toward long- term goals and maintain the engagement of the TRANSPARENCY community. These and other objectives will help the City stay true to the Mission laid out in this plan. The City of Littleton is home to a community that takes pride in its civic traditions and identity. As the City works LEGACY OF PAST to realize the future described by Envision Littleton and maintain its shared values, maintaining an open, PLANNING inclusive process will be critical. The City will offer clear updates on its progress toward community goals, and As described in the introduction to this plan, the City has welcome ongoing discussion with the public. a long history of planning that has resulted in many great strides forward for the mobility framework of the City. Building upon that legacy, the City will incorporate ideas TECHNOLOGY and standards that have been developed but also create new, modern policies and projects for today’s and The City of Littleton is well-positioned to be a major tomorrow’s mobility needs. regional force in helping to determine the way technology impacts the region’s mobility systems.
KEY ISSUES AND The Mobility Choice Initiative, a partnership of the Denver Metro Chamber, DRCOG, RTD, and CDOT CONSIDERATIONS recently developed a Mobility Choice Blueprint (MCB). Input and discussions for this TMP, through varied The MCB is an effort to document how transportation Envision Littleton community engagement, workshops technology is impacting our daily lives and prepare for with City Council and Planning Commission, and that change. The MCB states, “The disruptive forces of interaction with other City boards/commissions, City new transportation technologies, demographic changes, departments, and partner agencies and organizations, and shifting societal values are compelling us to change 13 yielded the following list of key items that relate to our vision of the Denver region’s mobility future.” general mobility trends: The MCB categorized mobility technology into five types of established and emerging systems:
13 https://www.mobilitychoiceblueprintstudy.com/
118 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: MOBILITY TRENDS
Shared Mobility is defined as “a wide range of adaptive signal control, transit signal priority, and transportation options involving fleet ownership or the sensors and communications infrastructure to operation of various modes of transportation.” allow remote management of the systems. These include: Travel Information and Payment refers to o Micromobility—personal shared technology that could allow for easy, quick trip transportation devices like bikes, mopeds, planning and payment, regardless of mode. Mobile and electric scooters. devices can unlock the universe of travel options for users in the palm of their hand. o Carsharing—rental cars that are available for use by the hour or mile. These can be Freight and Delivery Logistics are changing located in one spot or able to be parked rapidly as more people use online services (e- anywhere within a service area. commerce) for everyday purchases. E-commerce companies will continue to push technology that o Ridehailing—Uber or Lyft or other services allows for faster delivery at lower cost, including the that provide on-demand point-to-point rides incorporation of Connected, Automated, and in privately owned autos. Electric delivery vehicles. o Microtransit—“privately owned and operated The impact of these technologies on existing travel shared transportation system that can offer behaviors remains to be seen. However, early analysis fixed routes and schedules, as well as is beginning to reveal some trends. While fully flexible routes and on-demand scheduling.” autonomous vehicles remain in the early pilot stages, o Public Transit—traditional public some analysis suggests self-driving cars could be transportation via bus and rail that usually common within the next several decades (ranging from operates on a fixed route and schedule. 24% to 87% adoption rate by 2045)14. The impact of this Vehicle Technology refers to the emergence of change on issues like traffic congestion remains to be 15 Connected, Automated, and Electric Vehicles. seen, although some studies suggest technology could induce additional demand for car travel and ultimately o Connected Vehicles incorporate technology exacerbate traffic issues. that allows the on-board computers to communicate with other vehicles and with Some emerging technologies are already changing sensors and other infrastructure on the travel behavior in places like Littleton. A report published ground. by the University of Kentucky linked the emergence of transportation network companies (TNC) such as Uber o Automated Vehicles incorporate technology and Lyft with a decrease in transit ridership—however, that assist with operation of the vehicle. other services based on new technology encouraged They perform some of the tasks to drive the more people to ride buses and trains16. vehicle, and driverless vehicles require no human operator. COST EFFECTIVENESS o Electric Vehicles are powered by electric motors using energy from batteries that are A critical aspect of the City’s renewed focus on strategic charged at home or at charging stations. planning is a commitment to data-driven decision- Transportation Systems Optimization refers to making and priority-based budgeting. In order to the systems that are emerging to better manage maximize taxpayer dollars and leverage funding from and optimize the transportation networks, using state, federal, and private sector sources, Littleton will real-time data. Emerging technologies include
14 https://www-sciencedirect- 16 http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/01/19- com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0965856415300628 04931-Transit-Trends.pdf 15 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261919305823 ?via%3Dihub
119 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: MOBILITY TRENDS work to solve short-term problems in ways that contribute to long-term goals. POLICIES
The sample toolkits in each chapter of this plan outline In making decisions that involve public resource cost-effective strategies for addressing mobility allocation, regulatory matters, and physical challenges. These, combined with responsible improvements, among others, Littleton will: stewardship of City resources, will allow the City to use 1. Coordinate Traffic Management Center technology the funds available in the most efficient manner possible. and operations with adjacent municipalities and FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION CDOT. 2. Partner with neighboring municipalities and the The framework for action below is organized in four tiers: private sector as needed to manage the introduction (1) Goals, (2) Policies, (3) Objectives, and (4) of new technologies to Littleton. Actions. All are intended to mesh with and support the 3. Transition government fleets to alternative fuel other aspects of this Transportation Master Plan. vehicles where feasible. GOALS 4. Be transparent about prioritization and implementation of capital improvements. Consistent with the Anchored, Connected, Active, and 5. Continuously evaluate new technologies and trends. Engaged Guiding Principles, responsiveness to trends is 6. Prioritize key stops and stations as mobility hubs to also important to the City’s transportation goals. promote mode choice and tech integration. Connected: Ability to adapt and provide services as conditions change and at reasonable cost will be OBJECTIVES increasingly important. In order to achieve the overall Transportation Master Healthy: Healthy choices will be dependent on the Plan goals outlined above, multiple objectives have been City’s ability to best utilize technology to encourage developed. The objectives in Table 22 are specific to an active lifestyle. responding to mobility trends in the City of Littleton. Inclusive: Technology and cost-effective improvements can be used to provide services to under-served populations with the right planning. Prosperous: Being transparent and responsive, while providing excellent overall mobility allows the City to help its citizens be prosperous. Sustainable: Constantly refining and adjusting our outlook will help us respond to environmental and fiscal pressures.
120 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: MOBILITY TRENDS
Table 22. Objectives—General Mobility
Related Goals
No. Topic Objective
Connected Healthy Inclusive Prosperous Sustainable 1 Quality of Life Achieve high resident satisfaction rates with transportation services
2 Quality of Life Provide spaces that people can enjoy within the public right-of-way
3 Quality of Life Provide people with a sense of personal safety on all transportation modes
4 Quality of Life Provide transportation infrastructure that meets local business needs
5 Community Provide transportation facilities that are well integrated with land use and character
9 Community Establish a transportation planning and implementation process that is flexible and adaptable
10 Community Provide for a community-driven decision-making process for transportation investments
11 Community Provide a transportation system the City can afford to maintain
12 Mobility Provide a reliable transportation system
14 Mobility Provide high-quality transportation systems people can afford to use
15 Mobility Provide travelers with relevant, timely information -- including innovative methods
21 Auto Provide a well-connected automotive network
22 Auto Provide for safe automobile travel
24 Auto Provide an efficient automotive network
29 Freight Provide a reliable freight network
30 Freight Provide a well-connected freight network
31 Freight Provide a safe freight network
121 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: MOBILITY TRENDS
ACTIONS Regulations and Standards 1. Participate in the development of a regional compact The actions below convey tangible steps that will lead to defining common standards for micromobility achievement of the Goals in line with the stated Policies. services.
Capital Investments Partnerships and Coordination No capital investments have been identified as part of 1. Explore the feasibility of a Traffic Management this plan for this category. Center, ideally partnering with adjacent municipalities and other agencies. Programs and Initiatives More Targeted Planning/Study 1. Consider testing or piloting integrated corridor management in partnership with neighboring None at this time. municipalities.
2. Develop incentives and/or improve ridehailing and A strategic Action is aimed at seizing a ridesharing operations to serve our citizens needs special opportunity or addressing a and improve access to services. particular challenge one faces, given a. Implement curbside management limited resources - financial and standards and smart parking practices. otherwise—and recognizing that a broader agenda of new or ongoing b. Pilot neighborhood-scale mobility hubs that simplify multimodal trips and create activities will also be pursued in the safe, inviting spaces for all residents. meantime.
3. Pilot smart parking technologies (including real-time information and variable payment) in busy locations such as downtown and in the vicinity of light rail stations.
4. Develop and use a traffic operations and safety checklist of operational and safety improvements that can be implemented as part of other infrastructure investments.
84 MILLION TRIPS IN 2018
Shared Micromobility in the U.S.: 2018 In 2018, people took 84 million trips on Shared Micromobility in the United States, more than double the number of trips taken in 2017.
What is Shared Micromobility?
Shared Micromoblity encompasses all shared-use fleets of small, fully or partially human-powered vehicles such as bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters.
Station-based bike share (including e-bikes)
Dockless bike share (including e-bikes)
Scooter share
2
Source: NACTO Shared Micromobility Across the U.S. (as of 12/31/18)
Sour ce: N ACTO
Station-based bike share only (>150 bikes)
Both station-based bike share & scooter share
Scooter share only (>150 scooters)
Dockless bike share only
3 In 2018, people took 36.5 million trips on station- based bike share systems Breakdown of 2018 Trips and 38.5 million trips on Scooter trips: shared e-scooters. 38.5 M
Dockless bike Dockless pedal (non-electric) bikes, share trips: which quickly proliferated across the U.S. 9 M in 2017, have largely disappeared from North American cities, with just 3 million E-bike trips trips in a handful of cities in 2018.
84 million trips (station-based & dockless): E-bikes emerged as a popular option, 6.5 M accounting for 6.5 million trips in 2018 (6 million in dockless systems and 500,000 Station-based in station-based systems). bike share trips: 36.5 M Since 2010, people have taken 207 million trips on shared bikes and Source: NACTO e-scooters.
84 Million Trips on Shared Micromobility in 2018
90 Scooter share 84 M Dockless bike share 80 Station-based bike share 70
60
50
35 M 40 28 M
30 22 M
Total Trips Taken in Millions Taken Trips Total 18 M 20 13 M
4.5 M 10 2.4 M 321 K
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: NACTO
4 What we saw in 2018
Goodbye dockless pedal bikes; hello e-scooters.
In 2018, e-scooters overtook bikes (including Bird) emerged. Early as the preferred vehicle for dockless e-scooter adopter cities include vendors. As of the end of 2018, over Santa Monica and Austin, and 85,000 e-scooters were available for e-scooter companies expanded to public use in about 100 U.S. cities. In many more cities from there, with contrast, dockless bikes, which once about 26 formal e-scooter share numbered in the tens of thousands, pilots across the U.S. launching have largely disappeared from city between July and September. streets, with the notable exception of dockless bikes still in use in Seattle. Venture capital-backed ride-hail companies began investing large Over the course of 2018, most sums in shared micromobility dockless bike share companies companies, with Uber acquiring Jump (including Lime and Spin) retooled Bikes and Lyft acquiring Motivate, the their fleets to focus on e-scooters, operator of the five largest docked and new e-scooter-only companies bike share systems in the U.S.
5 System Sizes (as of 12/31/18)
Sour ce: N ACTO
Station-Based Bike Share
< 1,000 bikes
< 2,000 bikes
< 7,000 bikes
10,000+ bikes
So urce : NA Scooter Share CTO
< 2,000 scooters
< 5,000 scooters
10,000+ scooters
6 More than twice as many trips—84 million— were taken on shared micromobility in the U.S. as compared to the year before.
36.5 million trips were taken on In the Bay Area, Ford GoBike expanded station-based bike share, an its fleet 10-fold, and increased increase of 9% from 2017. While 9 ridership by 260%. Similarly, in million trips were taken on dockless Honolulu, Biki increased its fleet by bike share, this number is expected 30%, and trips increased by 200%. In to decrease in 2019 due to the Metro Boston, Bluebikes expanded its disappearance of most dockless fleet by 40%, and ridership increased shared bikes across the U.S. 38.5 by 30%. Boston also increased its million trips were taken on scooters coverage area: as of the end of 2018, across the U.S., reflecting the wide 85% of Boston residents live within proliferation of vehicles in many a 5-7 minute walk from a Bluebikes cities. station, up from 67% in 2017.
In station-based bike share systems, The six cities with the highest a number of system expansions ridership account for 84% of all resulted in increased ridership. station-based bike share trips in the Three of the top five bike share cities U.S., similar to prior years. E-scooter (Washington DC, Metro Boston, and ridership similarly is concentrated the Bay Area, CA) increased the in a small number of cities: 40% of number of stations in their system. In all e-scooter trips took place in the total, there are now 57,000 station- Los Angeles, San Diego, and Austin based bike share bikes in the U.S., up regions. 9% from 2017.
Station-Based Bike Share Ridership 40 All other systems 35 Ford GoBike (Bay Area)
30 Biki (Honolulu) Divvy (Chicago) 25
20
15 Citi Bike NYC Total Trips Taken in Millions Taken Trips Total 10 Bluebikes (Greater Boston) 5 Capital Bike Share (Washington DC) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Source: NACTO
7 Trips by Hour
15% rush hour rush hour Station-based bike share (annual members) Station-based bike share 10% (casual riders) Scooter share
5%
0% 12 12345678 910 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 am pm Source: NACTO
Why people are riding depends on what they’re riding.
NACTO’s analysis of ridership data shows Data from Washington, DC and Portland, a marked difference between the riding OR, suggests that e-scooter share use more patterns of annual or monthly pass station- closely mirrors that of social, shopping and based bike share riders and day-pass/ other recreational bike share use. Average single-trip or casual bike share riders. In peak usage for e-scooters begins around general, annual/monthly pass holders are 11AM – 12PM and continues throughout the more likely to ride during traditional rush- afternoon into early evening. E-scooters are hours, suggesting that they are using the used throughout the week but use is highest system for commute trips. In contrast, day/ on weekends. In contrast, aggregated data single trip riders are more likely to ride in from station-based systems shows ridership the middle of the day and on weekends, peaking at rush hours and during the week. and for longer periods of time, suggesting social, shopping and other recreational use.
Scooters Trips by Day Station-based 20% weekend bike share (annual members)
15%
10%
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Source: NACTO 8 Survey data from a number of cities also shows a difference in why people choose to ride. People using station-based bike share are more likely than people using e-scooter share to report that they ride to get to/from work and to say that they use bike share to connect to transit.
Why People Ride
Station-based To / From bike share Work Scooters
Connection to Transit
Social
Recreation / Exercise
0% 25% 50% 75%
* See methodology for cities used for analysis Source: NACTO
9 E-bikes are popular where they are in use.
Across the country, the vehicles that With e-bikes’ popularity apparent, have the highest use-frequency bike share companies are now rapidly (measured by rides/vehicle/day) are adding e-bikes to their fleets. In San e-bikes. Cities that added e-bikes Francisco, e-bikes were introduced in to their station-based fleets report May and comprised a third of the fleet that, on average, e-bikes are used by the end of the year. Looking forward, twice as frequently as pedal bikes. Minneapolis plans to transition its For example, in New York City, e-bikes entire docked fleet from pedal to are used up to 15 times a day during electric vehicles, while New York City is high ridership months (compared to working towards a fleet that is a third around 5 times a day for pedal bikes). electric.
Pedal Bike E-Bike
5 rides per day 15 rides per day higher ridership months higher ridership months
10 The average cost The Average Trip per trip varies widely depending on the system type and amount of use per Scooter Station-Based BikeStation-Based Share BikeDockless Share typical rider. Share Annual Member* Casual User* E-Bikes
On average, annual members in $3.50 $1.25 $2.75 $2.50 station-based bike share programs
paid $1.25 per ride, compared to Price $2.75 per ride for casual users, and $3.50 per e-scooter share ride. 3.0 Cities have required bike share and scooter companies to offer 2.5 discounts for low-income residents as a condition for operating in 2.0 the public right-of-way. By the end of 2018, 30% of bike and
Miles 1.5 e-scooter share systems provided membership discounts for people 1.0 with low incomes. In station-based systems, the majority of these 0.5 programs offer unlimited trips for $5/month. In addition, 17% of station-based systems provided cash access options. For scooters, the available discounts vary by 25 company and by market within the same company, and are unevenly 20 advertised.
15 Minutes 10
5
*Based on data from Capital Bike Share, Bluebikes, Citi Bike, Divvy, and Ford GoBike
Source: NACTO
11 Bike share systems are pioneering new access options that can reduce transportation costs and make riding more convenient.
In 2018, over half of Ford GoBike users in Oakland took advantage of an option to link their transit card to bike share, making payment more seamless across systems. In Pittsburgh, HealthyRide members receive a free 15 minute transfer between bike share and the bus.
12 The largest bike share systems are more heavily utilized, on a per-bike basis, than smaller systems.
Rides per vehicle per day is an Smaller station-based bike share intensity metric used to show systems without a dense network of frequency of use for bike share stations or a large number of bikes systems. For comparison, we’ve had low vehicle utilization rates, as expanded the use of this metric for the factors that make a bike share e-scooter share. system successful—a high number of bikes conveniently placed over a large Data from over 30 different cities area—were absent. The largest docked shows that ridership varies greatly bike share systems were more heavily by city and by the number of vehicles utilized, with the largest (New York’s available. Rides per bike per day Citi Bike) achieving an average of over and rides per e-scooter per day 4 rides per bike per day across 12,000 (abbreviated to rides/vehicle/day or bikes, including winter months. r/v/d) vary from less than 1 r/v/d to a little over 4 r/v/d. Ridership is impacted While data is limited and inconclusive, by factors such as availability of low- e-scooters do not yet appear to benefit stress bike lanes, station density, how from a network effect, and the largest well bike/scooter share is integrated fleets of e-scooter on city streets into the wider transportation network, had lower ridership per vehicle than and the extent of rider outreach and smaller fleets, an inverse of the trend education undertaken by the vendors. for docked bike share systems.
The Average Rides per Vehicle per Day by Fleet Size Trip Each data point represents a city.
5 bike share system scooter share
4
3
2 Rides per Vehicle per Day Vehicle Rides per
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Vehicle Fleet Size Source: NACTO 13 Looking Forward
A rapidly changing State-level legislation market raises might hinder cities questions about from managing their system dependability. own streets.
In 2018, the volatile nature of the In many states, e-scooters are not dockless landscape left some defined in motor vehicle codes, cities in a vulnerable position. For creating a legal gray area for their example, Camden, NJ, aiming to operation. In response, e-scooter expand transportation options for companies are pushing legislation in low-income residents, welcomed many states to legalize e-scooter use. Ofo, a dockless bike share company, However, some state bills go beyond onto its streets in early 2018. defining and legalizing e-scooters. As However, two months into their six- currently drafted, these bills would month pilot, Ofo abruptly left the preempt city authority to regulate city, leaving Camden without a bike shared micromobility services. With share program and leaving behind this, cities could lose the ability to a fleet of abandoned bikes, which manage the activity on their own had to be located, impounded, and streets, hindering efforts to ensure disposed of by the city. that systems are safe and provide the most mobility benefits to the communities in which they operate.
As of the beginning of 2019, there were over 44 e-scooter bills introduced in 26 states.
14 Methodology
NACTO counts all station-based systems For information about rider behavior, with over 150 bikes. For purposes of NACTO combined publicly available clarity and analysis, smart bike systems, trip data and survey data conducted where the electronic components are by cities. Data for the ‘why people ride’ incorporated into the bike itself, and use analysis was sourced from Denver, of a dock is often optional, are included Portland, and Baltimore for scooters, in station-based bike share counts and Washington DC, New York City, and throughout this report. Chicago for bike share. The social and recreation/exercise data points for bike For e-scooters, NACTO’s count includes share were available from Washington all systems of more than 150 vehicles DC only. To date, there has not been a operating in one of the top 100 cities comprehensive, multi-city survey or by population. NACTO does not include census of the demographics of shared systems that operate solely or mostly on micromobility users. closed campuses such as universities or corporate campuses. For information about trip use profile, NACTO combined data reported by cities For station-based bike share estimates, and operators directly to NACTO. NACTO used trip number datasets publicly reported by operators along with There is variance in how shared trip totals provided by cities. micromobility companies and regulators calculate rides per vehicle per day. For Data for dockless bikes and e-scooters the purposes of this analysis, NACTO was less consistent, and data quality used the trip number data sets reported and accuracy remains an ongoing issue by cities or companies, number of days with many companies. Cities have found in operation, and number of reported discrepancies between what is reported vehicles. by companies and what they find during spot checks. There is a growing For calculation of average trip conversation about data specifications comparisons, NACTO used trip distance and tools to audit and verify company- and time reported directly to NACTO reported data that should shed by cities. For dockless systems, NACTO additional light on ridership in 2019. calculated average costs based on the reported time/distance information and For dockless bike share and e-scooter publicly available pricing information. share trip estimates, NACTO combined Due to the monthly pricing structure of data provided to NACTO by dockless station-based membership, average cost bike and e-scooter companies with data was calculated using publicly available provided by cities and verifiable public pricing information and data on average reports. trips per month, provided to NACTO from the five largest bike share systems.
15 Photo: Aaron K. Yoshino / PacificBasin Communication
This report is made possible by ClimateWorks and by the Better Bike Share Partnership. The Better Bike Share Partnership is a collaboration funded by The JPB Foundation to build equitable and replicable bike share systems. The partners include The City of Philadelphia, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the PeopleForBikes Foundation
16 Dockless Vehicles DDOT requires operators to make dockless vehicles accessible to all Washingtonians
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) permitted seven dockless operators to operate approximately 5,000 dockless bikes and scooters across the District in 2019. These permitted companies are required to facilitate programs that reduce the barriers to accessing dockless vehicles, regardless of income. Each has a Low-Income Customer Plan to make the system accessible to residents, regardless of income. Residents interested in the program should sign up with the individual companies.
Program Details: • Free unlimited 30-minute trips • Participants should contact individual operators for information and to sign up • Program is available to those who meet the following criteria: o A single person making less than $24,980/year. o A family of four where the household income is less than $51,500. (adults 18 years old and over)
How to sign-up:
1. Scan or take a picture of any qualification that documents your participation in any state or federally-run assistance program. If you qualify and do not have documentation, contact the company directly.
2. Upload or email it to the individual company at the addresses below. Include your full name and phone number (the phone number will be associated with your account.)
Company Link or email to sign-up Bird [email protected] https://tinyurl.com/BoltLICP Bolt [email protected] Jump [email protected] https://tinyurl.com/LimeLICP Lime* [email protected] Lyft https://tinyurl.com/LyftLICP Skip https://tinyurl.com/SkipLICP Spin https://tinyurl.com/SpinLICP
*Lime also requires submission of an ID such as a driver’s license.
If you have any questions about the dockless vehicle program or want to share your experience in signing up, we’d love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected].
District Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20003
Dockless Sharing Vehicles Permit Application 2020 Permit
The following is the Permit Application for dockless vehicle companies applying for a public space permit to operate in the District of Columbia. Please answer all questions in full and provide any requested documentation as attachments. DDOT expects all applicants to read and demonstrate the ability to meet all dockless shared vehicle 2020 Terms & Conditions.
Introduction:
The District Department of Transportation encourages the safe and efficient movement of people through public space. Increasingly new forms of mobility are entering the public space. DDOT is tasked with the responsibility of regulating the public right-of-way and encouraging more efficient ways of traversing the city. The agency has actively managed the Dockless Vehicle Sharing Program since late 2017 and has created the overarching goals to guide the practice of shared dockless vehicle operations. These overarching goals are listed below.
Overarching Goals:
1. Sound Equipment Design: Allow only vehicles that are designed to be safely stored and function in public space. 2. Innovation: Successfully manage public space while encouraging permit holders to offer innovative solutions to problems, exceptional equipment, and smart education practices. 3. Safety: Support user safety through education, vehicle monitoring, and vehicle maintenance. 4. Accountability: Minimize adverse impact on residents and ensure transparency about operators’ strengths and weaknesses. 5. Equitable Access: Promote equity among vehicle users including geography and income 6. Sustainability: Strengthen sustainability initiatives. 7. Labor: Ensure that operators offer meaningful employment and enough labor to be accountable and safe, and provide equitable access. 8. Data: Ensure the provision of data sufficient to monitor the performance of individual operators and the program as a whole, and to plan for program improvements.
We will be looking for references to these eight values throughout the responses.
Dockless Vehicle 2020 Permit Application 2 2020 Permit Year updated November 6, 2019 Instructions:
When filling out the application please use the template form. The basic application will be limited to 30 pages, with supplementary information allowed. Pages 31 and beyond will not be scored. DDOT will respond to items included in the application. Please use demonstrations of experience, either in the District or a similarly sized city, to document successes and failures throughout your application. Failing to provide descriptive evidence of past performance will result in lower scores in that category. DDOT may incorporate changes in the Terms and Conditions in order to hold high-scoring applicants accountable for promises made in the application.
DDOT will score Sections 1-2 of the application. DDOT will also score an overall selection on historical behavior through the demonstration of experience. This section will be worth approximately 25% of the application.
DDOT and other stakeholders will evaluate Sections 3 through 5 of the application (Questions 7-19). This section will be worth approximately 75% of the application. Please place any pictures, specifications, etc. from these sections in the addendum. In addition, operators should enclose in [brackets] any proprietary information that would consist of trade secrets. Applications may be subject to The District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act, D.C. Code § 2-531-540 and bracketed information may be redacted if determined to be proprietary per D.C. Code § 2–534, Exemptions from disclosure.
Application must include the Dockless Terms and Conditions Questionnaire. Applicants must meet all Terms and Conditions applicable to the vehicle mode in the questionnaire. Failure to meet the Terms and Conditions will result in an application rejection.
Please submit the application by 9am on Thursday, November 21, 2019 through email submission to [email protected]. Please direct any questions regarding this application to [email protected].
Dockless Vehicle 2020 Permit Application 3 2020 Permit Year updated November 6, 2019 DOCKLESS BICYCLE AND SCOOTER APPLICATION Section 1: Company Information
Name of Applicant Company
Headquartered Address
Washington, DC Address
Website Address
Name of Local Representative
Contact Phone
Contact Email
Support phone number
Support contact information
Section 2: Fleet Information
Please provide information on the applicant's dockless vehicle fleet. If you are applying for both vehicle types, the applicant will need to submit two separate applications.
1. What vehicle type will the applicant operate? Please check one. a. Bicycles b. Motorized/Electric Bicycles c. Electric Scooters Please include in supplemental information and certifications that the applicant's vehicles meet either the standards outlined in 16 CFR Part 1512 and 18 DCMR 1204 for a bicycle or D.C. Law 16-224 for a personal mobility device.
2. Please include the dockless terms and conditions questionnaire. The questionnaire is available at the end of the application.
3. Please show a picture of your vehicle and itemize the fleet requirements as found in Article II, A. Please also include: • Details about the messaging on the vehicle (branding, safety messages, contact information, etc.)
Dockless Vehicle 2020 Permit Application 4 2020 Permit Year updated November 6, 2019 • The weight and dimensions of the vehicle • If the vehicle is over 50 pounds, what features exist to allow an able-bodied adult to safely move the vehicle • Information about the battery pack • The accuracy of the GPS • Any additional safety features
4. What plans do you have for vehicle improvements in the next six months?
5. Provide a narrative related to any equipment-based safety incidents, or equipment recalls your company has dealt with in the last 24 months. What measures has your company taken to improve equipment safety? What measures have been taken to fix recalls and equipment-based safety incidents, if any?
6. Please identify any product standards that your vehicle meets along with explanation of the standard. The current DC standard for scooters is UL2272.
Section 3: Operations
7. Please submit a detailed draft operational plan (Article II, A.22) describing how you will successfully manage a fleet of the size proposed in your application, including enforcing area restrictions and geofences in the District. a. In addition to the requirements for an operational plan described in the T&Cs, please describe your plan to meet the equity requirement allowing for equal access to your vehicles.
8. What is your current staff structure and duties for operations in the District, or in a comparably-sized city? Please clarify which positions are performed in-house and by contractors. How would you change this to accommodate the additional requirements for 2020?
9. Please describe your vehicle maintenance, cleaning, charging, and disposal procedures and how you plan on meeting your in-the-field requirements in the Terms and Conditions. Please include any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) you use that are applicable to these requirements. SOPs should be included as supplemental information, and if applicable, marked as proprietary information.
10. What qualifications or training do your vehicle mechanics have, if any?
11. What are the sustainable aspects of the vehicle’s design, use, and disposal?
Dockless Vehicle 2020 Permit Application 5 2020 Permit Year updated November 6, 2019 Section 4: Education and Equity
12. What practices do you employ to address the following issues? How have you measured success and adapted these programs for better outcomes? Please use the below rubric to respond to each issue. The entire line will be scored together. Additional answers to the above questions can be answered below the rubric.
Issue What we’re doing How we measure success How we use data to adapt practices Aggressive and unsafe riding
Wearing of helmets/ Distribution of helmets
Double riding
Under-age riding
Sidewalk riding in the Central Business District (CBD)
Rules of the Road
Restricted riding and parking on private property
Improper parking
13. Given the increased minimum vehicle requirement in each ward, what is your community engagement plan to increase safety and equitable access? How will the applicant promote the use of dockless sharing vehicles among low-income residents and in communities of concern, and provide instructions for locating and unlocking for those without smartphones?
14. If you currently offer service in the District, please list the addresses of locations where applicants can perform cash payment in the District and any directions for completing the payment. If you do not offer service, what is your plan for accepting cash payment on January 1, 2020?
15. Will the applicant’s fleet include any adaptive vehicles? If so, please provide pictures and diagram the fleet requirements (per Article II, A) with a description of the vehicle(s).
Section 5: Data and Reporting
16. Please list all of the data standards that you will be able to comply with from the data standards document.
17. How do you protect your data?
18. With whom do you share collected user data?
19. What protections do you have for data breaches?
Dockless Vehicle 2020 Permit Application 8 2020 Permit Year updated November 6, 2019 Dockless application questionnaire
Operator:
1. A lock-to mechanism for bikes will be required as a part of the 2020 permit. Will the applicant equip all bicycles and motorized bicycles with a lock-to mechanism before deployment? (Please provide detailed information, including photographs or illustrations, of the lock-to mechanism in supplementary information) a. Yes b. No c. NA
2. If operating a motorized or electric bicycle, will the applicant through the use of a mechanical speed governor, technological innovation, or other device, restrict the maximum allowable speed to 20 MPH? a. Yes b. No c. NA
3. Will the applicant equip their vehicle with a tethering mechanism? a. Yes b. No
4. Will the applicant equip their vehicle with a speedometer? a. Yes b. No
5. Will the applicant equip their vehicle with a bell? a. Yes b. No
6. Speed governors will be required as a part of the 2020 permit. If deploying electric scooters, will the applicant through the use of a mechanical speed governor, software instructions, or other technology, restrict the maximum allowable speed to 10 MPH? (Please provide an explanation of the speed limitation technology, including protections against tampering or removal in supplementary information) a. Yes b. No
7. Will you be able to meet all the data standards described in the Data Standards document? a. Yes b. No
8. Will the operator have a stand alone application where only their branded vehicles are available to rent? a. Yes b. No
9. Please include at least 1 reference to speak to your past performance in a similar sized city.
Dockless Vehicle 2020 Permit Application 9 2020 Permit Year updated November 6, 2019 Bike and Scooter Corrals
Bike and Scooter Corrals
Over 5 million dockless bike and scooter trips were taken in 2019. To support this growing transit option, DDOT is installing bike and scooter corrals across the District.
The off-sidewalk parking corrals are available for both private vehicles and shared dockless vehicles. Beginning in February 2020, DDOT will install off- sidewalk parking corrals across all eight wards. Residents on impacted blocks will receive notice from DDOT approximately one week before the corrals are installed. Residents can submit a request for off-sidewalk parking corrals here.
Questions? Please contact the appropriate DDOT Community Engagement Specialist.
Interactive Map
Safety
DDOT is specifically targeting locations where we can make a difference by “daylighting” intersections for pedestrian safety. On District streets where parking is allowed, drivers should generally park no closer than 40 feet from the intersection, unless there is signage indicating otherwise. Where a street has parking signage, all drivers must obey the signs and avoid parking in “no parking” or “no standing” zones approaching intersections. Installing corrals at these locations provides both needed parking infrastructure for dockless vehicles and also prevents dangerous illegal car parking.
Better Parking Behavior In corridors where there are no off-sidewalk parking corrals, scooters should be parked in the “furniture zone” which is within the first five feet of the curb, where there are typically public benches or street trees. Current guidelines require scooters to be parked with one wheel on the curb to allow for the greatest amount of space for pedestrian passage. This is critical to pedestrian safety in residential neighborhoods where sidewalks may be narrower. More information about how to properly park a dockless bike or scooter:
Dockless Vehicle Parking in Washington D.C.
Goal
To increase the availability of convenient bicycle and scooter parking facilities, increase pedestrian safety, and support alternative transportation ridership. Understanding and Tackling Micromobility: Transportation's New Disruptor
MAIN ST SPRING AVE
Let’s go!
This publication is made possible by a grant from
PAGE 1 of 44 August 2020 Contributors
This publication was researched and written by Pam Shadel Fischer, GHSA’s Senior Director of External Engagement. The publication was prepared with the assistance of an expert panel:
Jonathan Adkins Jason JonMichael Executive Director, Governors Highway Safety Association Assistant Director, Austin Transportation Department Washington, DC Austin, TX
Ruth Esteban* Nicole Payne Highway Safety Specialist, National Highway Traffc Safety Program Manager, National Association of City Transportation Administration Offcials Washington, DC New York City, NY
Dr. Staci Hoff Tamara Redmon* Research Director, Washington Traffc Safety Commission Pedestrian Safety Program Manager, Federal Highway Olympia, WA Administration Washington, DC Colin Hughes Senior Policy Manager, New Mobility, Lyft Steve Roberson Washington, DC Senior Research System Analyst, State Farm® Bloomington, IL Ken McLeod Policy Director, League of American Bicyclists Sharada Strasmore Washington, DC Shared Micromobility Planner, District Department of Transportation Washington, DC *Served in advisory capacity
Russ Martin, Senior Director of Policy and Government Relations, GHSA, reviewed and edited the publication. Creative by Brad Amburn.
Cover: Designed by Brad Amburn. Please note GO is a fctional micromobility provider.
This publication is primarily directed to Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) members, who consist of the state and territorial Highway Safety Offces, which are tasked with addressing the behavioral safety issues that plague the nation’s roadways and contribute to the vast majority of traffc crashes. It is not intended to be inclusive of all policies or programs, nor does inclusion of a policy or program imply endorsement by GHSA, State Farm® or the expert panel. Rather it is intended to foster discussion and action that advances the safety of all roadway users. While SHSOs are the primary audience, advocates, educators, elected offcials, micromobility providers and system operators, and planning and transportation professionals will also fnd it instructive.
Why State Highway Safety Offces and Their Partners Should Read This Publication Micromobility is a new and emerging issue that merits your attention as people who use this mode have a right to the road. But just like other modes of transportation, micromobility is not without its challenges. This publication, which is funded by State Farm®, explores six of those challenges— oversight, funding, data collection, enforcement, infrastructure and education—and the role your State Highway Safety Offce (SHSOs) and partners can play to help address them.
GHSA consulted with an expert panel of federal, state and local highway safety offcials, bicycle and rideshare advocates, and micromobility providers as well as public health professionals and others working in this arena to gain a better understanding of the challenges and potential solutions discussed in this publication. Several months into these discussions, COVID-19 erupted in the U.S., impacting the mobility of every segment of society. The pandemic has forced us to rethink transportation, particularly in cities where many people rely on mass transit to get around. Therefore, the pandemic along with expert insights, survey results and online research informed this work.
PAGE 2 of 44 Introduction
Disruptive—problematic, destructive, radical change sparked by innovation
More than a century ago, mass production of the Model T disrupted the nation’s economic and social character as the assembly line ushered in a new era of mobility for all. The smartphone is this century’s
disruptor making possible a new form of shared MAIN ST mobility that includes not only cars, but also pedal- powered and electric bicycles (e-bikes), standing and seated electric scooters (e-scooters), and electric skateboards and skates. These bicycles, scooters and other small devices are part of an evolving class of vehicles referred to as micromobility or personal
transportation devices (PTDs). They’re typically SPRING AVE low speed (under 30 mph), light weight (less than Let’s go! 100 pounds) and partially or fully motorized and may be personally owned or part of a shared feet (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center & Society of The smartphone is this century’s disruptor, enabling Automotive Engineers as cited in Goodman et al., 2019). greater shared mobility. (Please note GO is a fctional micromobility provider.) (See the chart on page 19.)
Interestingly, disruptive is the term frequently used by urban transportation and planning offcials to describe micromobility. However, electric bicycles are hardly disruptive or new. The frst e-bike patents were awarded in the late 19th century. But the frst commercially successful models would not appear until 1997, with worldwide mass production following several years later. Electric powered scooters, skateboards and skates, previously unpowered children’s toys, have been transformed into adult conveyances, with e-scooters becoming a preferred mode of travel for many 18–34-year-old urbanites and college students.
In the U.S., pedal-powered rather than e-bikes and scooters heralded the start of shared mobility when the frst docked (or station-based) bike system launched in Tulsa, OK in 2007. More than a dozen years later, there are 190 systems across the country, including New York City’s Citi Bike, the nation’s largest. Launched in 2013, Citi Bike set a single day record of 100,000 rides in September 2019 and achieved its 100 millionth ride in July (Change, 2020; City of New York, 2020).
E-scooters, which began appearing overnight on city streets in 2018, may seem child-like in their appearance. But these dockless vehicles (unlike docked vehicles, 40+ these do not have a fxed home location and may be dropped off and picked up The number of U.S. from arbitrary locations) quickly overtook station-based bike share and established bike-share micromobility as a legitimate, albeit controversial, transportation mode. As a result, programs some bike share systems have gone dockless—and electric. Currently, more than 40 with electric U.S. bike-share programs now have electric feets (Lee et al., 2019), with that number feets. expected to grow.
PAGE 3 of 44 The Pandemic’s Impact on Micromobility
When the World Health Organization declared coronavirus a worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020, and states began putting shelter-in-place orders into effect, travel all but stopped. People, however, still had to go out for groceries and check on loved ones, while those deemed essential needed to get to work. As the virus quickly spread, use of mass transit fell to historic lows as people, who could, refrained from riding buses, trains and subways to avoid being in close quarters with others. Some systems also reduced service hours and/or routes forcing those who could not work from home to fnd other commuting options.
Many people in cities turned to micromobility. In New York, bikeshare ridership jumped 67 percent in mid-March compared to 2019, while bike check-outs on Chicago’s Divvy program more than doubled the frst two weeks of March compared to last year. However, once lockdowns and mandatory shelter-in-place orders took effect, micromobility use dropped and some systems shut down (Shared-Use Mobility Center, 2020). Those providers that continued to operate, instituted extra cleaning and disinfecting measures. 67% Many systems offered free rides to essential workers or the uptick deeply discounted rates to provide open-air, socially distant transportation, while in Citi Bike systems in Kansas City, Detroit, Memphis and the Big Island of Hawaii, for example, ridership in March 2020 offered unlimited free rides for all. Some systems partnered with restaurants and compared to food delivery services to help them fulfll orders, with one provider, Wheels, offering last year. e-bikes equipped with self-cleaning handlebars and brake levers.
As cities have reopened, micromobility providers are hopeful the continued need to social distance will result in far greater demand for service. An April 2020 survey of 25,000 Americans found that of those who regularly ride mass transit, 20 percent would no longer do so, while another 28 percent would do so less often (IBM, 2020). A month later, micromobility providers in Columbus, OH, Oklahoma City, OK, and Washington, DC were reporting the length of e-scooter rides was increasing, suggesting “riders [were] making their full commutes on the vehicles rather than for frst-mile, last-mile trips” as had been the norm before the pandemic (Lazo, 2020). Meanwhile, Chicago offcials announced they would partner with three e-scooter vendors to conduct another four-month pilot program starting this July that would make 10,000 scooters (up from 2,500) available throughout much of the city (Wisniewski, 2020).
Use of these devices may go beyond shared systems as sales of on-road bicycles, including e-bikes, surged during the pandemic, with one New York City retailer recording sales of 600 percent compared to last year (Goldbaum, 2020). A recent study commissioned by Deloitte predicted use of e-bikes worldwide will grow 50 percent by 2023 (Lee et al., 2020). Most e-bikes will travel at least 25 miles or farther depending on the level of power assist the rider engages. They can also be used to haul gear and transport packages and food to customers. In March, New York City’s comptroller released a report encouraging the city to subsidize frontline workers who may be interested in purchasing e-bikes to hasten their travel time (Hawkins & Ricker, 2020). Then
PAGE 4 of 44 on April 1, New York state’s ban on e-bikes and scooters was rescinded giving communities the ability to allow and regulate them (Hawkins, 2020).
During the height of the pandemic, some cities closed streets to cars and opened them exclusively to pedal and e-bicycles, e-scooters and pedestrians. Oakland, CA was the frst to do this launching its Slow Streets program on April 11. By early June, over 20 miles of slow streets had been installed along 19 corridors throughout the city (City of Oakland, 2020). Seattle also closed 20 miles of roads—dubbed Stay Healthy Streets—that had limited open space, low rates of car ownership and were along routes to essential services including takeout meals. Those closures became permanent in May, making Seattle the frst U.S. city to commit to such a measure. The city is also accelerating efforts to install biking infrastructure including greenways and protected bike lanes (Portfeld, 2020; Zipper, 2020). Across the nation, micromobility providers and pedestrian and bicycling advocates have been urging other cities to follow suit.
Micromobility: Far from a Passing Craze
There is no doubt that COVID-19 negatively impacted micromobility, as many providers slashed their workforce and removed bikes and scooters from cities either voluntarily or under government order. But industry watchers are predicting that until there is a treatment and/or vaccine for the virus, people will remain hesitant about being in crowds and continue to seek other forms of transportation (Nicklesburg, 2020). Micromobility can help fll that need now and well into the future. Before addressing the challenges, however, it is important for SHSOs to understand that micromobility is far from a passing craze.
Ridership Growth Since 2010, there have been 207 million trips on shared bikes (pedal and electric-powered) and e-scooters in the United States. A total of 84 million of those trips occurred in 2018 (the latest year for which data is available), double the number taken the previous year. Those 84 million trips included 36.5 million on station-based bike share, 9 million on dockless bikes and 38.5 million on e-scooters (National Association of City Transportation Offcials [NACTO], 2019).
Of the three micromobility modes, e-scooters overtook bikes as the preferred vehicle for dockless providers and by the end of 2018 there were 85,000 approximately 85,000 scooters operating in nearly 100 U.S. cities. Three scooters were metropolitan areas—Los Angeles, San Diego and Austin—accounted for operating in nearly 100 U.S. cities in 2018. the largest concentration of all e-scooter trips (40 percent) in that year (NACTO, 2019).
Station-based bike share systems also expanded their feets by 9 percent in 2018 (57,000 bikes), sparking upticks in ridership. For example, Ford GoBike grew 10-fold in the San Francisco Bay Area increasing ridership by 260 percent, while Honolulu’s Biki grew 30 percent and rides jumped 200 percent. Boston’s Bluebikes not only expanded by 40 percent and gained 30 percent more riders, but also increased its coverage area. By the end of 2018, 85 percent of all city residents lived within a fve to seven-minute walk of a Bluebikes station, up 67 percent from 2017 (NACTO, 2019).
PAGE 5 of 44 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2019 Since 2010, there have been 207 million trips There were 135 million trips in 2019 alone, on shared bikes (pedal and electric-powered) including 40 million on station-based bike and e-scooters in the United States. share, 10 million on dockless bikes, and 86 million on e-scooters.
While pedal-powered bikes accounted for the greatest share of station-based system rides in 2018 at 30 million, station-based e-bikes (6.5 million) had double the usage of their non-electric counterparts. Madison, WI converted its entire bike share feet to electric in 2019 and found that e-bikes generated “up to fve times as many trips as standard bikes,” while usage declined in cities where e-bikes were removed from their systems’ feets (Anzilotti, 2019b). As a result, San Francisco, Minneapolis and New York are just a few of the cities transitioning all or a portion of their feets from pedal to electric bikes in collaboration with providers (NACTO, 2019).
In 2018 the average bike share trip covered 2.5 miles and lasted just under 25 minutes, while the average e-scooter trip traversed 1.5 miles and lasted approximately 17 minutes. The largest bike share systems were more heavily used, on a per-bike basis, than smaller systems. The opposite holds true for e-scooter systems as the largest feets were used less than once per day, while smaller feets were used more than four times per day. The greatest use of station-based bikes occurred during traditional rush hours, while scooter trips were dispersed throughout the day, with the most ridership on Fridays and weekends. Surveys of riders in cities across the U.S., found station-based bike share users are more likely to ride to get to and from work and to connect to transit. The opposite is true for e-scooter riders who are more apt to use the device for social, shopping and recreational purposes (NACTO, 2019), with tourists accounting for a signifcant share of ridership in some major cities (Gauquelin & Chamussy, 2020).
Micromobility use continued to grow in 2019 as people took 136 million trips on shared bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. This is a 60 percent increase over the previous year that was largely driven by a 45 percent increase in dockless e-scooter programs (NACTO, 2020a). Austin, for example, recorded 5.3 million rides in 2019 (City of Austin, 2020a), while Los Angeles had one million scooter and dockless bike rides per month last year. And Lime, which was operating micromobility feets worldwide, marked a milestone in September 2019—its 100 millionth ride (Schneider, 2020).
PAGE 6 of 44 A Viable Transportation Alternative Micromobility—unlike trains, buses and subways—allows for social distancing. But in a pre- pandemic world, some people without the means, ability or desire to own a vehicle choose to get around via e-bikes and scooters. And they likely recognize and appreciate micromobility’s value even more since the pandemic.
Car speeds in cities have slowed, making micromobility a faster mode of travel.
4.7 mph 15 mph average car average max speed in e-scooter speed midtown Manhattan in 2017
Car travel speeds in cities had been getting slower pre-pandemic, making micromobility a faster alternative. In midtown Manhattan, for example, cars traveled an average of 4.7 miles per hour in 2017 (Agrawal as cited in Lee et al., 2019). Shared e-bikes and e-scooters typically have a top-speed of 20 and 15 mph, respectively, making them a faster alternative. Speed of travel is important to riders. In Copenhagen, where 62 percent of the population bikes to work or school, more said getting there faster (49 percent)—rather than health benefts, cost savings or the environment—is their primary motive for cycling (Lee et al., 2019). Then there’s gridlock and parking; unlike cars and trucks, bike and scooter riders take up less space and do not have to circle the block to fnd a place to park – or pay for the privilege.
E-bikes and scooters can not only make getting to a destination faster, but also enable the rider to do so without breaking a sweat. Both devices – unlike pedal bikes – require less or no output on the part of the rider. E-bikes are especially convenient for older adults and people with limited mobility, as the rider can pedal a little or a lot. Proponents of e-bikes also point to the device’s health beneft, suggesting that riding one “isn’t cheating,” as users get additional exercise because they ride more often and for longer distances (Krug, 2020). Having access to an e-bike might also prompt someone to pick up their bike helmet rather than their car keys to run an errand or commute to work.
Scooters, on the other hand, require a bit more physical prowess, which is why these devices are evolving to accommodate different body types and comfort levels. In Portland, OR micromobility providers Razor and Shared offer e-scooters with Detroit’s Adaptive MoGo program meets a wide seats for people with disabilities. The seated range of rider needs. e-scooters also have larger wheels and wider
PAGE 7 of 44 tires than stand-up scooters. Meanwhile, Detroit’s Adaptive MoGo (bikeshare) program had begun offering 13 different cycles including recumbent, upright cargo, hand and tandem tricycles to accommodate a wide range of rider needs in 2018. However, the program is currently postponed due to the pandemic (MoGo, 2020).
Concerns about locating a micromobility system (either docked or dockless) and whether a device is available are also being addressed. Provider apps, for example, can pinpoint the location of available devices and their prices as measured by range. Google Maps displays the location of bike sharing stations and how many bikes are available in 24 cities around the world including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco. The app also provides the location of Lime scooters in many U.S. cities and directions to and from the closest bike sharing stations in ten cities including Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC (Smith, 2020).
The New Urban Mobility Alliance launched an online platform, New Mobility Atlas, in late 2019 to map the growth of new mobility in cities. It uses open data to track the availability of shared transportation options including dockless scooters, bikes and mopeds. In response to the pandemic, the North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA) created a COVID-19 Tracker that identifes micromobility shared services for each state/city and whether each is operating, offering free or reduced prices and additional services such as support to health care facilities and The New Mobility Atlas tracks shared delivery services. transportation options in cities.
Potential riders can also get help from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) interactive bikeshare and e-scooter map, which shows, by city, the name of the system serving the area (the site is current as of November 2019). For cities with a docked bike share system, the map allows users to zoom in on the location of a docking station at street level. Bike share systems with fxed docking stations are also included in the BTS’ Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database (IPCD), which includes information about passenger transportation facilities. According to the IPCD, 71 percent of all bike share docking stations are located within one block of another public transportation mode such as a bus or train, while The 13 percent are within two blocks (U.S. DOT, 2019). That is why transit aggregator Transit app provides apps like Transit are gaining popularity with micromobility users. The app provides real-time real-time information for buses, trains, bikes, e-scooters, car share and ride hail mobility services in 188 cities/regions in the U.S., giving riders the ability to easily mix and information. match modes to help them get where they want to go (Transit, 2020).
Finally, micromobility providers recognize the public’s pandemic-driven concern about hygiene. While e-bikes and e-scooters have a built-in social distancing mechanism—one-rider-only— ensuring they are disinfected between riders is an issue. As noted earlier, Wheels has partnered with NanoSeptic to cover its devices’ cover grips and brake levers with a self-cleaning material designed to reduce transmission of the virus (Gauquelin & Chamussy, 2020). To prevent the spread of COVID-19 in Austin, on March 17, 2020, the City’s Transportation Department required
PAGE 8 of 44 all providers to reduce their feets by 10 percent due to the decrease in ridership, remove all non- operational devices and institute sanitation measures for those devices remaining in operation on the city’s right-of-way (J. JonMichael, personal conversation, July 1, 2020).
Meanwhile, PTD providers Pony, Spin and Wheels have found a way to eliminate the need to disinfect their vehicles between riders. They have changed their business model from casual users to regulars by testing long-term rentals for shared bikes and scooters. Micromobility proponents call this a “good try before you buy option,” with Wheels and Pony (the latter is dubbed Adopt-A- Pony) now selling devices directly to the public (Gauquelin & Chamussy, 2020).
The Safety of Micromobility
Micromobility generated signifcant press coverage in 2018 and 2019 due mostly to the proliferation of e-scooters, which (as discussed earlier) began appearing on local streets as an adult conveyance rather than a children’s toy. The news stories typically focused on concerns about scooters being operated and parked on sidewalks, as well as the potential for riders to be seriously injured or killed. The latter was sparked by a series of research studies that examined medical records and emergency room data related to e-scooter incidents. Just like other transportation modes, the research confrms e-scooters and e-bikes are involved in crashes and people are injured and killed. However, research conducted by e-scooter provider, Bird, contends that “more people are injured by motor vehicles in three hours in the U.S. than are injured by e-scooters in a year” (Bird, 2019a). According to the International Transport Forum (ITF), “e-scooter riders do not face signifcantly higher risk of road traffc death or injury than cyclists” and roads would be “safer if e-scooter and bicycle trips replace travel by car or motorcycle” (2020).
E-Scooters Using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), one study found that between 2014 and 2018 222–365% the number of e-scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the jump in hospital admissions the U.S. increased 222 percent and 365 percent, respectively. for e-scooter injuries between 2014 and 2018. During the same time period, the rate of scooter crashes increased from six per 100,000 people to 19 per 100,000 with fractures, contusions/abrasions and lacerations the most prevalent injuries. The researchers also noted there was a large increase in injuries between 2017 and 2018, rising from 8,016 to 14,651 (2018 marked the unoffcial start of e-scooter programs in many locales), and the rate of head trauma for scooter riders was double that of bicyclists (Namiri et al., 2020). It is important to note that the researchers were not able to distinguish between standing and seated scooters or to account for ridership exposure. The explosion in the number of e-scooters beginning in 2018 must be also taken in account when reviewing crash and injury data. According to the National Association of City Transportation Offcials (NACTO), between 2010 and 2016 there were 88 million shared mobility trips in the U.S. However, those trips were taken on bike share, not e-scooters (NACTO, 2020b).
PAGE 9 of 44 These injury and head trauma rates mirror fndings of an Austin study conducted by the city’s Public Health (APH) Department, with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers identifed 271 people with potential scooter crash-related injuries and interviewed slightly more than half. They learned that 45 percent of the crashes involved head injuries, with 15 percent suffering traumatic brain injuries. Less than one percent of the riders were wearing a helmet. Unlike the NEISS study, however, the APH had access to exposure data (number of trips, miles and hours ridden) and found that for every 100,000 trips taken, 20 individuals were injured (APH, 2019).
These studies along with several others also examined causation factors. Most scooter injuries were the result of falls, collisions with objects such as light poles, manhole covers or curbs or crashes involving motor vehicles. However, the latter were not as prevalent as might be expected. In the Austin study, for example, 16 percent of the incidents involved a rider either “colliding and swerving, stopping or jumping off a scooter to avoid a collision” with a motor vehicle, while 10 percent of injured riders actually collided with a motor vehicle. (The latter, however, were more likely to result in signifcant injuries.) Instead, the roadway condition – potholes, cracks in the pavement – played a much larger role (50 percent), with a third of riders injured on sidewalks and slightly more than half in the street (APH, 2019).
Other factors identifed in the studies included inexperience, alcohol and speed. In Austin one-third of those injured were frst-time riders, while more than 60 percent 1/3 had ridden nine times or less (APH, 2019). In Southern California, where researchers of those injured examined medical records from two urban emergency departments, fve percent of in Austin were frst-time injured riders tested positive for alcohol, while in Austin 29 percent had consumed scooter riders. alcohol in the 12 hours preceding their injuries (Trivedi et al., 2019; APH, 2019). Another study involving 103 male scooter riders treated at trauma centers in San Diego and Austin, found 79 percent tested for alcohol and 48 percent of those individuals were over the legal limit (0.08). Additionally, 60 percent were screened for drugs, with slightly more than half (52 percent) testing positive (Kobayashi et al., 2019). And 37 percent of people in the CDC/APH study, said that “excessive scooter speed contributed to their injury” (APH, 2019).
Several studies also found e-scooters pose a risk to pedestrians. In the South California study cited above, 52 percent of the pedestrians seeking treatment had been hit by a scooter and 24 percent tripped over a device that was parked on the sidewalk (Trivedi et al., 2019). This has prompted some cities to ban sidewalk riding to prevent injuries and reduce liability claims. However, micromobility providers and advocates worry that prohibiting sidewalk riding poses risks to scooter riders who would be forced to operate on high-speed and/or high-volume roadways that are unlikely to have separate or protected infrastructure (more on that on page 14).
When it comes to gender and age, male e-scooters riders were more likely to be injured than females and the average age ranged from 29 to 39. However, people of all ages were represented in the studies. That said, the Southern California study found that nearly 11 percent of e-scooter injuries involved patients under 18 years of age, despite state law requiring riders to be at least 16 (and 18 years of age per provider rental agreements) (Trivedi et al., 2019). In addition, 60 percent of the riders injured in Austin were residents, while a third either lived out of town, in other states or other countries.
PAGE 10 of 44 E-bicycles Using NEISS data from 2000 to 2017, an analysis of injury patterns and trends associated with e-bikes found there were 3,075 injuries accounting for 0.13 injuries per 10,000 total U.S. emergency department injuries (EDIs). (This compares to 130,797 powered scooter injuries at a rate of 5.3 injuries per 10,000 EDIs.) The average age of a person injured on an e-bike was 31.9, with riders 18-44 and 45-65 accounting for 41 percent and 28 percent of all injuries, respectively. Males were more likely than females to be injured (83 percent) (DiMaggio et al., 2019). It merits noting the average age of an injured e-bike user increased from 22.8 before 2013 to 37.7 after 2013, likely the result of an increase in the device’s use for commercial deliveries in urban settings and possibly by older persons seeking a power-assisted transportation device (Tan, Nadkami & Wong as cited in DiMaggio et al., 2019).
Unlike e-scooter injuries, e-bike-related injuries were nearly three times more likely to be the result of a collision with a motor vehicle and to be severe enough to necessitate 3x hospitalization due to internal injuries. E-bike injuries were also three times more likely more likely that than e-scooter injuries to involve a collision with a pedestrian. (This may be due to the e-bike injuries disparity in weight and speed between a traditional bicycle and an e-bike and the fact are the result of a collision with that e-bikes, unlike motor vehicles, are quiet.) E-bike riders, on the other hand, were more a motor vehicle likely than e-scooter riders to have been wearing a helmet at the time of their injury or pedestrian (DiMaggio et al., 2019). The researchers involved in many of these studies pointed out compared to that the prevalence of e-bike and e-scooter related injuries were likely underestimated. e-scooters.
As for fatalities, limitations with the data make it diffcult to report the numbers. E-bikes are typically identifed as bicycles in crash reports and medical records, while e-scooters may not be identifed at all (see page 19). The 2017 GHSA report, A Right to the Road, pointed out that despite unprecedented growth in U.S. bike share there had been only two deaths associated with these programs since 2007. However, two deaths were recorded in 2019 (NACTO, 2020). As for e-scooters, according to a database maintained by researchers at the University of North Carolina’s Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety, there have been 22 fatalities in the U.S. since 2018, with the most recent occurring last December in Elizabeth, NJ. The key takeaway from these crashes is that 19 of the fatalities involved a motor vehicle. The three other fatalities were the result of a rider crashing into a tree, a collision between two e-scooters and head trauma resulting from a scooter fall (Harmon, 2020). All but two of the fatally injured scooter riders were male. The deceased riders ranged in age from 5 to 53, with an average age of 28.8 years (PBIC, 2020).
E-bikes E-scooters 4 fatalities 22 fatalities associated with bike share programs since 2007. since 2018, with all but three involving motor vehicles.
PAGE 11 of 44 SHSO Involvement in Micromobility
GHSA surveyed the 54 State and Territorial Highway Safety Offces to better understand what, if any role, they are currently playing in micromobility at the state and/or local level. The survey asked if their state has laws addressing micromobility (e.g., maximum speed, where the devices may be ridden, minimum rider age, helmet use) and local micromobility programs/pilots. The SHSOs were also asked if they were working with local programs (if one or more existed in their state) or on micromobility at a statewide level and if they were not, why. Finally, SHSOs were asked if a staff member had been specifcally tasked with addressing micromobility.
Thirty states (60 percent) responded to the survey. Seventeen reported having state laws addressing some aspect of micromobility, with most focusing on e-scooters. Sixteen SHSOs indicated there are micromobility programs/pilots in their state, but only nine are working with them in some capacity (typically education). Six SHSOs indicated they are working on micromobility at a statewide level, with activities ranging from educating riders and drivers and providing grant funds (for education and enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian issues rather than expressly for micromobility) to serving on a commission tasked with reviewing legislation and potential pilot sites.
When asked why they were not working with an existing program or on any statewide activities, several SHSOs responded they were not asked and/or there was no data to support their involvement. One explained they “have no jurisdiction [since the devices] are not classifed as a motor vehicle,” while several other SHSOs said micromobility is a “local issue” (GHSA, 2020a).
All SHSOs are encouraged to identify where micromobility has established Getting ahead of a foothold in their state or has the potential to do so. While the U.S. DOT and supporting BTS bike share map shows programs exclusively in urban areas and busy this mode means suburban corridors, micromobility is popular on many college and university taking inventory campuses and could (if it is not already) begin appearing on small town of micromobility streets. Getting ahead of and supporting this mode means taking inventory programs and laws/ ordinances in your of micromobility programs and laws/ordinances in your state and determining state and determining what data, if any, your state is currently collecting. Once you have done that, what data, if any, your carefully review the remainder of this publication—it outlines a game plan for state is currently helping your SHSO become an active participant in the micromobility arena. collecting.
Addressing Micromobility’s Challenges
Contrary to news reports and public perception, COVID-19 has not been a death knell for shared mobility. Rather it has established e-bikes and e-scooters as a viable and convenient mode of transportation. (Just ask any essential worker who has been using one to get to and from work during the pandemic!) (Spivak, 2020). And if device providers begin pivoting from rent by the ride to rent by the month or try and buy, e-bikes and scooters have the potential to become a preferred or more frequent mode of travel for city dwellers and college students, as well as people living in the suburbs and small towns across America.
PAGE 12 of 44 Recognizing micromobility’s potential and the fact that these devices are sharing the road (or sidewalks) with motor vehicles, traditional bicycles and pedestrians, there are inherent safety issues. For that reason, SHSOs cannot afford to remain on the sidelines. Waiting to be invited in or taking the position that micromobility is a local issue is short-sighted and fails to consider the critical role SHSOs can play in addressing the following six challenges, all of which have statewide implications:
Oversight The Challenge: The statutes and regulations governing PTDs vary from state to state and/or locality to locality, making it diffcult for riders and other road users to know what is allowed and for law enforcement offcials to address unsafe behaviors.
Since states have oversight of traffc laws and vehicles, the responsibility rests with state legislatures to address this problem. What is needed are consistent, simple and easy-to-understand rules that promote safety and Consistent, simple, and balance the needs of all road users. At the same time, the rules must be easy-to-understand fexible enough to accommodate new devices that are likely to appear in rules promote safety the future. As these shared systems and/or personal PTD use grows, a and offer clear guidance for riders. statewide law provides guidance and ensures that regardless of jurisdiction, riders know what they can and cannot do. This becomes even more important if a local government does not have its own rules. Plus, a strong state rule reduces the burden on local governments to enact their own regulations (Fang et al., 2019).
The consensus among micromobility providers, local transportation and law enforcement offcials and advocates is that state legislatures are the appropriate entity to establish regulations for PTDs, but state laws must grant local governments the ability to limit the devices’ based on local conditions (Fang et al., 2019). For example, there may be certain streets in a city that are simply too narrow or congested to support mixed modes. Or sidewalks with heavy pedestrian traffc may not be appropriate for e-scooters or necessitate lower riding speeds during certain times of the day and/or days of the week. Communities might also need to implement PTD riding and parking restrictions during special events and observances.
There is also agreement that PTDs should be regulated as a class, not device by device since they share similar operational characteristics (e.g., low speed, fully or partially motorized). This makes rule making less reactionary and ensures the rights and responsibilities are clear the moment a new device appears on the road. Even more importantly, regulating PTDs as a class makes it easier for the public and law enforcement to remember one set of rules (Fang et al., 2019).
Most concur that, where appropriate, PTD rules should mimic bicycle rules. Proponents say Proponents point to the value of applying bicycle rules, which not only riders, PTD rules should mimic bicycle but also other road users and law enforcement can remember. It also ensures rules, which leads fairness, since PTDs function much like bicycles due to their speed and size (Fang to questions over et al., 2019). Which begs the question—should PTDs be allowed on sidewalks? sidewalk use.
PAGE 13 of 44 Micromobility proponents and public health experts stress banning sidewalk riding sets up PTD riders (especially those on e-scooters) to break the law – particularly in areas where they do not feel safe riding in the street. Banning PTDs on sidewalks is also inconsistent with how bicycles are currently regulated, as few states have language in their vehicle codes that prohibit sidewalk riding. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) argues there should be clear rules for sidewalk riding, so it is clear how all road users should interact with each other. LAB recommends that bicyclists ride on the road if they can do safely. Sidewalk riding can create conficts with pedestrians, it is also a leading cause of crashes involving cyclists being struck by turning motorists (Butcher, 2014; LAB, 2018).
Sidewalks are designed to be safe spaces for pedestrians; therefore, priority must be given to people on foot. However, the case can be made for not enacting PTD sidewalk bans. Instead, states legislatures should develop policy that promotes the safety and unrestricted movement of all modes, with the caveat that communities may impose sidewalk and other infrastructure-related bans as well as speed limit caps where warranted (Fang et al., 2019).
A case in point is Arlington County, VA, which piloted a micromobility program in October 2018 and subsequently passed an ordinance allowing the use of e-bikes and e-scooters on its streets a year later. (Arlington County is part of the Washington, DC metropolitan area, which is also served by the regional Capital Bikeshare program.) Virginia’s motor vehicle code defnes the devices and where they may be operated (among other restrictions) but gives local governing bodies the right to enact ordinances prohibiting the use of PTDs and other devices on sidewalks (Virginia Law Library, 2020). In early 2020, the County instituted a ban on sidewalk riding where there is a protected bike lane “available in the same direction
of travel” (Arlington County Government, 2020). Signage prohibiting sidewalk Signage posted in riding has been installed adjacent to the bike lanes. Where PTD sidewalk riding is Arlington, VA, limits permitted, the maximum speed limit is 6-mph. sidewalk riding.
What About E-bikes? Aren’t they already regulated—particularly when it comes to where they may be ridden? Federal law (U.S.C. Title 14 Section 2085) defnes what an e-bike is for the purpose of Federal regulation of consumer products (see the box) and directs that these vehicles must comply with Consumer Product Safety Commission standards. But the law is silent on when and where they may be operated. As a result, some states identify an e-bike as a moped or other motor vehicle, require that the device be registered and the rider licensed, and/or ban its use on bicycle-specifc infrastructure.
What is an e-bike? According to the U.S. Government, it is a two or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.
The good news is state legislatures are making progress in adopting a standard defnition for e-bikes. As of August 2020, 28 states have adopted a 3-tiered classifcation system:
PAGE 14 of 44 » Class 1 bikes provide electrical motor assistance only when the rider pedals and cuts off when reaching 20 mph.
» Class 2 bikes have a throttle- activated motor that can be used without the pedals and cuts off when reaching 20 mph.
» Class 3 bikes provide electrical or throttle-activated motor assistance only when pedaling and cut off when According to PeopleForBikes, the 28 states in green have enacted model reaching 28 mph. legislation regulating three classes of e-bikes.
The laws also have similar defning language along with safety and operation requirements. This effort has largely been led by PeopleForBikes, a national advocacy group that promotes the use of Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes wherever pedal-powered bikes are allowed and Class 3 e-bikes on roadways only (Exponent, 2019; Yobbi, 2020).
Finally, a review of state/territorial, local and university regulations governing PTD operation found that all addressed one or more of four explicit behaviors: required such as wearing helmets; allowed and prohibited, with a focus on sidewalk riding; and exempted such as not needing a license or registration. The most common user behaviors explicitly required address helmet use (typically for riders under 18 years of age), minimum rider age, braking, lights and refectors, safety guides, yielding to pedestrians, number of riders, riding abreast, parking, speed of streets, rights and penalties (Fang et al., 2019).
The Role for SHSOs
Task a staff member, ideally a program coordinator or manager working in pedestrian and bicyclist safety, with the responsibility of becoming your SHSO’s expert on micromobility. If PTDs are not explicitly banned in your state, this individual is encouraged to work with local jurisdictions that may already have micromobility operations to harmonize regulation.
Include micromobility (if it is not explicitly addressed) in your state’s pedestrian and bicycle safety task force, advisory group, commission or other relevant body’s charter and expand the membership to include representatives from this mode.
Work with the task force to review how PTDs are addressed in state laws and regulations to identify confusing language, gaps and defciencies.
Work with task force members—and others with an interest in micromobility, such as providers and sellers, local ride share program administrators, and insurers, to educate policymakers and the media about what PTDs are and are not and how to effectively regulate their use ensuring that mobility and safety are not compromised.
PAGE 15 of 44 Funding The Challenge: The current U.S. surface transportation funding law—the FAST Act —does not include dedicated funding for micromobility, despite a decade of steady growth.
Currently there are shared micromobility systems in 47 states and Washington, DC. The mode is expected to continue to grow over the next decade, with management consultant, McKinsey predicting it could generate anywhere from $300 to $800 billion by 2030 (Heineke et al., 2019). The pandemic’s effect on those projections is unknown, but not the public’s appetite for transportation modes that promote social distancing. When the average length of household trips is factored into the discussion—the majority (59 percent) are less than six miles and three-quarter are ten miles or less (Federal Highway Administration, 2018)—the use of shared and/or owned PTDs becomes even more viable and cost-effective (particularly for those who do not have the means or desire to travel by motor vehicle).
At present, the cost of owning and operating a shared micromobility system falls on local governments, device providers and/or non-profts. Some bikeshare systems are government-owned, such as those operating in the DC metropolitan area, while others are government-endorsed. Citi Bike in New York, for example, is the latter and uses money from corporate sponsors rather than public dollars to purchase and maintain vehicles (DuPois, Greiss & Klein, 2019). San Francisco’s bikeshare program, Bay Wheels, is administered by the Mass Transit Authority At present, the (SFMTA) and operated by Motivate, which has undertaken a major expansion cost of owning and with sponsorship from Ford. Once complete, the system will cover approximately operating a shared half the city—at no expense to taxpayers (SFMTA, 2020). (Motivate is owned by micromobility system falls on Lyft and operates many bikeshare programs across the United States.) local governments, device providers, The introduction of dockless bikes, however, created a new set of challenges and/or non-profts. for government agencies, prompting cities to institute permitting processes that include the collection of fees to help cover administrative and other costs (much to the dismay of providers). San Francisco was one of the frst to do this, charging each provider an application and annual permit fee as well as a $10,000 endowment. Seattle enacted a $250,000 free-foating bike share program fee in 2018 that annually allows four dockless providers to each operate up to 5,000 bikes on the Department of Transportation’s (SDOT) right-of-way. If there are three or fewer vendors, the fee is $50 per permitted bicycle or other device, prorated by month. SDOT uses the fee to cover permit costs, program administration and for public-realm accommodations such as signage and designated bike share parking areas (SDOT, 2018). (Seattle currently does not allow e-scooters.)
Fees help, said those government and non-proft offcials interviewed for this publication, but they do not begin to cover all administrative costs. Nor do they address the need to educate riders and other road and sidewalk users about how to safely operate together. Many communities encourage or require micromobility providers to invest in education and rider training that includes promoting helmet use, but consistent and widespread outreach is needed. Funding is also needed to train offcers to understand and enforce PTD laws. There is also agreement among city and community offcials, providers and advocates that more protected infrastructure is needed, as it is the preferred and safest place to ride. All these things take money.
PAGE 16 of 44 Micromobility & Reauthorization The NABSA, which advocates for shared micromobility, is calling on Congress to include micromobility in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Infrastructure is a key theme of NABSA’s platform, which includes incorporating Complete Streets into project design, expanding the Transportation Alternatives Program to include shared micromobility and placing greater emphasis on using Highway Safety Improvement Program funds to address vulnerable road user safety. The association is also urging Congress to reauthorize and increase funds for direct investment in micromobility systems and allow monies to be used to study and support the industry’s growth. That provision, coupled with reinstating the bicycle commuter tax beneft and expanding it to include shared micromobility, could result in more e-bikes and e-scooters on the road (NABSA, 2020).
SHSOs may fund some micromobility safety programs using federal funding from Section 402 or possibly Section 405(h) (Non-motorized Safety) of the National Priority Safety Program. A state is eligible for Section 405(h) funding if its combined statewide pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities account for more than 15 percent of its total traffc deaths based on the most recent Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.
However, SHSOs may use these funds only to train law enforcement offcials GHSA urges on pedestrian and bicyclist safety laws and for enforcement mobilizations, Congress to campaigns and road user public education and awareness programs that expand the 405(h) address these laws (GHSA, 2020b). Ensuring law enforcement and all road program to allow users understand these laws is critical. However, this restriction has hampered federal funds to be states from fully expending 405(h) monies. Therefore, GHSA urges Congress used for a wider to expand this program to allow federal funds to be used for a wider range of range of programs that address programs that address vulnerable users. States should also explore how these vulnerable users. funds can be used to advance micromobility safety.
The use of alcohol and other drugs by PTD riders, as well as bicyclists and pedestrians, is also problematic, just as it is for motorists. As discussed previously (see page 10), researchers examining the medical records of PTD riders treated at hospitals found signifcant alcohol and drug use. At the same time, one-third of fatally injured pedestrians in 2018 and 20 percent of bicyclists ages 16 and older, in 2019, with known test results had a BAC of 0.08 or higher [Retting, 2020; NHTSA as cited in Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2019]). Under the FAST Act, slightly more than half of Section 405 funds are earmarked for impaired driving incentive grants (GHSA, 2020b). However, the use of alcohol and/or drugs by all road users means they have diminished faculties that could impact judgement, decision-making and reaction time and put them at risk for injury and/or death. Therefore, Congress should expand the use of Section 405(d) funds to include countermeasures addressing alcohol and drug use by drivers, riders, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Helmet Use For PTD riders, reinforcing the importance of wearing a helmet is critical as the majority of shared bike and scooter riders do not wear helmets and are signifcantly less likely to do so compared to cyclists who own their bicycles (Fischer et al., as cited in Graves et al., 2014). Micromobility providers urge riders via their apps and websites to wear helmets but they do not typically provide them at the time of rental. (See the rare exceptions in the sidebar.) An evaluation of the barriers
PAGE 17 of 44 These PTDs Come with a Helmet Getting shared PTD riders to wear helmets is a big problem for providers. Wheels provides riders a free helmet that is locked to the rear of their e-bikes operating in six U.S. cities. The helmet is unlocked via the Wheels app and comes with a peel-off biodegradable headliner. A magnetic sensor in the bike recognizes when the helmet is being used (Hawkins, 2019a).
In Europe, 5,000 Tier scooters are equipped with a foldable helmet that is locked inside a compartment located below the handlebars (accessible via the app). The helmets meet European safety standards, are checked after every ffth ride and disinfected as part of the company’s COVID-19 safety precautions (Porter, 2020).
and facilitators to helmet use among bikeshare riders in Australia, where helmet use is mandatory, found that 61 percent cited helmet inaccessibility or the desire not to wear one as the main barriers to using the mode (Fishman et al., as cited in Graves et al., 2014).
Providers, however, do not advocate for helmet laws as the requirement could impact a rider’s spur-of-the-moment ability to use a shared device. It was e-scooter operator, Bird, that sponsored the bill in California that rescinded the state’s helmet requirement for all riders 18 and older (Kerr, 2018). At the same time, e-bike and scooter provider, Lime, gives a helmet to all learn to ride event participants and partners with a leading helmet manufacturer to offer riders discounts on helmet purchases. During the pandemic, helmet manufacturer, Thousand, launched its Courier Care program to give free Development of helmets to bicycle couriers doing essential work (Thousand, 2020). To address collapsible and the disparity in helmet use among shared PTD users, Congress is encouraged shareable helmets to include competitive funding in the next federal transportation bill to spur could encourage use development of collapsible helmets or helmets designed for shared use. among riders.
The Role for SHSOs
Educate your state’s Congressional delegation about:
» what micromobility is (referring to the SAE Taxonomy discussed on page X can be helpful) and how it has and continues to grow, the behavioral safety issues that put riders and other road/sidewalk users at risk and the need to authorize funding for micromobility safety in the next federal surface transportation funding bill. » why expanding the 405(d) program is necessary to fully address the impact of alcohol and other drugs on road safety. » why expanding the 405(h) program is necessary to fully address the safety of ALL vulnerable road users. » the disparity in helmet use among PTD riders, the dangers of riding without a helmet, the societal costs associated with head/brain injury and the need for innovative approaches to increase helmet use.
PAGE 18 of 44 Data The Challenge: Micromobility-involved crashes and injuries are likely underreported due to the lack of a universal reporting standard.
No report SHSOs are dependent on crash and other aggregated, de-identifed data sets for problem identifcation and resource allocation. Data is also critical for making sound policy-decisions. The current lack of a standardized reporting mechanism for PTD-related crashes coupled with underreporting on the part of law enforcement and providers makes it diffcult for SHSOs and their partners to understand micromobility’s impact on traffc safety. This should not be construed as the fault of either party, as a rider may choose not to report a crash, the crash may not involve a motor vehicle or meet the state’s reportable standard or it could have been misclassifed. If reference is made to a PTD on a crash report, it is typically included in the narrative (Goodman et al., 2019).
To collect reliable micromobility crash data, state crash reporting systems should include a unique feld element with attributes for all PTDs currently permitted to operate on state and local roadways. A micromobility element for non-motorists has been proposed for the next update to the Model Minimum and Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) scheduled for publication in 2022. The proposed element follows the framework laid out by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in their publication, Taxonomy and Classifcation of Powered Micromobility Vehicles (J3194). The graphic below and associated narrative are included in a summary document to J3194 and present the most user-friendlySAE J3194™ avenue to TAXONOMY increase data capture & CLASSIFICATION of these mobility types without OF sacrifcing data qualityPOWERED and integrity. MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES
POWERED MICROMOBILITY VEHICLE Scope of J3194™ A wheeled vehicle that must: • Only includes vehicles that are primarily designed for human transport and to be • Be fully or partially powered used on paved roadways and paths • Have a curb weight ≤ 500 lb (227 kg) • Excludes solely human-powered vehicles • Have a top speed ≤ 30 mph (48 km/h)
TYPES OF POWERED MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES1 Powered Powered Standing Powered Seated Powered Powered Powered Bicycle Scooter Scooter Self-Balancing Non-Self-Balancing Skates Board Board
Center column Y Y Y Possible N N
Seat Y N Y N N N
Operable pedals Y N N N N N
Floorboard / foot pegs Possible Y Y Y Y Y
Self-balancing2 N N N Y N Possible
1All vehicles typically designed for one person, except for those specifically designed to accommodate additional passenger(s) 2Self-balancing refers to dynamic stabilization achieved via a combination of sensors and gyroscopes contained in/on the vehicle Source: Society of Automotive Engineers
PAGE 19 of 44 What about FARS? Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) coding for Person on Personal Conveyance was modifed in 2020 to indicate whether the personal conveyance was motorized, non-motorized or unknown. This new coding does not include motorized bicycles, but the defnitions align with the ANSI D-16 defnition. It is important to point out, however, that FARS data can only be accurately coded if specifc information such as scooter motorized or scooter non-motorized is recorded on the state crash report. Until this detail is captured on state crash forms, the change to FARS will not be fully realized.
What States Are Doing Georgia follows the ANSI D16.1 defnition for a personal conveyance—“a device, other than a transport device, used by a pedestrian for personal mobility assistance or recreation… that can be motorized or human powered, but not pedaled” (American National Standards Institute, Inc., 2017). Offcers are instructed to use the pedestrian identifer when completing a crash report involving an e-scooter and a motor vehicle and to note the scooter brand under vehicle make and scooter under model. If the incident, however, involved an e-scooter and a pedestrian or two e-scooters, no crash report would be fled because no motor vehicle was involved. By defning e-scooters as pedestrians, however, the state is not getting a complete picture of how these devices are impacting the safety of riders and other road users.
Boise Amends E-Scooter Law Despite Lack of Data The importance of having micromobility crash data cannot be overstated—especially when it comes to making sound policy decisions. But a lack of crash and other data did not stop city offcials in Boise, ID, from amending its e-scooter ordinance in July 2019, after the program had been operating for nine months and logged nearly half a million trip miles. Instead, the change was made based on “anecdotal reports of risk-taking and misbehavior.” The safety-related revisions address slowing scooters down from 15 mph to 5 mph in congested areas and public places and assigning an ID number to each scooter to help the public report reckless riders to local authorities (Capron, 2019). Both are reasonable provisions that have been instituted in other cities. However, several Boise micromobility offcials interviewed for this report indicated they were not aware of any citations being used for dangerous scooter riding.
In North Carolina, offcers in Charlotte have received training on how to document the role of e-scooters in the narrative of the crash report to help track e-scooter crashes and compare them to other modes (Goodman et al., 2019). This is helpful if the crash forms are captured electronically and allow for keyword queries. Otherwise, obtaining this information would require manually reviewing all crash reports.
Several state crash reporting forms were or are being updated to address micromobility but none to the extent suggested by the MMUCC proposal. For example, Pennsylvania added Bicycle-Electric Assist under vehicle type in its crash reporting system and began collecting information about e-bike crashes on January 1, 2020. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is adding an operator box to its 555 Crash Reporting Form to indicate that a micromobility device was involved, but it will
PAGE 20 of 44 not distinguish the device type (i.e., e-scooter, e-bike or e-skateboard). The form, which is used by enforcement agencies throughout the state, has separate boxes for pedestrian and bicyclist. A new non-motorist attribute, Pedestrian Using an Electronic Scooter, is being added to the Tennessee Traffc Analysis Network (TITAN) electronic crash reporting system used by all law enforcement agencies statewide. Without this identifer, the system would have to query the narrative for scooter in combination with the non-motorist code, Pedestrian Using a Personal Conveyance.
Using Hospital Data At present, hospital data is considered the best source of local PTD-related There is no crash, injury and fatality data (Goodman et al., 2019). But this data also can be consistent problematic, since it is dependent on hospital personnel properly coding the rider’s/ terminology or easy way to patient’s injuries. For researchers and others interested in studying micromobility, search for PTD- there is no consistent terminology or easy way to search for PTD-related injuries. related injuries. That prompted two epidemiologists in Atlanta to launch the Scooter Crash and Trauma CoHort or SCRATCH injury registry in June 2018. Currently, the registry has information about 800 micromobility-related events that have occurred through the end of 2019. Obtaining this data, however, has been challenging since health care providers are using a myriad of cause codes for these injuries (J. Rupp, personal conversation, May 6, 2020).
To address this problem, the National Center for Health Statistics approved the use of new ICD- 10-CM (International Classifcation of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modifcation) external cause codes beginning October 2020. This will provide health care practitioners the means to differentiate PTD-related injuries (referred to as pedestrian conveyance accidents) by device (i.e., e-scooter, e-skateboard, hoverboard) and cause (i.e., collision with a pedestrian, pedal cycle, two or three-wheeled motor vehicle, car, pick-up, van, heavy transport vehicle, bus; fall from a device; collision New Modes, New Codes! with a stationary object). The intention is to code Categorizing injuries related to emerging micromobility transportation. to the greatest level of granularity possible. The group that pressed for approval of the new cause codes pointed to the critical importance of accurate injury surveillance for successfully developing, implementing and evaluating prevention initiatives (McConnell-Lamptey & Schuerer, 2019).
e-Scooters Other Devices Training on the use of the new ICD-10-CM codes is Keyword for Chief Complaint: Keywords for Chief Complaint: e-scooter + Brand e-skateboard, e-hoverboard, planned. This is key, along with engaging the medical (Bird, Gotcha, Jump, Lime, Spin, Razor, etc.) Segway®, e-unicycle record companies providing clinical software systems ICD-10-CM Codes V00.09 Pedestrian on foot injured in collision with other pedestrian conveyance used by physicians, nurses, emergency personnel and V00.181, V00.182, V00.188 Accident on other rolling type pedestrian conveyance V01-V06 (.09, .19, .99) Pedestrian with other conveyance injured in transportation collision others. A poster designed for display in clinical and
mobility NOT considered e-scooters scooters These devices are not considered e-scooters motor administrative settings where micromobility-related scooters and have their own set of ICD-10-CM codes. mopeds injuries are triaged, described and coded has been NC DEPARTMENT OF Questions? Contact [email protected] HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Division of Public Health developed by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and may be reproduced and North Carolina’s poster on micromobility-related injury posted without permission by states and their partners. codes, which may be reproduced without permission.
PAGE 21 of 44 Linking crash and medical data can help SHSOs and their partners develop a better understanding of safety issues associated with micromobility. But being able to look at trip or exposure data (i.e., origin-destination, time of day, day of week) would provide a more robust picture and ensure crash and injury/fatality data are not examined in a vacuum. This data is often lacking for those who walk and bike, but not so for shared micromobility (more on that below). By having access to this data, traffc safety and public health professionals can more accurately compare crash trends and injury rates across all modes and better allocate resources for maximum impact.
Micromobility Provider Data Shared e-bikes and scooters generate a lot of vehicle data, which are collected and maintained by the micromobility providers. These data can be used by communities with shared mobility programs to help them make better management and planning decisions—including bolstering safety. The challenge though is to receive the data from different providers in a standardized format. Los Angeles recognized this early and responded by developing an open source Mobility Data Specifcation (MDS) administered by the Open Mobility Foundation and currently used by 80 communities including Austin, Seattle, San Jose, Providence, and Louisville (Zipper, 2019).
MDS enables cities to obtain de-identifed, dockless trip information in real- time. But it does not collect crash data. As pointed out earlier, the provider must rely on the rider to report an incident. Some do, especially if the PTD is damaged, but it is not common practice. As part of their agreement with providers, some cities require them to report collisions, injuries, and property damage on ongoing basis. Atlanta uses provider-supplied data to post a monthly Shareable Dockless Mobility Device report that includes trip, parking violation and safety data presented in a graph or chart. The latter (a chart) Some cities, such as Atlanta, use shows total trips, crashes and injuries (only those reported to providers) and provider data to fatalities by month. This information is extracted from an excel spreadsheet produce reports on that requires the provider to provide the date and a description of the incident, micromobility usage the PTD and incident (crash/fall/other) type, the time the customer reported the and safety. incident, the time of report resolution and a description of that resolution.
Michigan State University, one of many colleges/universities with micromobility programs, also requires it e-scooter provider, Gotcha, to share crash incident data that it receives from riders via its app. Mobility researchers at MSU want to use this and other data to gain insights for “develop[ing] technology solutions that encourage good social behavior, from safe driving practices to alleviating accessibility hazards” (MSU, 2019). An MSU offcial acknowledged, however, that incidents are likely not captured as there were only two reported in 2019. One was the result of an unrepaired roadway and the other was rider error; neither warranted medical attention. Efforts to obtain micromobility injury data from local hospitals and urgent care clinics also have not been successful due to the inability to distinguish between crashes involving e-scooters, mopeds and e-skateboards and shared and personally owned devices (B. Nelson, email conversation, May 2020).
The micromobility providers interviewed for this publication acknowledged there are gaps in crash and injury data and expressed interest in working with SHSOs and their partners to identify how best to bridge them. This includes meeting with Traffc Records Coordinating Committees to explain what data they collect and learn what states specifcally want and need.
PAGE 22 of 44 Crowdsourced Data Micromobility providers and others interviewed for this publication also suggested using crowdsourced data—data collected and reported via technology by a user community—to better understand what is occurring in an area and where interventions (i.e., enforcement, outreach, infrastructure improvements) might be helpful. Crowdsourced data is a convenience sample, so there is the potential for sampling bias. However, when it is combined with other data sources, it can provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of an issue or problem (Ray & Sussman, 2019).
Is crowdsourced data reliable? Using the How’s My Driving app (recently Offcials in Northern rebranded as OurStreets), volunteers spread out across Crystal City, Rosslyn, Virginia were able to and Ballston (part of the DC metropolitan area) on an October day in 2019 to use crowdsourced data to understand capture how many motorists blocked or parked in bicycle lanes. Over a fve- why a bike lane was hour period, they reported more than 300 violations and collected a wealth not working. of information about each including location, time of day, duration of the violation, vehicle type and what it was doing (loading, standing, parked). By looking beyond the number of violations and pulling in crowdsourced information, local offcials were able to understand why a bike lane was not working and make more informed decisions about how to fx it (Sussman, 2019).
The app developers stressed OurStreets is “not about demonizing drivers, it’s about understanding why these behaviors are happening… the geographic and date/time context, and how [a community] can make changes to mitigate these problems.” It is a way to use crash, citation and “all these other layers” to tell “a more contextualized story about what’s actually happening on our streets” (Machosky, 2020).
OurStreets can be used anywhere in the United States. Street Story, developed by the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (Safe TREC) at the University of California-Berkeley, is a free, community engagement tool that allows residents, community groups and agencies throughout California to collect information about collisions, near-misses, general hazards and safe locations to travel. While people submitting information about collisions are not required to provide their name, they must select their mode of travel from a pull down menu that includes PTDs (e-bike, e-scooter, other), indicate the date, whether it occurred during the day or at night, who was involved, if there were any injuries or fatalities, the cause (infrastructure, environment, behavioral with specifc examples) and what would make the placer safer. SafeTREC recognizes community members have a wealth of information about transportation safety and want not only to collect it, but also make it publicly accessible (SafeTREC, 2020).
The Role for SHSOs
Work with the appropriate agency(ies) to update your state’s crash report to include a micromobility feld and/or identifers that capture crashes by device and train offcers to use it.
Partner with your State Department of Health; Hospital, Emergency Medical Physicians, Trauma Nurses and EMS/First Aid Associations; and other health care-related groups to promote awareness (i.e., distribute the UNC poster) and widespread use of the new ICD-10-CM external cause codes for micromobility.
PAGE 23 of 44 Meet with city/community offcials who administer shared micromobility programs to learn what safety-related data they collect and from whom, how they use and what they need.
Invite micromobility providers working in your state to attend a Traffc Records Coordinating Committee meeting to begin a dialogue on data collection, sharing and needs.
Include a micromobility representative on your Traffc Records Coordinating Committee.
Link micromobility exposure, crash and injury data to fully understand the devices’ safety impacts and make more informed resource allocation and policy decisions.
Partner with a community to pilot the use of crowdsourced data to gain a deeper understanding of a traffc safety problem and the best countermeasures for effectively addressing it.
Infrastructure The Challenge: Separating transportation modes is the most effective way to reduce crashes. If separate infrastructure does not exist, micromobility riders will go where they feel safe and innovate based on what is available.
Many of the complaints about micromobility—and scooters, in particular—center around sidewalk parking Self-Driving Scooters and riding. Advocates argue if space is built to safely park and ride PTDs, these conficts can be avoided along Roll into Georgia with the need for complicated laws and enforcement An Atlanta suburb is partnering (Kyrouz, 2020). Because dockless vehicles can be left with scooter providers, Go X and Tortoise, to address the city’s anywhere, concerns about vehicles blocking the right parking problem by launching of way (a signifcant problem for people with physical, self-driving vehicles. Peachtree visual and cognitive impairments) and not being parked Corners passed an ordinance upright garnered signifcant media attention the past requiring all shared micromobility couple of years. Since then, many cities have taken devices to automatically steps to address the parking problem from posting reposition themselves as way to increase scooter accessibility signage and using stencils to demarcate parking spaces and reduce sidewalk clutter. to developing apps to report improperly parked bikes Riders use the Hail the Scooter and establishing PTD parking corrals. Regarding the app to summon a device to their latter, these are often the last parking space or the curb location. After they’ve completed side (if local laws permit), no-parking area adjacent their trip, the scooter drives to crosswalks and stops, referred to as daylighting itself—at 5 mph—back to a home base, where it is disinfected. The (Ramboll, 2020; AmericaWalks, 2020). scooters aren’t really driving themselves; they’re piloted by In 2018, Santa Monica (the unoffcial birthplace of remote teleoperators located in e-scooters) created 107 on-street and sidewalk parking Mexico (Anderson, 2020). zones and required providers to offer parking incentives
PAGE 24 of 44 to encourage rider use. The incentives have helped, but city offcials acknowledged that more education, in- app messages, incentives and disincentives and drop zones are needed (City of Santa Monica, 2019). The DC Department of Transportation (DDOT) began installing off-sidewalk parking corrals for both private and shared dockless vehicles citywide in February 2020 and is taking requests from residents for additional corrals. Where DDOT dockless vehicle parking video there are no corrals, riders are reminded to park in the furniture zone—the frst fve feet of the curb, where there are typically public benches or trees—placing one wheel on the curb and the other in the street to ensure there is adequate space for pedestrians (DDOT, 2020). In June, Austin partnered with Swiftmile to launch a 6-month pilot to determine if free access to the latter’s scooter parking and charging stations will “infuence user behavior in managing sidewalk organization” and “increase access to fully charged scooters” (City of Austin, 2020b).
Sidewalk Riding When it comes to addressing sidewalk riding, infrastructure is the fx. But funding and building it Can Sensors Keep is not that simple. PTDs make some pedestrians feel Bikes Off Sidewalks? unsafe because they move at a higher rate of speed. Using sensors and an AI-based (Maximum speeds for these devices range from 15 statistical model that predicts the to 20 mph, but riders generally travel at much lower likelihood of a user riding on the speeds or are required to do so by city or county sidewalk and for how long, Lime is ordinance.) But for those PTD riders that do not feel sending a push notifcation to San safe on the adjacent street due to road conditions Jose, CA riders when more than (i.e., uneven pavement, potholes, gravel, grates, sewer half of their trip occurs on the sidewalk. They may also receive covers), traffc volumes and/or motor vehicle speeds, an image showing exactly where the sidewalk is often the best option. That is why the sidewalk riding occurred and organizations such as NACTO and NABSA are calling an email with the same warning. for more bike lanes and paths, bikeways and other Lime also sees the potential for clearly marked, comfortable and safe places to ride sharing the data with city offcials (NACTO, 2019; NABSA, 2020). to advocate for more protected bike lanes (Sawers, 2020).
Micromobility users concur. In Austin, which operates 76 bike share stations and launched its dockless bike and scooter program in 2018 (the latter generated 1.8 million trips the frst year), the Department of Transportation surveyed community members and found on a scale of one (very uncomfortable) to fve (very comfortable) e-scooter and bike riders were most comfortable on protected bike lanes (4.11), followed by paved urban trails (3.87), painted bike lanes (3.64) and residential streets with no marked traffc lanes, bike lanes or sidewalks (3.3). Sidewalks on busy, multi-lane roads (2.62) were less comfortable than natural surface trails (2.91), but more
PAGE 25 of 44 comfortable than multi-lane streets with marked traffc lanes but no bicycle lanes or sidewalks (2.09) (City of Austin, 2018). Feeling comfortable is key. When researchers set out to learn why male e-bike and e-scooter riders outnumbered females riders two to one, it was not fear of the devices but lack of fully separated and protected lanes that alienated women (Krizek & McGuckin, 2019).
Separate Infrastructure The evidence is clear that providing infrastructure that separates riders— bicyclists, e-bikes, and e-scooters—from motorists is the most effective 89% countermeasure for preventing crashes. Cycle tracks, on-street bicycle Separated on-street bicycle lanes offer lanes that are physically separated from motor vehicles by barriers such signifcantly more rider as curbs or bollards, are 89 percent safer than streets with parked cars safety compared to and no cycling facilities (Teschke et al., 2012). When physical separation is streets with no physical not possible, reducing the distance or time bicycles (pedal-powered and/ separation. or motorized) are exposed to risk is essential (Ragland as cited in Williams, 2015). This can be done through marked bike lanes, bicycle boulevards or greenways, bike boxes (pavement marking that features a stop line closer to the intersection to give bicyclist and PTD riders a head-start when the light turns green) and specially marked traffc lights that provide an advance green signal for riders.
But separate paths and bike lanes also make communities safer for drivers, But separate paths not just riders. Researchers analyzed 13 years of crash and street design and bike lanes also data from 12 large U.S. cities to understand what makes some safer than make communities safer for drivers, not others and found those with protected bike lanes had lower fatality and just riders. injury rates. Cities with an abundance of cycle tracks, saw their fatal crash rates decline by 44 percent and their injury rates cut in half compared to cities with an average amount of protected infrastructure. Bicyclists also benefted from painted and fully separated bike lanes. However, what generated the greatest safety gains for riders—and drivers—were bike lanes separated with bollards, planters or other devices (Bliss, 2019).
Making infrastructure improvements is not the responsibility of the SHSOs. But they can educate law enforcement, elected offcials, and the public about infrastructure needs and how particular countermeasures improve safety for all road users. As a member of a statewide pedestrian and bicyclist task force or working group, a SHSO can also join with state and local DOTs, safety partners and advocates to review crash, injury and other data, such as near misses collected through crowdsourcing (discussed previously), to identify, prioritize and select appropriate countermeasures for locations posing a high risk for vulnerable road users. States are encouraged to take a systemic approach to safety which involves implementing improvements based on high-risk roadway features correlated with specifc severe crash types. Unlike the approach used to address hot spots, the systemic approach considers multiple locations with similar risk characteristics and selects the most appropriate and affordable countermeasure(s) for widespread implementation (FHWA, 2020).
Reviewing origin and destination data collected by micromobility providers is also another potential source of information for identifying potential hot spots on roadways where no crashes have occurred—yet. For instance, the data may reveal many riders are ending their trip at a location that is not adjacent to a major business, retail or transportation hub. Does the speed limit or number of traffc lanes increase at that point or on adjacent roads? If there is marked or protected
PAGE 26 of 44 infrastructure for cyclists, does it end there? Getting the answer to these and other questions could help prevent future crashes and save lives.
The Role for SHSOs
Invite micromobility providers operating in your state to join the statewide pedestrian and bicyclist safety task force or advisory group.
Work with micromobility providers and/or community offcials to obtain and analyze trip (origin and destination) and other data to identify potential high-risk areas for riders. Use the fndings along with crash, injury and other data to take a systemic approach to reducing and preventing fatal and serious injuries. Partner with communities with dockless micromobility programs to fund research to better understand why sidewalk conficts occur and how best to address them.
Conduct a general session or workshop at your annual statewide safety conference to educate law enforcement and other behavioral safety partners about bicycle infrastructure (e.g., cycle tracks, bike lanes, bike boxes) and its effectiveness in reducing crashes for all road users—bicyclists, PTD riders, pedestrians and motorists.
Educate state and local elected offcials and the media about bicycle infrastructure and its effectiveness in reducing crashes for all road users—bicyclists, PTD riders, pedestrians and motorists.
Partner with statewide and local bicycle and pedestrian safety groups to educate the public about bicycle infrastructure and its effectiveness in reducing crashes for all road users— bicyclists, PTD riders, pedestrians and motorists.
Include information on your website about how bicycle infrastructure works and its effectiveness in reducing crashes for all road users—bicyclists, PTD riders, pedestrians and motorists.
Enforcement The Challenge: Most cities require providers to inform riders about safe operating rules, but enforcement of those rules is the responsibility of local law enforcement offcials. That effort, however, may be hampered by the lack of a state micromobility statute and/or local ordinance and little or no offcer training.
As previously discussed in the oversight section of this publication, states should establish PTD regulations, with the caveat that local governments can enact additional rules based on local conditions. Local ordinances are often enacted after, rather than before, shared devices appear on city streets and sidewalks and in response to public complaints. Typically, they address where a PTD may and may not be operated, underage riding,
PAGE 27 of 44 speed limits, helmet and/or cell phone use and other safety issues. Most It is essential for cities require providers to inform riders about the rules through their apps, law enforcement to but enforcement of these rules ultimately falls to police and municipal be at the table when code enforcement offcers. That is why it is essential for law enforcement micromobility ordinances to be at the table when micromobility ordinances are developed. are developed.
In Austin, the Transportation and Police Departments collaborated to develop a micromobility ordinance, after more than 5,000 e-scooters appeared on its streets. “They were literally thrust on the city and it was disruptive,” said an APD Commander. “Riders were in the middle of the street, going the wrong way, parking anywhere and blocking sidewalks. We didn’t have a state law or city ordinance; we were literally fying blind” (E. Miesse, personal conversation, May 11, 2020). The issue came to a head when an intoxicated e-scooter rider, traveling the wrong way on a city street, was struck and killed by a motorist in February 2019.
To address the problem, two chapters in the Austin City Code—traffc regulation and administration and bicycles—were amended to include the operation of micromobility devices and bicycles on sidewalks and roadways. The former is defned as a “scooter, skateboard or other compact device designed for personal micromobility, either privately owned or part of a shared… service” (City of Austin, 2019b). Because PTDs are similar in movement to bicycles and Austin has a robust system of bike lanes and paths, the APD Commander explained that it made sense to enforce them like bicycles. As a result, the ordinance expressly states that a PTD rider—like a pedestrian or bicyclist—is a vulnerable road user.
The ordinance allows on-road (in adherence with vehicle traffc rules and traffc-control devices) and sidewalk riding “in a reasonable and prudent manner” but also requires PTDs and bicycles to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians (City of Austin, 2019b). It prohibits the use of portable electronic devices and double-riding and outlines where scooters and bikes may and may not park. There is no rider age restriction, however, a person under 18 years of age must wear a helmet. An offense is deemed a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fne not to exceed $20 for a frst conviction and $40 for a second and subsequent conviction. The court may dismiss a helmet offense up to 30 days after a citation is issued, if the defendant can show proof of purchase (City of Austin, 2019b). No information was available on the number of citations issued since the ordinance took effect. However, the APD Commander indicated that police and municipal code offcers have written tickets.
Austin’s ordinance does not address impaired riding, which has been a problem in this city and others. A rider can be arrested for public intoxication and subsequently released to a friend, but the APD Commander pointed out a state micromobility law addressing this and other concerns is needed. Texas does not currently have such a law. California, on the other hand, does. Section 2122.15 of the State Vehicle Code prohibits operating a motorized scooter on a highway while under .08 g/dL the infuence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two. While there is a per se BAC limit of 0.08 under California’s DUI statutes, there is no per se law for California prohibits intoxicated scootering. BAC can be a consideration but is not necessary to operating a motorized determine if the operator has violated the law. The offense is a misdemeanor scooter under the punishable by a fne of up to $250 and does not count against a person’s infuence, but there is driving record (California Legislature, 2020). no per se BAC limit.
PAGE 28 of 44 Offcer Training, Resources & Support In addition to having an ordinance that clearly defnes the rights and responsibilities of micromobility users, law enforcement offcials also need training. The latter is essential for ensuring offcers understand the rules and enforce them fairly and equitably. They also need a primer in PTD typology and how these devices operate; how to identify them in crash reports, especially if there is no unique identifer for PTDs; safe riding practices; and how can they help educate riders, drivers and pedestrians about safely sharing the road. Every offcer tasked with enforcing Austin’s ordinance received training that included riding a standing and seated scooter, vital for creating empathy. The APD also issued a training bulletin addressing how to enforce the city’s micromobility ordinance.
Training Providers to Be Responsible Partners Micromobility providers in Austin are also expected to help reinforce the city’s ordinance. When the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired complained to Austin transportation offcials about problems with e-scooters on their downtown campus, providers were required to participate in experiential training. That, however, did not involve riding a scooter. Instead, provider staff members were blindfolded and led by hand down busy urban sidewalks. The training, coupled with monthly (now quarterly) meetings, has resulted in the deployment of strategies that are positively impacting compliance and safety. The training has since been expanded to address ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) concerns and is helping to make providers more responsible partners (J. JonMichael, personal conversation, April 9, 2020).
Baltimore, MD, launched a six-month e-scooter pilot How to Ride an E-scooter Legally and Safely: program in August 2019 that was made permanent in Ride in the street-- to the right or in a bikelane when possible early 2020. The Baltimore Police Department’s Training Only ride on the sidewalk for safety if the road is HIGH speed Yield to people walking on the sidewalk or in crosswalks Unit recommended offcers give warnings to riders, Give people 3 feet of space when passing rather than tickets during the frst year. To ensure Limit one person per vehicle Do not bring a vehicle on a bus, light rail or Metro offcers were fully versed in the city’s scooter laws and Obey all traffic signs and signals new bicycle infrastructure, information was included Share the Road! in one of the BPD’s monthly online service trainings. Patrol offcers must click through a series of slides and Baltimore’s business card-sized resource for offcers. pass an online quiz, with the results recorded to ensure completion by all personnel. The BPD also developed a business card-sized educational piece that patrol offcers can easily carry and use to start a conversation with riders (M. Young, personal conversation, July 6, 2020).
Some cities have developed reference guides to help offcers cite the appropriate statute or ordinance associated with a micromobility violation. Oregon’s pocket guide, which addresses seven devices including e-scooters and e-bikes, was originally developed in 2002 by the SHSO and state licensing agency and is updated whenever there is a legislative change or a new device is added. It lists the applicable State Vehicle Code for easy reference along with the minimum operator age; license, registration, insurance, helmet and lighting requirements; maximum capable and allowable
PAGE 29 of 44 speeds; where it may be ridden (sidewalk, bike path, crosswalk); and if passengers are permitted and a DUII (Driving Under the Infuence of Intoxicants) charge is possible. While it is designed for law enforcement, the handy reference is also used by the courts, legislators, community advocates, and city council members, and frequently cited by the media.
Atlanta’s ordinance regulating shareable dockless mobility devices (e-bikes and scooters) was passed by the City Council in January 2019. Move Smart: An Enforcement Offcer’s Guide to Creating Safer Streets for People Who Walk, Bike or Scoot in Atlanta was developed to help offcers enforce the new ordinance along with other state and city codes applicable to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists and PTD users). In addition to listing the applicable ordinance or code for violations and allowed actions, the three- panel brochure provides guidance for properly identifying and coding scooters, pedal and e-bikes and pedestrians on crash reports.
Geofencing Atlanta PD resource for In some communities, shared PTDs are prohibited from riding and/or parking enforcing micromobility in certain zones or their top speed is restricted. Large feets can make it ordinances diffcult for police offcers to address these violations. More and more cities are requiring providers to use geofencing—a software feature that uses global positioning system (GPS) or radio frequency identifcation (RFID) to establish geographic boundaries—to supplement traditional enforcement. Using the PTDs’ location, which is already monitored by GPS, providers can set triggers to alert riders when they enter or exit a slow zone or restricted area.
Santa Monica was one of the frst cities to require providers to use geofencing to address parking, safety and oversaturation problems. The city and providers set up a deactivation zone around the beach area (City of Santa Monica, 2019). As a PTD approaches, the device begins to slow down and eventually stop. Geofencing is also used in Washington, DC to alert PTD users that sidewalk riding is prohibited in the Central Business District, due to its high volume of pedestrians. Other cities with designated slow zones and restricted areas Geofencing helps enforce require it of providers as well. slow zones and restricted areas for shared PTDs.
It is important, however, for law enforcement (and the city offcials that establish PTD speed limit caps) to understand that the maximum speed (as specifed by the manufacturer) a PTD can achieve is not the speed riders are typically traveling. Research funded by the Transportation Research Board and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found that on average e-skaters and skateboarders traveled 10 mph, while e-scooters were going 7.5 mph (Birriel et al., 2001, Fang & Handy, 2017, &FHWA, 2004, as cited in Fang et al., 2018). Another study of e-scooter riders in San Jose, CA, found they were going an average of 11 mph on streets, and slightly slower—10 mph on mix-used paths and 9 mph on sidewalks—on facilities where there were pedestrians (Fang et al., 2018). The bottom line is that PTD riders are “generally two to three times faster than the average pedestrian and slightly slower than bicyclists” and “on sidewalks and mix-used paths [they] are typically slower than bicyclists” (Fang, et al., 2018).
PAGE 30 of 44 Educating Riders, Enlisting the Public’s Help Law enforcement offcials in some cities also play an active role in educating micromobility users about local ordinances as well as safe riding practices. Both roles are especially important when shared mobility programs frst get underway. When Santa Monica launched its dockless pilot program in 2017, sidewalk riding was a prevalent issue as riders learned new behaviors and walkers and motorists adjusted to the new mode. The Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) conducted enforcement based on key community complaints. They issued citations but also gave warnings to violators, conveyed information via digital messaging boards and posted on social media. Between June 2017 and September 2019, SMPD issued 1,006 citations to shared bike and e-scooter riders, with 61 percent of the tickets issued to riders under 16 years of age for not wearing a helmet (the law was amended in 2019 to require helmet use by riders under 18). Riding on sidewalks and running red lights accounted for 13 percent and 7 percent of the tickets, respectively. Ticketing peaked in July 2018 at 250 citations and had dropped to an average of 50 per month in 2019, as riders gained skill and greater awareness of the local laws (City of Santa Monica, 2019).
The Atlanta Police Department (APD) flmed a Public Service Announcement to help the public understand the city’s new scooter ordinance. APD Offcer Benjamin Hopson hosts the 90-second PSA that covers no sidewalk riding or cellphone use, riding with traffc and following traffc laws, giving pedestrians the right-of-way and parking do’s and don’ts. Helmet use is recommended (but not required) and the PSA closes with a reminder to Offcer Hopson hosts APD’s scooter safety PSA move to the street if you’re not using your feet. The city also created Never Ride on Sidewalks and Park Here stickers to help reinforce two key provisions in the ordinance that often generate signifcant complaints when programs frst get underway.
Finally, some communities expand the enforcement net by asking the public to report PTD violations or unsafe riding practices. In addition to providing information about how to use e-bikes and e-scooters in Boise, ID, the city’s website includes a form the public can complete and submit to report violations. These are routed to a Compliance Offcer for investigation.
The Role for SHSOs
Work with local law enforcement offcials in cities with micromobility programs to identify gaps and defciencies in state laws that hamper their ability to address unsafe riding behaviors (i.e., impaired riding).
Work with your state’s pedestrian and bicyclist task force – and others with an interest in micromobility – to educate policymakers and the media about gaps and defciencies in state laws that compromise safety for PTDs riders and other road users.
Convene a meeting between micromobility providers operating in your state and local and
PAGE 31 of 44 state law enforcement leadership to begin a dialogue that will result in the identifcation and implementation of strategies that will foster safe mobility.
Host micromobility training for law enforcement offcials that includes a PTD typology and operation primer (with an on-road component); crash reporting guidance; safe riding practices; and techniques for effectively engaging with riders, drivers and pedestrians to promote safely sharing the road.
Develop and distribute a micromobility quick reference guide for use by law enforcement and other interested parties and make it available to the public and media via your SHSO and partner websites.
Fund a pilot to evaluate the effectiveness of police offcers using e-bikes and/or e-scooters to conduct community policing.
Education The Challenge: Education is essential for ensuring micromobility users operate devices safely and respectfully and other road and sidewalk users are accepting of this mode. But public outreach is resource intensive and cannot be the sole responsibility of cities and/or providers. Other partners must be tapped to help foster widespread public engagement.
To create a culture where all modes are accepted and safety is paramount, cities, providers and How Austin E-ScootsAUSTIN’S public, private and non-proft organizations CLOTHES & MORE must partner to educate all road users. BARBER SHOP rock java When it comes to micromobility, education Wear helmets is predominantly user-focused with little or for safety.
Ride in the bicycle no information directed to other road users. lane or vehicle lane. Park respectfully. Don’t block the sidewalk. Scoot respectfully The city or community agency responsible for on the sidewalk. One person overseeing the shared mobility program typically per scooter. maintains a website or webpages where visitors AustinTexas.gov/DocklessMobility can fnd general information (often in the form Many cities, like Austin, have developed engaging graphics on of frequently asked questions) as well as safe e-scooter safety. operating tips, how to ride and park videos and links to rules and/or local ordinances. Some cities, such as Austin, Portland, and Chicago have developed colorful posters, in multiple languages, to illustrate the do’s and don’ts of safely e-scootering. Most educational materials address a handful of tips such as conducting a pre-ride check, following the rules, yielding to pedestrians, wearing a helmet and parking properly.
One exception is Arlington, VA, which uses a multi-modal campaign (which predates the introduction of e-scooters) to encourage everyone to be a PAL—predictable, alert and lawful. Predictability is especially important since PTD riders are likely to innovate based on infrastructure, traffc volumes, skill level and familiarity with the area. This speaks to
PAGE 32 of 44 the need to educate motorists (novice and seasoned), pedestrians and bicyclists about how these devices Should Children work and why riders may switch from the sidewalk to the street to a protected bike lane (i.e., poor pavement Ride PTDs? conditions, local restrictions, preference) all in the same The American Academy of trip. At the same time, educating PTD riders about the Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that children under 16—who are too importance of being predictable, so other modes have young to have a driver’s license— a better idea of what they are going to do next and can should not operate or ride on react accordingly, is essential. electric or motorized scooters. Nor should they ride with an adult Educating Drivers since these devices are designed Communities with micromobility programs are for single rider use only. encouraged to take a page from Arlington’s play book E-scooters, however, are easily and promote predictability, which is a key tenant of accessible to minors—they can injury prevention. State licensing agencies can also sign up on an app without parental help. A 2019 American Association of Motor Vehicle consent—and most cities do not Administrators (AAMVA) white paper calls on providers to have a way to verify a user’s age. educate “everyone who will be in the environment” about Therefore, the AAP recommends that children know the rules and the rules e-scooters most follow. However, including their parents’ expectations and information about the PTDs currently allowed to operate that parents check their child’s on local and state roadways and what motorists can phone if they have concerns. do to safely share the road by slowing down and giving Parents with college-aged them space should also be added to new driver manuals. children are also encouraged to Adding PTD-related questions to the written test is also talk with them about the dangers of operating a scooter while encouraged to gauge new driver understanding of the texting, listening to music or under mode. In addition, including micromobility information on the infuence of alcohol or other agency websites with safety and/or safely sharing the drugs (Morgan, 2019). road pages is also encouraged.
Driver education programs, including those offered to seasoned and older drivers for insurance and/or point reduction (i.e., AAA, National Safety Council, AARP), should also include a discussion about PTDs either as a stand-alone topic or in conjunction with lessons focused on pedestrians, bicyclists and other vulnerable road users. The American Driver and Traffc Safety Education Association (ADTSEA) recently released a revised driver education classroom curriculum (version 3.0) but there is no mention of micromobility. What new drivers and their experienced counterparts need to understand is what these devices are and how they operate; the disparity in size and weight between PTDs, motor vehicles and others on and near the road; and the danger of speeding and impairment caused by alcohol, and other drugs, drowsiness and distraction. Crash data indicate that Most micromobility speed, alcohol and distraction are common causation factors in crashes injuries are single vehicle, but 90 percent involving motor vehicles and vulnerable road users. Most micromobility of fatalities are the injuries are single vehicle (i.e., the rider fell, collided with a fxed object) but result of a collision 90 percent of fatalities are the result of a collision between a motor vehicle between a motor and a PTD (K. Harmon, personal conversation, March 17, 2020). vehicle and a PTD.
PAGE 33 of 44 Uber is working with the League of American Bicyclists (League) to retool the latter’s 90-minute Bicycle Friendly Driver Education Program for online delivery to rideshare drivers. Uber and the League were also working on a short curriculum to be directed to people using Uber’s JUMP shared e-bikes. The training would be made available via the Uber app and delivered in local communities by League Certifed Cycling Instructors. However, the JUMP education did not launch because Uber sold its bike and scooter business to Lime.
Educating Out-of-Towners & Tourists SHSOs can also help educate road users and several are doing so. In Utah, the Departments of Public Safety and Transportation partnered to create a video directed to motorists and scooter riders that speaks to the importance of sharing the road and predictability. The video also reminds scooter riders to familiarize themselves with local laws since they can change from one city to another. This is a key point since shared mobility UT developed a video to promote sharing the road programs are frequently used by out-of-towners and predictability. and/or tourists.
Santa Monica, CA, for example, found nearly 30 percent of the people using its micromobility program lived outside the county, making it challenging to convey the rules of the road and safety information (City of Santa Monica, 2019). Nashville faced a similar challenge, as it hosted a record 16.1 million visitors in 2019 (Nashville Convention & Visitors Bureau, 2020). While city offcials suspended the latter’s e-scooter program in late 2019, work is underway to relaunch it. Once the devices are back on Nashville streets, riders will need to know that it is illegal to scoot drunk. When the program was operating, the Tennessee SHSO used social media to warn riders about the danger and consequences for riding impaired. Both examples point to the need for partnerships between SHSOs, cities, providers, local travel and tourism groups and their members to ensure this and other critical information are delivered.
Cities can also convey safety tips and information about where not to ride to visitors and locals through on-device and on-street messaging. Panels affxed to the baskets on Boise’s shared bikes, for example, advise riders about pricing as well as safe riding practices and where to ride. Street signage, sidewalk decals, digital message boards and billboards are also likely to be seen by out-of-towners, while blog posts, community emails and social media notifcations can be used to reach residents. These tactics have been employed in Santa Monica, where a survey found that
Boise conveys safety tips and information on panels affxed to bike share baskets.
PAGE 34 of 44 85 percent of riders and 90 percent of the public said they were aware of the shared mobility program’s parking and riding rules. The city also conducted more than 100 engagement activities during the pilot phase of its program that included tabling at events and helmet distribution (City of Santa Monica, 2019). Other cities have partnered with providers, elected offcials and/or local organizations to conduct outreach and education events such block parties along transit routes, learn to ride events in conjunction with health fairs and street festivals, and other activities.
Bolstering On-Device Training The importance of learn to ride events coupled with ongoing practice cannot be overstated. Just like novice drivers, new micromobility users need to build 10% skill through behind the handlebar practice. The APH/CDC study of injured of injured Austin riders had ridden a scooter riders in Austin, discussed earlier, found that only 10 percent of those scooter 10 or more injured had ridden ten or more times before crashing (APH, 2019). That does times — indicating not mean that all novice PTD riders are or will crash. But training and practice training and practice can help reduce that risk. can help reduce risk.
Some cities such as Chicago and Washington, DC use ambassadors to engage with riders and the public. The DC Bike Ambassadors, funded through a partnership with the city’s DOT, interact with residents and visitors on street corners and adjacent to transit stations and at street fairs and community events. Their goal is to encourage more people to try bicycling and micromobility; educate them about safe road, sidewalk and trail use; provide resources to make non-motoring travel easy and safe; and model safe and respectful road use behavior. They also offer group rides (Washington Area Bicyclist Association, 2020).
Provider Sponsored Education The micromobility providers’ role in delivering safety training and information cannot be overstated. Cities What Does it Mean recognize it, expect it and are awarding permits to those to S.H.A.R.E.? providers with strong education and public outreach afe Riding. Navigate plans. Providers understand the impact concerns about Straffc and bike lanes with safety have on mass adoption of the mode and have been care. taking steps to address rider inexperience and behavior. eightened awareness. In addition to establishing safety advisory boards in HAnticipate what others 2019, both Bird and Lime were engaged in extensive rider might do. education initiatives prior to the pandemic. Bird kicked off lways alert. Save the a 100 city Safe Streets S.H.A.R.E. (see the sidebar) tour last Aselfes and music for June in San Jose that was designed to bring neighborhoods after the ride. together to learn about micromobility, the importance espect pedestrians. of helmet use (including free fttings), rules of the road, RYield and always keep parking best practices, sober riding and how to share the walkways accessible. road with all modes (Bird, 2019b). very voice matters. Get Einvolved to help your city Like Bird, Lime was partnering with communities to provide reshape its streets (Bird, opportunities for people 18 and older to learn about the 2019). mode and how to ride and park safely through its free
PAGE 35 of 44 First Ride Academy. The inaugural event was held in July 2019 in partnership with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and included an on-road ride with LAPD offcers, a free helmet and a coffee voucher courtesy of a local sponsor. The training was subsequently delivered in many other cities, on college campuses and to groups such as the DC Bar and Restaurant Workers Alliance (DCBRWA), whose members need access to alternative late-night transportation options when transit is not running (Lime 2019a). If, and when, these events will start up again is unknown.
All providers require riders to review onboarding messages (i.e., safety tips, localized rules and restrictions) on their apps before gaining access to a vehicle. (This is often required by the agencies that regulate them.) Providers also use their apps to address impairment, helmet use and safe routes. To prevent drinking and riding, Lime (in certain locations and at specifc times) requires users to verify they are safe to ride before unlocking one of their e-scooters (Lime, 2019b). Lyft added protected bike lanes and Lime’s onboarding messages bike-friendly routes, designated by dark green and dotted green lines, respectively, to its app to encourage their use (Hawkins, 2019b). Bird updated its app to invite riders to submit photos (at the end of their trip) showing themselves wearing a helmet to earn incentives such as ride credits (Hawkins, 2019c). And when Chicago’s 2020 e-scooter pilot rolls out this summer, all new riders will be required to complete an in-app safety quiz before starting their frst trip (Wisniewski, 2020).
This information is also addressed on provider websites, which frequently have safe riding and parking instructional videos, and initiatives designed to bolster responsible riding and helmet use. Some have partnered with cities to conduct public outreach campaigns that use outdoor advertising to alert motorists to slow down and be on the lookout for PTDs and remind riders to wear helmets and highly visible clothing. But these efforts should not be a substitute for hands- on training and education for riders and motorists, which likely will not happen until there is a COVID-19 vaccine or providers can institute hygiene measures that reassure the public.
The Role for SHSOs
Partner with cities, providers, law enforcement and public health offcials, and others (i.e., tourism bureaus, chambers of commerce, large employers, hotel chains) to use crash, injury and other data to develop and disseminate educational materials, segmented by road user group (i.e., new and seasoned motorists, tourists and other out-of-towners, pedestrians, bicyclists, frst-time and experienced PTD riders), that conveys what they can do to safely share the road. House this information on your SHSO website and include downloadable PDFs.
PAGE 36 of 44 Work with your state driver education association, department of education and providers to develop and distribute a micromobility lesson plan that includes an optional PTD ride.
Work with your state licensing agency to include micromobility information in the new driver manual and on its website, and micromobility questions on the licensing exam.
Work with your state licensing agency and defensive driving program providers to incorporate micromobility information into their approved curriculums.
Convene a meeting with cities, universities, providers and pedestrian and bicycle education and advocacy organizations in your state to identify and implement strategies for restarting and expanding community and campus learn-to-ride and practice riding events in a post- pandemic world.
Provide grants to help cities, colleges/universities and local organizations amplify their micromobility education, training and outreach efforts.
Partner with a provider in your state to pilot GDL-like onboarding messages emphasizing what new riders should and can do to protect themselves as they gain experience and build skill. Once riders safely complete ten rides, the app sends a congratulatory message and future onboarding messages are shorter but continue to reinforce key safety practices.
Final Thoughts
When automobiles frst appeared on city streets more than a century Micromobility is likely ago, they added even more chaos to a mix of pedestrians, bicyclists, here to stay. The mode’s children at play, horses, and streetcars. The U.S. is now experiencing tremendous growth another transformative moment in transportation. Today, a new cannot be ignored, and it has proven to be a micro mode—electric and motorized bicycles, scooters and other lifesaver for essential personal transportation devices, that some consider a god send and workers in urban centers others a menace—have joined the mix. Regardless, micromobility is during the pandemic. here and likely to stay. The mode’s tremendous growth over the past couple of years—fueled by people seeking a more effcient, less costly and, in some cases, fun transportation alternative—cannot be ignored. And despite the pandemic’s impact on travel that forced many shared systems to shut down, micromobility proved to be a lifesaver for essential workers in urban centers. The devices’ utility even resulted in one state ending a long-held ban.
The SHSOs have a role to play in helping to bring order to today’s transportation chaos. Just like other modes, PTD riders are crashing. But are personal conveyance devices like e-bikes and scooters less safe? Limited data make it diffcult to determine their overall impact on safety. SHSO offcials can and should partner with city offcials, micromobility providers, law enforcement and public health offcials and others working in traffc safety and injury prevention to collect and analyze all available data, so there is a more complete picture of the devices’ safety impact. Without robust data, it is impossible to make informed decisions about how this mode should be
PAGE 37 of 44 regulated, where to make infrastructure improvements and deploy enforcement or how best to engage with all road users to ensure they safely share the road.
GHSA will also play a role in addressing micromobility. In addition to this publication, the association is working with State Farm® to provide resources agents can use to educate their policyholders about safely riding and sharing the road with PTDs. GHSA is working to secure funding to develop and pilot law enforcement training that will be delivered in a train-the-trainer format. Meetings will be convened with national partners to discuss adding micromobility to existing driver education and training programs and to advocate for its inclusion in the next federal surface transportation funding bill.
PAGE 38 of 44 References
American National Standards Institute, Inc. (2017, December 18). Manual on classifcation of motor vehicle traffc crashes, 8th edition. Mechanicsville, VA: Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals.
AmericaWalks. (2020). Planning urban design, Daylighting [Web page]. https://americawalks.org/daylighting/
Anderson, B. (2020, May 20). All hail the world’s frst self-driving e-scooter feet coming to Georgia city [Web article]. Carscoops. https://www.carscoops.com/2020/05/city-in-georgia-to-get-autonomous-e-scooters-as-part-of-six- month-pilot/
Anzilotti, E. (2019a, April 25). Turns out, people really miss e-bikes when they’re taken away. Fast Company. https:// www.fastcompany.com/90339750/turns-out-people-really-miss-e-bikes-when-theyre-taken-away
Anzilotti, E. (2019b, June 18). Madison is the frst city to go 100% electric for its bike share. Fast Company. https://www. fastcompany.com/90365265/madison-is-the-frst-city-to-go-100-electric-for-its-bike-share
Arlington County Government (2020, February 10). New rules for shared e-scooters and e-bikes in Arlington [Press Release]. https://newsroom.arlingtonva.us/release/new-rules-scooters-e-bikes/
Austin Public Health. (2019). Dockless electric scooter-related injuries study, Austin, Texas, September – November 2018. Austin, TX: Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance Unit, Epidemiology and Public Health Preparedness Division. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/fles/fles/Health/ Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_ Study_5-2-19.pdf
Bird. (2019a, April). A look at e-scooter safety; Examining risks, reviewing responsibilities and prioritizing prevention. https://www.bird.co/wo-content/uploads/2019/12/Bird-Safety-Report-April-2019.pdf
Bird. (2019b, June 26). Bird kicks off 100 city s.h.a.r.e. tour to make streets safer for all [Press release]. https://www. bird.co/press/bird-kicks-off-100-city-s-h-a-r-e-tour-to-make-streets-safer-for-all/
Bliss, L. (2019, June 3). Protected bikes are safer for drivers, too. CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/06/ protected-bike-lanes-safe-street-design-bicycle-road-safety/590722/
Butcher, K. (2014). Myth: Riders are safer on the sidewalk [Blog]. PeopleForBikes Foundation. https://peoplefor bikes. org/blog/bike-myths-debunked/
California Legislature. (2020). Vehicle Code – VEH Division 11. Rules of the road [21000 - 23336]; Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. [Web page]. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_display Section. xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21221.5
Capron, M. (2019, July 25). Boise, Idaho, changes e-scooter laws to increase safety [Web article]. The Idaho Statesman. https://www.govtech.com/fs/Boise-Idaho-Changes-EScooter-Laws-to-Increase-Safety.html
Chang, S. (2020, May 31). Citi Bike promises to add “thousands” of e-bikes this summer as NYC reopens [Web article]. Gothamist. https://gothamist.com/news/citi-bike-promises-to-add-thousands-of-e-bikes-this-summer-as-nyc- reopens
City of Austin. (2019a). Dockless mobility community survey report. Austin, TX: Transportation Department. https:// austintexas.gov/sites/default/fles/fles/Transportation/Dockless_Mobility _Community_Survey_Report_2-28-19.pdf
City of Austin. (2019b). Ordinance No. 20190523-059. https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/ ordinances/code_of_ ordinances?nodlld=964446
City of Austin. (2020a). Shared micromobility transportation data and performance hub [Web tool]. https://data. mobility.austin.gov/micromobility-data/
City of Austin. (2020b). Smart mobility, Swiftmile electric scooter parking and charging station pilot program [Web press release]. https://www.austintexas.gov/department/smart-mobility
City of New York. (2020, July). Mayor de Blasio, Department of Transportation, Lyft celebrate 100 millionth Citi Bike ride [Press release]. https://www.nyc.gov/offce-of-the-mayor/news/530-20/mayor-de-blasio-department- transportation-lyft-celebrate-100-millionth-citi-bike-ride
PAGE 39 of 44 City of Oakland. (2020). Oakland slow streets [Web page]. https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/ oakland-slow-streets
City of Santa Monica. (2019, November). Shared mobility pilot program summary report. https://www. smgov.net/ uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/SantaMonicaSharedMobilityEvaluation_Final_110419.pdf
DiMaggio, C. J., Bukur, M., Wall, S. P., Frango, S. G., & Wen, A. Y. (2019). Injuries associated with electric-powered-bikes and scooters: Analysis of U.S. consumer product data. Injury Prevention, doi:10.1135/ injuryprev-2019-043418
District Department of Transportation. (2020). Bike and scooter corrals [Web page]. Washington, DC. https://ddot. dc.gov/page/bike-and-scooter-corrals
DuPuis, N., Greiss, J., & Klein, C. (2019). Micromobility in cities : A history and policy overview. Washington, DC: National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/resource/micromobility-in-cities-a-history-and-policy-overview
Exponent. (2019, August 16). Summary of regulations and standards; Domestic municipal, state and federal regulations of e-bicycles, rental bicycles, and e-scooters; Review of organizations engaged in developing rental bicycle and e-scooter standards. Tempe, AZ: State Farm Labs.
Fang, K., Agrawal, A. W., & Hooper, A. M. (2019). How and where should I ride this thing? Rules of the road for personal transportation devices. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute. https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/ fles/1713-Fang-Agrawal-Hooper-Rules-Personal-Transportation-Devices_0.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2018). National Household Travel Survey (2017), Explore vehicle trips data [Web page]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips
Federal Highway Administration. (2020). A systemic approach to safety – Using risk to drive action [Web page]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transporation. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/
Gauquelin, A., & Chamussy, J. (2020, May 27). Shared mobility rebooted [Blog]. The Urban Mobility Daily. https:// urbanmobilitydaily.com/shared-mobility-rebooted/
Goldbuam, C. (2020, May 18). Thinking of buying a bike? Get ready for a very long wait [Web article]. The New York Times. https://nytimes.com/2020/05/18/nyregion/bike-shortage-coronavirus.html
Goodman, D., Witte, A., Stark R-L., & Frackelton, A. (2019). E-scooter practices in mid-sized cities in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.
Governors Highway Safety Association. (2020a). Micromobility survey of State Highway Safety Offces, results. Washington, DC.
Governors Highway Safety Association. (2020b). Section 405 National Safety Priority Program [Web page]. https:// www.ghsa.org/about/federal-grant-programs/405
Graves, J. M., Pless, B., Moore, L, Nathens, A. B., Hunte, G., & Rivara, F. P. (2014). Public bicycle share programs and head injuries. American Journal of Public Health, 104(8). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC4103224/pdf/ AJPH.2014.302012.pdf
Harmon, K. (2020, March 26). List of e-scooter fatalities. Chapel Hill, NC: Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety. https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/E-scooter_fatalities_vMar_20_2020.pdf
Hawkins, A., & Ricker, T (2020, March 27). Now is a great time to buy an e-bike, social distances over greater distances [Web article]. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/27/21195561/ebike-coronavirus-social-distance-reasons- to-buy-traffc
Hawkins, A. J. (2019a, December 10). Wheels redesigns its shareable e-bikes to include a helmet, biodegradable headliner included [Web article]. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/10/21003734/ wheels-electric-bike- bikeshare-helmet-redesign-included
Hawkins, A. J. (2019b, September 19). Lyft is adding bike lanes to its app to encourage safer riding [Web article]. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20874032/lyft-add-bike-lane-app-cities-bike
Hawkins, A. J. (2019c, November 19). Bird will give free scooter rides if you take a selfe while wearing helmet [Web article]. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/19/20972447/bird-free-scooter-rides-selfe-wearing-helmet
PAGE 40 of 44 Hawkins, A. J. (2020, April 2). New York fnally legalizes electric bikes and scooters, A huge win for immigrant delivery workers [Web article]. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/2/21204232/ new-york-legalizes-electric-bikes- scooters
Heineke, K., Kloss, B., Scurtu, D., & Weig, F. (2019, January 29). Micromobility’s 15,000-mile checkup. McKinsey & Co. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/ micromobilitys-15000-mile-checkup
Hu, W. (2020, March 14). A surge in biking to avoid crowded trains [Web article]. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2020/03/14/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-bike-commute.html
IBM. (2020, May 1). COVID-19 is signifcantly altering U.S. consumer behavior and plans post-crisis; personal mobility, retail shopping, and event attendance are among the areas most impacted [Web press release]. https://newsroom. ibm.com/2020-05-01-IBM-Study-COVID-19-Is-Signifcantly-Altering-U-S-Consumer-Behavior-and-Plans-Post- Crisis?mod=article_inline
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2019). Fatality facts 2018 bicycles [Web page]. https://www.iihs. org/topics/ fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists
International Transport Forum. (2020). Safe micromobility. Paris, France. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites /default/fles/ docs/safe-micromobility_1.pdf
Kerr, D. (2018, July 16). Bird goes after helmet laws for electric scooters; The e-scooter rental company quietly sponsors a bill to get rid of some California safety rules [Web article]. cnet. https://www.cnet. com/news/bird-goes- after-helmet-laws-for-electric-scooters/
Kobayashi, L. M., Williams, E., Brown, C. V., Emigh, B. J., Bansal, V., Badiee, J., Checchi, K. D., Castillo, E. M., & Doucet, J. (2019). The e-merging e-pidemic of e-scooters. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open. https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/4/1/ e000337
Krizek, K. J., & McGuckin, N. (2019, November 18). Shedding NTHS light on the use of little vehicles in urban areas, Transport Findings. https://doi.org/10.32866/10777
Krug, F. (2020). Electric bikes vs. regular bikes: What’s the real difference no one talks about [Blog]. Evelo Electric Bikes. https://www.evelo.com/blog/electric-bikes-vs-regular-bikes/
Kyrouz, M. (2020, April 8). How to reboot micromobility in cities and make shared scooters a sustainable business [Web article]. The Startup, Medium. https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-reboot-micromobility-in-cities-b8ed2eb11b0f
Lazo, L. (2020, May 18). Bike-share and e-scooter companies, hit hard by the pandemic, may come back stronger [Web article]. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/traffcandcommuting/ why-bike-and-e- scooter-companies-hit-hard-by-the-pandemic-may-come-back-stronger/2020/05/16/ 07632900-95d5-11ea-91d7- cf4423d47683
League of American Bicyclists. (2018). Bicycle friendly state, Sidewalk riding laws [Web page]. https://bikeleague.org/ sites/default/fles/SidewalkRiding_8_2018.pdf
Lee, P., Loucks, J., Stewart, D., Jarvis, D., & Arkenberg, C. (2019). Telecommunications, media, and technology predictions, 2020. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/ 722835_tmt- predictions-2020/DI_TMT-Prediction-2020.pdf
Lime. (2019a, December 19). First ride safety event helps bar, restaurant workers navigate at night [Web article]. Second Street/Lime. https://www.li.me/second-street/frst-ride-safety-event-helps-bar-restaurant-workers-navigate-night
Lime. (2019b, August 29). Lime promotes back-to-school-safety with frst ride campus events [Web article]. Second Street/Lime. https://www.li.me/second-street/lime-promotes-school-scooter-safety-with-frst-ride-campus-events
Machosky, M. (2020, January 13). Want to report dangerous driving? Now you can with OurStreets app [Web article]. Next Pittsburgh. https://nextpittsburgh.com/city-design/want-to-report-dangerous-driving-now-you-can-with- ourstreets-app/
McConnell-Lamptey, S., & Schuerer, D. J. E. (2019, September 10-11). Electric scooter and other micromobility devices. Presentation at the 2019 ICD-10 Coordination & Maintenance Committee Meeting, Hyattsville, MD. https://www.cdc. gov/nchs/data/icd/Topic-packet-Sept-2019-Part2.pdf
PAGE 41 of 44 Michigan State University. (2019, September 20). MSU expands mobility research opportunities with e-scooter partner [Web article]. East Lansing, MI. https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/msu-expands-mobility-research- opportunities-with-e-scooter-partner/
MoGo. (2020). Adaptive MoGo relaunch postponed due to COVID-19 [Web page]. City of Detroit. https://mogodetroit. org/mogo-for-all/adaptive-mogo/
Morgan, A. (2019). E-scooters aren’t for kids: AAP urges safety rules [Blog]. American Academy of Pediatrics. https:// www.healthychildren.org/English/Safety-prevention/on-the-go/Pages/E-scooters.aspx
National Association of City Transportation Offcials. (2019). Shared micromobility in the U.S.: 2018, NACTO bike share and shared micromobility initiative [Web page]. https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/
National Association of City Transportation Offcials. (2020a). Shared micromobility in the U.S.: 2019 NACTO bike share and shared micromobility initiative [Web page]. https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2019/
National Association of City Transportation Offcials. (2020b). Bike share in the U.S.: 2010-2016 [Web page]. https:// nacto.org/bike-share-statistics-2016/
Namiri, N. K., Lui, H., Tangney, T., Allen, I. E., Cohen, A. J., & Breyer, B. N. (2020). Letter: Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018. JAMA Surgery, January 8.
Nashville Convention and Visitors Center. (2020). Statistics & facts [Web page]. Nashville, TN. https://www. visitmusiccity.com/explore-nashville/about/statistics
Nicklesburg, M. (2020, May 14). Pandemic spells uncertain future for bikes and scooters as mobility services confront new realities [Web article]. Geekwire. https://www.geekwire.com/2020/pandemic-spells-uncertain-future-bikes- scooters-mobility-services-confront-new-realities/
North American Bikeshare Association. (2020). Recommendations for a surface transportation reauthorization bill [Web page]. https://nabsa.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/NABSA-022-One-Sheeter.pdf
Porter, J. (2020, May 20). Tier’s shared electric scooters will soon come with foldable helmets, safely stowed in a dedicated compartment [Web article]. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/20/ 21264672/tier-electric- scooters-sharing-helmet-compartments-built-in
Portfeld, C. (2020, May 8). Seattle permanently closes streets to cars as U.S. cities create more open spaces during Coronavirus [Web article]. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfeld/ 2020/05/08/seattle-permanently- closes-streets-to-cars-as-us-cities-create-more-open-spaces-during-coronavirus/#1ecb59eb3f05
Rambol. (2020). Achieiving sustainable micro-mobility, Green paper April 2020. Arlington, VA. https://se. ramboll. com/-/media/fles/rgr/documents/markets/transport/m/ramboll_micro-mobility_greenpaper _a4_0320_lowres. pdf?la=sv
Ray, A., & Sussman, M. (2019). Traffc Safety Facts, Traffc Tech: Using crowdsourced data to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety: A case study [Unpublished]. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffc Safety Administration.
Retting, R. (2020). Pedestrian traffc fatalities by state, 2019 preliminary data. Washington, DC: Governors Highway Safety Association. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/fles/2020-02/GHSA-Pedestrian-Spotlight-FINAL-rev2.pdf
SafeTREC. (2020). Street Story: A platform for community engagement [Web page]. University of California-Berkeley. https://safetrec. berkeley.edu/tools/street-story-platform-community-engagement
Sam Schwartz. (2020). Shifting gears: Divvy bikeshare + ride hailing in Chicago during Covid-19 [Web article]. https:// www.samschwartz.com/staff-refections/2020/6/16/shifting-gears-divvy-bikeshare-ride-hailing-in-chicago-during- covid-19
San Francisco Mass Transit Authority. (2020). Bikeshare, the city’s bikeshare network is expanding [Web page]. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/bike-bike-share
Sawers, P. (2020, January 28). Lime uses sensor data to keep scooters off sidewalks [Web article]. Venture Beat. https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/28/lime-uses-sensor-data-to-keep-scooters-off-sidewalks/
PAGE 42 of 44 Schneider, B. (2020, April 27). There’s something about scooters, Dockless scooters seemed at frst like a sidewalk scourge, but they’re changing city streets for better [Web article]. Slate. https://slate.com/ technology/2020/04/ dockless-scooters-cities-safer-better.html
Seattle Department of Transportation. (2018). Free-foating bike share program permit requirements for the 2018- 2019 permit cycle, Version 2.1 – November 16, 2018. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/ Departments/SDOT/ BikeProgram/Seattle_Bike_Share_Permit_Requirements_v2.1_20181219.pdf
Smith, C. (2020, July 20). Google Maps just got a great new feature for cyclists [Web article]. BGR. https://bgr. com/2020/07/20/google-maps-directions-docked-bike-sharing-navigation
Spivak, C. (2020, April 29). Citi Bike rolls out expansion to the Bronx, upper Manhattan amid pandemic [Web article]. Curbed New York. https://ny.curbed.com/2020/4/29/21241426/citi-bike-expansion-coronavirus-bronx-upper- manhattan-biking
Sussman, M. (2019, October 30). In just 5 hours, volunteers collected over 300 bike lane violations in Arlington [Web article]. Greater Washington. https://ggwash.org/view/74501/hows-my-driving-in-arlington-virginia-bike-lane
Teschke, K., Harris, M. A., Reynolds, C. O., Winter, M., Babul, S., Chipman, M. (2012). Route infrastructure and the risk of injuries to bicyclists: A case-crossover study. American Journal of Public Health. 102, 2336-2343.
Thousand. (2020, March 30). We’re giving bike couriers delivering essential supplies a free helmet [Blog]. https://www. explorethousand.com/blogs/journal/were-giving-bike-couriers-delivering-essential-supplies-a-free-helmet
Transit. (2020). Transit [Web page]. https://transitapp.com/
Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. M., Wheaton, N., Kreger, V., Yap, A., Schriger, D., & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries associated with standing electric scooter use. Jama Network Open, 2(1):e187381. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2018.7381
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2019). New BTS interactive map shows growth of urban bikeshare/e-scooter systems. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOT/bulletins/261c1f9
Virginia Law Library. (2020). Code of Virginia: Title 46.2, Motor vehicles. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/ vacode/title46.2/ chapter1/
Washington Area Bicyclist Association. (2020). DC Bike Ambassador [Web page]. https://waba.org/ programs/d-c- bike-ambassador/
Williams. A. (2015). Spotlight on highway safety, Bicyclist safety. Washington, DC: Governors Highway Safety Association.
Wisniewski, M. (2020, June 12). Scooters will return to Chicago streets this summer as the city launches an even larger pilot program [Web article]. The Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/ business/transportation/ct-biz- scooters-entire-city-summer-pilot-lakefront-606-20200612-vcooq43wif ganagmpwlzwlw6cy-story.html
Yobbi, D. (2020, March 11). Industry making steady progress on state e-bike legislation [Web article]. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry_news/2020/02/26/ industry-making-steady-progress- state-e-bikes-legislation#.Xmo3SEBFW2X
Zipper, D. (2019, April 2). Cities can see where you’re taking that scooter; Thanks to technology developed by Los Angeles (and opposed by Uber), they know more about the movement of dockless vehicles than ever before [Web article]. Slate. https://slate.com/business/2019/04/scooter-data-cities-mds-uber-lyft-los-angeles.html
Zipper, D. (2020, May 14). Cities have a small window to save themselves from cars. Everyone is reconsidering their transportation mode right now. Automobiles don’t have to win. [Web article]. Slate. https://slate.com/ technology/2020/05/cities-cars-bicycles-scooters-feet.html
PAGE 43 of 44 www.ghsa.org The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is a nonproft association representing the highway safety offces of states, territories, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. GHSA provides leadership and representation for the states and territories to improve traffc safety, infuence national policy, enhance program management and promote best practices. Its members are appointed by their Governors to administer federal and state highway safety funds and implement state highway safety plans.
@GHSAhq
Preliminary Investigation (PI-0246) Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information
Analyzing the Potential of Geofencing for Electric Bicycles and Scooters in the Public Right of Way
Requested by Seth Cutter, District 11 Planning Division
January 17, 2020
The Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information (DRISI) receives and evaluates numerous research problem statements for funding every year. DRISI conducts Preliminary Investigations on these problem statements to better scope and prioritize the proposed research in light of existing credible work on the topics nationally and internationally. Online and print sources for Preliminary Investigations include the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and other Transportation Research Board (TRB) programs, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the research and practices of other transportation agencies, and related academic and industry research. The views and conclusions in cited works, while generally peer reviewed or published by authoritative sources, may not be accepted without qualification by all experts in the field. The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the California Department of Transportation, the State of California, or the Federal Highway Administration. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. No part of this publication should be construed as an endorsement for a commercial product, manufacturer, contractor, or consultant. Any trade names or photos of commercial products appearing in this publication are for clarity only.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Summary of Findings ...... 2 Gaps in Findings ...... 7 Next Steps ...... 10 Detailed Findings ...... 12 Background ...... 12 Survey of Practice ...... 13 Consultation With Experts ...... 19 Local Practices and Regulations ...... 24 Related Research and Resources ...... 40 Contacts ...... 43 Appendix A: Survey Questions ...... 45
Executive Summary
Background In cities and metropolitan areas across the country, electric bicycles (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters) are an inexpensive transportation alternative for transit users needing “last mile” travel options, as well as for tourists and those who have difficulty walking or biking long distances. However, e-bikes and e-scooters can create a safety hazard if they are operated in restricted areas such as access-controlled highways. In some cities, rental companies are required to use geofencing, which creates virtual geographic boundaries that restrict e-bikes and e-scooters from operating in specific areas and also limit their speed.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is investigating whether geofencing could be used to: • Prevent e-bikes and e-scooters from entering access-controlled highways and other specified locations. • Limit the devices’ maximum speed in certain areas, allowing access to some bike paths and cycle tracks where they typically would not be allowed. • Provide designated parking areas for scooters so they are less likely to be left in the public right of way.
To assist Caltrans in this investigation, CTC & Associates conducted an online survey of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and selected local jurisdictions in California and other states that examined these agencies’ experience with using geofencing for e-bikes and e- scooters. Consultations with selected vendors and a rider advocacy group gathered additional information about this geofencing application. A literature search supplemented the findings from the survey and consultations by identifying recent and relevant publications related to geofencing implementation for e-bikes and e-scooters.
Summary of Findings This Preliminary Investigation presents information in four areas: • Survey of practice. • Consultation with experts. • Local practices and regulations. • Related research and resources.
Survey of Practice An online survey was distributed to members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Council on Active Transportation and selected local jurisdictions in California, Colorado and Texas to inquire about agency experience with geofencing to control the use of e-bikes and e-scooters. Eight state DOTs and eight local jurisdictions responded to the survey. Five local jurisdictions reported having experience with geofencing to control e-bike and e-scooter use. None of the eight state DOTs responding to the survey and the three remaining local jurisdictions require vendors of shared or rental e-bikes or e-scooters to use geofencing.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 2
Agencies With Geofencing Experience Five local jurisdictions reported having experience with geofencing to control e-bike and e- scooter use: California • City of San Diego. • Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Colorado • Denver Public Works. • City of Fort Collins. Oregon • Portland Bureau of Transportation. (Note: While not included in the survey's distribution list, this agency and another local agency in Oregon (City of Eugene) completed the survey.)
Survey results from these jurisdictions are summarized below in the following topic areas: • Vehicle types and vendors. • Geofencing applications. • Facilities using geofencing. • Geofencing performance. • Other geofencing technologies. • Challenges and lessons learned.
Vehicle Types and Vendors Geofencing requirements are applied to both e-bikes and e-scooters by three agencies (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of San Diego and Denver Public Works). Two agencies (City of Fort Collins and Portland Bureau of Transportation) apply geofencing requirements to e-scooters only. All five agencies have had geofencing requirements in place for less than six months. Four agencies (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of San Diego, Denver Public Works and Portland Bureau of Transportation) are working with multiple vendors to implement geofencing requirements. The City of Fort Collins is working with a single vendor (Bird Rides, Inc.). Table ES1 summarizes the vehicle types and vendors providing geofencing for the responding agencies.
Table ES1. Vehicle Types and Vendors Used By Respondents
State Agency Vehicle Type Vendor(s) Los Angeles Department of E-bikes and Bird, Bolt, Jump, Lime, Lyft, California Transportation e-scooters Sherpa, Spin, Wheels E-bikes and Bird, Juno, Lime, Lyft, Skip, City of San Diego e-scooters Spin, Wheels
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 3
State Agency Vehicle Type Vendor(s) E-bikes and Bird, Jump, Lime, Lyft, Colorado Denver Public Works1 e-scooters Razor, Spin City of Fort Collins E-scooters only Bird Bird, Bolt, Lime, Razor, Oregon Portland Bureau of Transportation2 E-scooters only Shared, Spin 1 A November 2019 online notice indicates that a competitive-bid contract will replace Denver’s current permitting system. Permittees will continue to operate through the pilot program until the city’s contracted vendor(s) begin operating, which is anticipated in summer 2020. See page 34 for more information. 2 All permitted e-scooter companies in Portland were subject to requirements beginning November 1, 2019. See page 37 for more information.
Geofencing Applications All of the agencies use geofencing requirements to prevent access to specific roadways, trails or geographic areas. Geofencing requirements are used by four agencies to limit device speed in specific areas (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of San Diego, City of Fort Collins and Portland Bureau of Transportation), and by four agencies to designate approved or prohibited parking areas (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Denver Public Works, City of Fort Collins and Portland Bureau of Transportation). Three agencies use geofencing requirements to delineate operational boundaries for a pilot program (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of San Diego and City of Fort Collins). Only the City of Fort Collins uses geofencing requirements to reduce riding on sidewalks.
Facilities Using Geofencing None of the agencies uses geofencing to restrict access or limit speed on bridges or access- controlled highways. Only Los Angeles Department of Transportation uses geofencing on local roadways. Three agencies use geofencing on trails or paths (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of Fort Collins and Portland Bureau of Transportation). Other facilities where geofencing is used to restrict access or limit speed include parks (Portland Bureau of Transportation), boardwalks and shared-use paths (City of San Diego), and pedestrian malls and plazas (Denver Public Works).
Geofencing Performance The Denver Public Works and City of San Diego respondents reported that geofenced boundaries generally work as expected and consistently across all vendors. However, respondents from Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of Fort Collins and Portland Bureau of Transportation reported varying performance. In Los Angeles, the geofencing boundaries generally all work the same, depending on the e-bike’s or e-scooter’s ping rate (the e-bike or e-scooter location information that is automatically and consistently sent to the vendor’s servers). But the time it takes for the vehicle to recognize it is within a geofenced area will vary, causing some vehicles to take longer to decelerate. In Fort Collins, where a single vendor (Bird) is used, geofencing operation is inconsistent because of GPS limitations. In Portland, geofencing technology functions inconsistently, even within a single company.
Within a single vendor’s fleet of vehicles, Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego reported no problems with consistent application of geofencing requirements. The remaining three respondents noted varying application of geofencing within a single vendor,
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 4
such as inconsistent rider notification (Denver Public Works and Portland Bureau of Transportation) and GPS limitations (City of Fort Collins). These inconsistencies may be related to the ability to draw geofence boundaries given relatively low or variable geographic information system (GIS) accuracy.
Other Geofencing Technologies All of the responding agencies except the City of San Diego are investigating or have used geofencing that uses a GPS-enabled device embedded in the e-bike or e-scooter. Only two agencies—Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego—are investigating or have used geofencing that uses location data from the rider’s cellphone. None of the responding agencies has investigated or used Bluetooth beacons embedded in the sidewalk or right of way to delineate boundaries.
Challenges and Lessons Learned Several responding agencies noted challenges their agencies have identified with using geofencing, primarily related to the limitations of GPS and to cellphone issues. GPS inaccuracies allow some riders in Fort Collins to travel past a geofenced zone into prohibited areas while riders in Los Angeles report that vehicles register that they are within a geofenced area when they are actually traveling alongside or near a geofenced area. The latter circumstance may result in a change in vehicle speed. Yet the respondent from Denver Public Works noted that geofencing has been especially effective on the city’s 16th Street transit/pedestrian mall. Cellphones present challenges in San Diego when riders switch their phones to Airplane Mode to prevent being detected in geofenced areas.
Agencies Reporting No Geofencing Experience None of the eight state DOTs responding to the survey requires vendors of shared or rental e- bikes or e-scooters to use geofencing. Three local jurisdictions responding to the survey—the cities of Austin, Texas, Beverly Hills, California, and Eugene, Oregon—also reported no current experience with geofencing.
Two agencies—the City of Eugene and Rhode Island DOT—either have issued or have plans to issue requests for proposal (RFPs) for these devices. In Rhode Island, the City of Providence has issued an RFP and permits for shared e-bikes and e-scooters. In Oregon, the City of Eugene plans to issue an RFP in early 2020 for shared e-scooters and is considering using geofencing to lower speeds on city paths and to restrict parking in specified areas. An e-scooter community engagement process is underway in Eugene, and the proposed e-scooter pilot program is expected to launch in spring or summer 2020.
In Texas and Wisconsin, e-bikes and e-scooters are subject to local regulation and oversight. North Carolina DOT does not contract directly with any providers, but communities in the state “have effectively used geofencing to limit access and speed.”
Consultations With Experts Representatives from two e-bike and e-scooter vendors, Bird Rides, Inc. and Spin, discussed their experience with geofencing and e-bikes and e-scooters. All five agencies responding to the survey work with Bird; four agencies work with Spin (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of San Diego, Denver Public Works and Portland Bureau of Transportation.) A representative from Santa Monica Spoke, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 5
walking, biking and healthy active transportation in Santa Monica, California, also contributed to this discussion.
Vendors Representatives from both vendors were interested in working with Caltrans on geofencing, though the Spin representative noted that any additional geofencing boundaries would likely also need to be coordinated with the cities that issue the scooter permits. Below are key topics discussed:
Technology. Both scooter vendors interact with geofencing boundaries via GPS devices in the scooters. Bird does not interact through a rider’s cellphone app; the Spin representative was uncertain whether the rider’s cellphone location is used and suggested that most larger vendors likely do not rely solely on cellphone locations as this would not meet cities’ permit requirements.
Challenges and limitations of geofencing. The representatives from both vendors commented on the lack of precision with GPS technology. Bird noted that because GPS is a two-dimensional system, a geofencing boundary designed to prevent scooter riding on a highway overpass would also affect streets, bike lanes, trails or other facilities located beneath the highway. Both vendors also noted that GPS accuracy is affected by obstructions such as tall buildings; Bird has effectively applied geofencing boundaries to bridges and trails, as these facilities tend to be located in areas with fewer obstructions. In a Portland parks project, Spin trimmed the geofencing boundaries in a park to prevent “false positives” where scooters riding legally would be mistakenly slowed or stopped.
Sidewalk riding. Bird and Spin are among the scooter providers that are partnering with the City of San Jose to develop innovative methods of preventing scooter riding on sidewalks. Providers are exploring the use of evolving technologies (such as Bluetooth beacons and cameras) along with nontechnical means (such as educational outreach) to address this issue.
Sharing shapefiles. Encouraging cities to provide shapefiles of their desired boundaries to vendors could increase consistency across vendors and provide clear direction on precise boundary placement. Both vendors noted that there is value in having a city work with a vendor to ensure that the city’s desired boundaries reflect the limitations of GPS technology. Portland’s recent effort to share Spin shapefiles with other vendors was seen as a positive step.
Advocacy Groups The Santa Monica Spoke representative, who supports geofencing, recommended that Caltrans coordinate with local jurisdictions to avoid conflicts between local and state efforts and to ensure that all affected vendors are included in updates to geofencing boundaries within a municipality. Agencies should also be prepared to incorporate emerging technologies that will allow them to better integrate e-bikes and e-scooters into future regulations.
When geofencing is used to regulate the speed of both e-bikes and e-scooters, it may be appropriate to set a lower speed for e-scooters because of operational differences between e- bikes and e-scooters. She also suggested that there may be paths or other areas where e-bikes would be appropriate, but e-scooters would not.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 6
Vendors initially were concerned about using geofencing to lower the speed of an e-scooter that entered a prohibited area. The representative from Santa Monica Spoke noted that in practice, the e-scooter decelerates gradually and this application has not created a safety issue. However, zero mph boundaries can create a challenge for riders if there is a delay in an e- scooter recognizing the geofence; riders who are not aware of the boundary may find themselves farther into the prohibited area than desirable. An audible warning on the e-scooters could alert riders that they are near a boundary.
Local Practices and Regulations Table ES2 summarizes information about the use of geofencing with e-bikes and e-scooters in local jurisdictions and universities in five states: California, Colorado, Florida, Oregon and Texas.
Table ES2. Local Practices and Regulations of Selected Agencies Vehicle State Agency Vendor(s) Highlights of Agency Experience/Practices Type Temporary prohibition of shared mobility devices (specifically e-scooters) adopted July 24, 2018. One- City of Beverly year extension of the ban approved at December California N/A N/A Hills 2018 meeting. Council cited lack of cooperation from scooter companies. No indication on the city’s web site as to whether the ban will be continued or lifted. One-year pilot. Geofenced facilities: Boardwalks and shared-use paths. Geofencing used to/for: • Prevent access to specific areas. Bird, Juno, • Pilot program delineation. E-bikes and Lime, Lyft, City of San Diego • Limit device speed. e-scooters Skip, Spin, Wheels • Prevent vehicle from being locked, parked or ending a ride at specific locations. • Designate parking zones; limit number and location of vehicles parked together downtown. • Reduce speed from 15 mph to 8 mph or 3 mph at specified locations. Permit program launched February 2019. Operators required to demonstrate compliance with E-bikes and Bird, Lime, City of San Jose the sidewalk prevention requirement in designated e-scooters Lyft, Spin areas by January 31, 2020. Maximum speed limit of 12 mph. Pilot program launched September 2018, initially for 16 months. City recently extended the pilot to May City of Santa E-bikes and Bird, Jump, 2020 to develop a “Pilot 2.0” to explore enhanced Monica e-scooters Lime, Lyft regulations and street improvements. Geofenced facilities: Local roadways, trails or paths.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 7
Vehicle State Agency Vendor(s) Highlights of Agency Experience/Practices Type Geofencing used to/for: • Remedy parking, safety and oversaturation problems. • Reduce speed to zero mph around the beach City of Santa California E-bikes and Bird, Jump, area (initial speed reduction then gradual Monica (continued) e-scooters Lime, Lyft stop). (continued) Considering: • Expanding availability of drop zones. • Integrating in-app solutions to encourage parking in geofenced drop zones. Geofenced facilities: Local roadways, trails or paths. Users can ride on surface streets and are encouraged to ride in bike lanes where available. Geofencing used to: • Prevent access to specific areas. Bird, Bolt, Jump, Lime, • Pilot program delineation. Los Angeles E-bikes and Lyft, Department of • Limit device speed. e-scooters Sherpa, Transportation Spin, • Designate/prohibit parking areas. Wheels Los Angeles City Council requires a cap on how many vehicles a company can operate inside city boundaries; liability coverage; community outreach and education; and data sharing. Currently developing a protocol and policy for using geofencing with e-bikes or e-scooters. Powered Scooter Share Permit Program launched San Francisco July 2019. Municipal Jump, Lime, E-scooters Transportation Scoot, Spin Four permits for a total of 4,000 scooters is the Agency optimal allocation for the first round of the 12-month permanent program. University of Full pilot launched fall 2019. E-bikes and Bird, Lyft, California, Los e-scooters Wheels Pedestrian dismount zones limited to 1 mph; Angeles dismount zones delineated. Pilot permit program will continue to operate until the city’s contracted vendor(s) begin operating, which is anticipated in summer 2020. Bird, Jump, Denver Public E-bikes and Geofenced facilities: Pedestrian mall, other specific Colorado Lime, Lyft, Works e-scooters locations. Razor, Spin Geofencing used to: • Prevent access to specific areas. • Designate/prohibit parking areas.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 8
Vehicle State Agency Vendor(s) Highlights of Agency Experience/Practices Type City partnering with Colorado State University for 12- month e-scooter share pilot program that launched October 2019. Geofenced facilities: Trails or paths, sidewalks. Geofencing used to: Colorado City of Fort E-scooters • Prevent access to specific areas. Bird (continued) Collins only • Pilot program delineation. • Limit device speed. • Reduce sidewalk use. • Designate/prohibit parking areas. Scooters programmed to stop within a quarter mile of the city’s and university’s designated no-ride zones. Bird, The city extended its initial three-month pilot for an City of Gotcha, additional six months to March 15, 2020. Florida E-scooters Tallahassee Lime, Spin, Geofencing concerns were raised in July 2019 with VeoRide selected vendors. The city is working to implement an e-scooter pilot Oregon City of Eugene N/A N/A program. The city estimates the program will launch in spring or summer 2020. Initial 120-day pilot program in 2018 followed by a one-year pilot program launched April 2019. Geofenced facilities: Trails or paths, parks (nonroadways). Geofencing used to: • Prevent access to specific areas. Bird, Bolt, • Limit device speed. Lime, Portland Bureau E-scooters Razor, • Designate/prohibit parking areas. of Transportation only Shared, Administrative rule authorizes the agency to produce Spin geofence shapefiles for vendors to employ and update, an effort to standardize geofencing boundaries across companies. Geofences trimmed to account for roads and bridges that intersect spaces, and trimmed by approximately 30 feet from area boundaries to account for GPS accuracy and mitigate impacts to riders riding legally.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 9
Vehicle State Agency Vendor(s) Highlights of Agency Experience/Practices Type The survey respondent indicated that geofencing was not employed by the city. However, news reports indicate that a pilot program that was E-bikes and expected to end in late September used geofencing Texas City of Austin N/A e-scooters to keep e-scooters off nonpaved trails (e-scooters are allowed on certain paved trails). A report on the pilot program is expected in early 2020. Geofencing initiated in March 2019 implemented a maximum acceleration of 8 mph in defined areas. The University of Bird, Jump, E-scooters Signage at major campus entry points alerts riders to Texas at Austin Lime, Lyft a speed zone location. Standard speeds up to 15 mph in other zones.
Related Research and Resources Web sites of selected e-scooter vendors used by the local jurisdictions are highlighted. A sampling of publications address alternative technologies, including a 2019 article about the development of techniques to limit micromobility and a 2018 interview with a Bird policy expert who discusses using technologies such as Bluetooth beacons to create parking zones. Inconsistent throttling, a technology-related challenge associated with geofencing, is explained in two 2019 consumer publications.
Gaps in Findings The results of the survey and interviews with experts indicate that some e-scooters interact with geofencing boundaries via GPS receivers within the scooters while others rely on the rider’s cellphone app. Additional research is needed to determine which technology is more prevalent or effective. Also, e-scooters appear to be the subject of more recent research, ongoing pilot programs and other initiatives than e-bikes. Finally, a limited number of state DOTs and local agencies responded to the survey. Further attempts to engage with agencies not responding to the survey could produce useful guidance about geofencing for e-bikes and e-scooters.
Next Steps Moving forward, Caltrans could consider: • Contacting the City of San Jose, California, about the results of its Sidewalk Riding Prohibition Technology program, including new or innovative approaches developed through the city’s partnership with vendors. • Contacting vendors directly to learn more about geofencing technologies as they continue to evolve, including emerging approaches such as Bluetooth beacons embedded in infrastructure or cameras that use artificial intelligence to detect when a device is being operated on the sidewalk.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 10
• Following up with the City of Portland about the results of its recent effort to provide geofencing shapefiles developed by one vendor to all other vendors. • Reaching out to additional agencies and local jurisdictions to learn about their experience and practices with using geofencing for e-bikes and e-scooters. (See page 17 for Other Contacts.)
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 11
Detailed Findings
Background Electric bicycles (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters) have emerged as an alternative transportation mode in cities across the country, including several metropolitan areas in California. Bike-share and scooter-share services can provide an inexpensive option for “last mile” travel, connecting riders to transit services that might otherwise be unreachable. The devices are popular with tourists, and they offer another alternative to those who have difficulty walking or biking longer distances.
However, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has observed that e-bikes and e-scooters are sometimes operated in areas where they are not allowed and where they create a safety hazard to their riders or to bicyclists and pedestrians. Despite having a typical top speed of about 15 mph, e-scooters have been spotted on access-controlled freeways and expressways, and on San Diego’s Coronado Bay Bridge, which does not have a shoulder or pedestrian railing.
Some cities require rental companies to use geofencing to control where and how fast e-bikes and e-scooters can be operated. Geofencing uses GPS or radio frequency identification (RFID) to create virtual geographic boundaries that trigger a response when a device enters or leaves a particular area.
Caltrans is investigating the use of geofencing as a potential solution to recent challenges associated with e-bike and e-scooter sharing services. Caltrans is examining whether geofencing could be used to: • Prevent the devices from entering access-controlled highways and other specified locations. • Limit the devices’ maximum speed in certain areas, which could allow them to ride on certain bike paths and cycle tracks where they would not otherwise be allowed. • Provide designated parking areas for scooters so they are less likely to be left in the public right of way.
To assist Caltrans in this information-gathering effort, CTC & Associates conducted an online survey of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and selected local jurisdictions in California and other states that examined these agencies’ experience with geofencing for e- bikes and e-scooters. Consultations with selected vendors and a rider advocacy group gathered additional information. Finally, a literature search identified recent and relevant publications related to implementing geofencing for e-bikes and e-scooters.
Findings from these efforts are presented in this Preliminary Investigation in four topic areas: • Survey of practice. • Consultation with experts. • Local practices and regulations. • Related research and resources.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 12
Survey of Practice An online survey was distributed to members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Council on Active Transportation and appropriate contacts in the following local jurisdictions to inquire about agency experience with geofencing to control the use of e-bikes and e-scooters: • Beverly Hills, California. • Los Angeles, California. • San Diego, California. • San Francisco, California. • San Jose, California. • Santa Monica, California. • University of California, Los Angeles. • Denver, Colorado. • Austin, Texas.
Survey questions are provided in Appendix A. The full text of survey responses is presented in a supplement to this report.
Summary of Survey Results Respondents from eight state DOTs and eight local jurisdictions responded to the survey: State DOTs • Connecticut. • Rhode Island. • Georgia. • Texas. • Idaho. • Wisconsin. • North Carolina. • Wyoming.
Local Jurisdictions California Oregon • City of Beverly Hills. • City of Eugene. • City of San Diego. • Portland Bureau of • Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Transportation. Texas Colorado • City of Austin (incomplete • Denver Public Works. response). • City of Fort Collins.
Of these, only five local jurisdictions reported on experience with geofencing to control the use of e-bikes and e-scooters.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 13
Survey findings are presented below in two categories: • Agencies with geofencing experience. • Agencies reporting no geofencing experience.
Agencies With Geofencing Experience Respondents from five local jurisdictions reported on their agencies’ experience with geofencing: • Los Angeles Department of Transportation. • City of San Diego. • Denver Public Works. • City of Fort Collins. • Portland Bureau of Transportation.
Geofencing Applications The cities of Fort Collins and Portland apply geofencing to restrict the operation of e-scooters only. The other three cities apply geofencing to both e-bikes and e-scooters. Three cities—Los Angeles, San Diego and Fort Collins—are using geofencing in connection with a pilot program. All five agencies have had geofencing requirements in place for less than six months. Table 1 identifies the type of vehicle subject to geofencing requirements and how each agency has used geofencing with e-bikes and/or e-scooters.
Table 1. Respondents’ Application of Geofencing Requirements
Prevent Limit Designate Access to Delineate Device Approved Specific Operational Speed in Reduce or Roadways, Boundaries Geographic Riding on Prohibited Vehicle Trails or for a Pilot Areas, Sidewalks Parking State Agency Type Geographic Program Roadways Areas Areas or Trails
Los Angeles E-bikes and California Department of X X X X e-scooters Transportation City of San E-bikes and X X X Diego e-scooters Denver Public E-bikes and Colorado X X Works e-scooters City of Fort E-scooters X X X X X Collins only Portland E-scooters Oregon Bureau of X X X only Transportation Total 5 3 4 1 4
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 14
Vendors Providing Geofencing All responding agencies except the City of Fort Collins are working with multiple vendors to implement geofencing requirements. All five agencies are working with at least one of the two vendors interviewed for this Preliminary Investigation (Bird Rides, Inc. and Spin). See Consultation With Experts, beginning on page 19, for a summary of our discussions with these vendors. Table 2 identifies the vendors providing geofencing for the responding agencies.
Table 2. Vendors Providing Geofencing
Geofencing Applied to State Agency Vendor(s) E-Bikes/E-Scooters
Los Angeles Department California E-bikes and e-scooters Bird, Bolt, Jump, Lime, Lyft, Sherpa, Spin, Wheels of Transportation
City of San Diego E-bikes and e-scooters Bird, Juno, Lime, Lyft, Skip, Spin, Wheels Colorado Denver Public Works1 E-bikes and e-scooters Bird, Jump, Lime, Lyft, Razor, Spin City of Fort Collins E-scooters only Bird Portland Bureau of Oregon E-scooters only Bird, Bolt, Lime, Razor, Shared, Spin Transportation2
1 A November 2019 online notice indicates that a competitive-bid contract will replace Denver’s current permitting system. Permittees will continue to operate through the pilot program until the city’s contracted vendor(s) begin operating, which is anticipated in summer 2020. See page 34 for more information. 2 All permitted e-scooter companies in Portland were subject to requirements beginning November 1, 2019. See page 37 for more information.
Facilities Using Geofencing None of the agencies use geofencing to restrict access or limit speed on bridges or access- controlled highways; only Los Angeles uses geofencing on local roadways. Table 3 describes the types of facilities on which respondents are using geofencing to restrict rider behavior.
Table 3. Facilities Using Geofencing to Restrict Access or Limit Speed
Trails or Paths (Bike Local State Agency Paths, Other Facilities Roadways Multiuse Trails) Los Angeles Department California X X N/A of Transportation City of San Diego Boardwalks and shared-use paths Pedestrian mall, Union Station plaza, Colorado Denver Public Works Major League Baseball stadium home games City of Fort Collins X Sidewalks Portland Bureau of Oregon X Parks (not on a roadway) Transportation Total 1 3
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 15
Geofencing Performance Respondents reported on the performance of geofencing across vendors and within a single vendor’s fleet of vehicles.
Across Vendors The Denver Public Works and City of San Diego respondents reported that geofenced boundaries generally work as expected and consistently across all vendors. The other three responding agencies reported some degree of variability: • Los Angeles Department of Transportation. While the geofencing boundaries generally all work the same, depending on the e-bike’s or e-scooter’s ping rate, the time it takes for the vehicle to recognize it is within a geofenced area will vary. Therefore, some vehicles may take longer to decelerate, depending on the vendor. (Note: Ping rate refers to a message the e-bike or e-scooter automatically and consistently sends to the vendor’s servers with the vehicle’s location information.) • City of Fort Collins. The respondent noted that geofencing is not working consistently with its single vendor (Bird) and associates the problem with the limits of GPS. • Portland Bureau of Transportation. The city’s geofencing requirements went into effect November 1, 2019, but some companies had voluntarily used geofencing to reduce speed, give audible warnings and/or prevent users from ending a trip in certain areas (for example, the city’s waterfront paths). Anecdotal and observational data suggest that even within a single company, the geofencing technology functions inconsistently.
Within a Single Vendor Respondents from Los Angeles Department of Transportation and City of San Diego reported no problems with consistent application of geofencing requirements within a single vendor. The other three respondents highlighted varying degrees of inconsistent application of geofencing: • Denver Public Works. Some vehicles provide rider notifications; others do not. • City of Fort Collins. The respondent noted again that geofencing is not working consistently with its single vendor (Bird) and associates the problem with the limits of GPS. • Portland Bureau of Transportation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that within a company, some e-scooters give audible warnings to users and slow down when entering geofenced areas while others do not. The cause of this is unknown, but one technological challenge the respondent noted is the ability to draw geofence boundaries given relatively low or variable geographic information system (GIS) accuracy at such a granular scale.
Other Geofencing Technologies Respondents were asked about geofencing approaches or technologies their agencies have investigated, used or discussed with vendors. All of the responding agencies except the City of San Diego are investigating or have used geofencing that uses a GPS-enabled device embedded in the e-bike or e-scooter. Only two agencies—Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego—are investigating or have used geofencing that uses
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 16
location data from the rider’s cellphone. None of the responding agencies has investigated or used Bluetooth beacons embedded in the sidewalk or right of way to delineate boundaries.
Challenges and Lessons Learned Respondents highlighted challenges their agencies have identified during the relatively short time geofencing has been in place:
GPS-Related Limitations • Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The agency has received user complaints related to vehicle GPS errors or inaccurate reporting. Some vehicles register that they are within a geofenced area when actually the vehicles are traveling alongside or near a geofenced area. In these circumstances, the speed of the vehicle may change, and riders will not understand why. Reliability can vary by provider depending on the GPS of the vehicles. In Venice, California, the agency implemented a geofenced area where speeds would be throttled to zero mph for vehicles on the Venice Boardwalk area. Some providers’ vehicles took longer than others to recognize that they were within the zone and to reduce speeds. To address issues with vehicles that may take longer to stop, some providers implemented a buffer zone and pushed the boundaries of their geofence slightly. • Denver Public Works. While geofencing is imperfect, especially in downtown areas and near tall buildings, it has been especially effective on the city’s 16th Street transit/pedestrian mall. • City of Fort Collins. Limitations of GPS allow riders to sometimes ride past a geofenced zone into prohibited areas. Cellphone-Related Issues • City of San Diego. Providers faced challenges with riders using Airplane Mode on their phones to prevent being detected in the geofenced areas.
Other Contacts Survey respondents recommended the following cities, organizations or individuals as potential resources for additional information about geofencing. The limited scope of this Preliminary Investigation did not allow for expanded outreach efforts to include these contacts. • California. Kyle Kozar, Mobility Division, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8341, [email protected]. (Note: We contacted Kozar in connection with the survey but did not receive a response.) • Colorado. Cindy Patton, Interim Director, Public Works, Transportation Operations, City and County of Denver, 720-865-3157, [email protected]. • Idaho. City of Boise. • North Carolina: o City of Charlotte. o City of Durham. o City of Greensboro.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 17
o City of Raleigh. o North Carolina State University. • Rhode Island: o Martina Haggerty, Department of Planning and Development, City of Providence, [email protected]. o Alex Ellis, Department of Planning and Development, City of Providence, [email protected].
Agencies Reporting No Geofencing Experience None of the eight state DOTs responding to the survey require vendors of shared or rental e- bikes or e-scooters to use geofencing. Three of the local jurisdictions responding to the survey—the cities of Austin, Beverly Hills and Eugene—also reported no current experience with geofencing.
Some of these respondents offered additional comments: • In Oregon, the City of Eugene does not have experience with shared e-bikes or e- scooters but does offer semidockless bike share. The city plans to issue a request for proposal in early 2020 for shared e-scooters and is considering using geofencing to lower speeds on city paths and restrict parking, especially near the Willamette River, to prevent scooters from being dumped in the river. Also, a community engagement process with regard to e-scooters is underway. Information about the proposed e-scooter pilot program in Eugene, predicted to launch in spring or summer 2020, is available on page 35 of this Preliminary Investigation. • While Rhode Island DOT has not procured any venders for shared e-bikes and/or e- scooters, the respondent noted that the City of Providence has issued a request for proposal and permits for shared e-bikes and e-scooters. (See Other Contacts above.)
• While North Carolina DOT does not contract directly with any providers, communities in the state “have effectively used geofencing to limit access and speed.” • In Texas and Wisconsin, e-bikes and e-scooters are subject to local regulation and oversight. • Connecticut DOT does not currently operate any kind of geofencing on state property, and no e-bike or e-scooter vendors are currently operating in Wyoming.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 18
Consultation With Experts We contacted the following vendor and advocacy group representatives known to have experience with e-bikes and e-scooters: Vendors • Bird Rides, Inc. • Spin. Rider Advocacy Group • Santa Monica Spoke.
Below are summaries of email exchanges or phone conversations with each organization.
Vendors
Bird Rides, Inc. Contacts: Lys Mendez, Government Partnerships, Bird Rides, Inc., [email protected]; Tom Santinelli, Product Operations, Bird Rides, Inc., [email protected].
Bird e-scooters are deployed in several California cities, including Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Santa Monica. We spoke with two Bird representatives: Lys Mendez, Government Partnerships, and Tom Santinelli, Product Operations.
Mendez and Santinelli indicated that Bird is very interested in working directly with Caltrans to discuss Caltrans’ goals and identify the best ways to achieve them. Below are the key topics we discussed. • Partnering with cities and other agencies: From a policy perspective, Bird takes a big-picture approach, with a focus on enhancing mobility and providing alternatives to automobile travel. While geofencing is a valuable tool, Mendez noted that it can lead to undesired impacts, such as decreased ridership (limiting mobility) or riders abandoning scooters at the edge of the geofenced boundary. o In the case of scooter riding on highways and bridges, Mendez said Bird is interested in working with agencies to understand how often this occurs, identify why riders may be choosing these routes and discuss appropriate solutions. • Technology: Bird scooters interact with geofencing boundaries via GPS devices in the scooters themselves (using proprietary hardware and firmware), not through a rider’s cellphone app. Bird receives location data on its scooters every few seconds. • Challenges and limitations of geofencing: o Santinelli noted that the U.S. government owns the GPS navigation system, and locations are assumed to be accurate to within 15 to 40 meters. This means that GPS technology is not currently able to establish very precise boundaries, such as outlining a sidewalk that may be 2 to 3 meters wide. o Because GPS is set up as a two-dimensional system, a geofencing boundary designed to prevent scooter riding on a highway overpass would also affect
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 19
streets, bike lanes, trails or other facilities located beneath the highway, Santinelli said. o GPS accuracy is affected by obstructions such as tall buildings. Santinelli noted that Bird is able to effectively apply geofencing boundaries to facilities such as bridges and trails, as these facilities tend to be located in areas with fewer obstructions. • Alternatives: In light of the challenges inherent to GPS technology, Santinelli suggested that alternative solutions may be appropriate in some areas. In the case of people riding scooters on highways, for example, signs may help educate riders that scooters are prohibited on these facilities. Santinelli also suggested that expanding the responsibilities of law enforcement to include ticketing scooter riders may be an effective deterrent. • Sidewalk riding: Bird is among the scooter providers that are partnering with the City of San Jose to develop innovative methods of preventing scooter riding on sidewalks. Mendez said that Bird appreciates the opportunity to innovate alongside the city and other providers in exploring how to use evolving technologies along with nontechnical means such as educational outreach to meet the city’s needs. • Sharing shapefiles: Mendez supported the City of Portland’s recent effort to share geofencing shapefiles developed by one provider with other providers. She noted that it is helpful when an agency is able to provide map files that outline desired boundaries rather than having providers interpret where boundaries should be placed.
For additional information on the capabilities and limitations of geofencing, Santinelli recommended the following article:
“Using Location Data for Guiding Micromobility Outcomes,” Morgan Herlocker, Blog Post, SharedStreets, March 2019. https://sharedstreets.io/using-location-data-for-guiding-micromobility-outcomes/ From the article: Scooter and bike share services present cities an opportunity to move more people in less space while providing more equitable transportation options. Most cities expect private mobility companies to further policy goals around safety, equity and sustainability in return for their use of public infrastructure. Location data—information about where things are in the world, such as phones or scooters—is ubiquitous today, and can help monitor how micromobility services interact with street infrastructure. This post will explore the capabilities of this data, as well as the hardware limitations.
Related Resource: Bird Rides, Inc., Bird Rides, Inc., 2019. https://www.bird.co/ Based in Santa Monica, Bird Rides provides e-scooter rental services in both domestic and international communities, including 56 cities and 24 college campuses in North America. A map at the vendor web site (https://www.bird.co/map/) shows the current availability of Bird scooters.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 20
Spin Contact: Kyle Rowe, Head of Government Partnerships, Spin, 206-965-5258, [email protected].
Spin scooters are available in 62 cities, including seven in California: Isla Vista, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose. We spoke with Kyle Rowe, head of government partnerships at Spin.
Rowe said Spin would be interested in talking with Caltrans about geofencing, though he noted that any additional geofencing boundaries would likely need to be coordinated with the cities that issue the scooter permits as well. Rowe felt it would typically be clear which cities to coordinate with, as Spin’s service areas do not generally overlap. Below are the key topics we discussed.
• Technology: Spin scooters interact with geofencing boundaries via GPS devices in the scooters; Rowe was uncertain about whether the rider’s cellphone location is used as well. He suggested that most larger vendors likely do not rely solely on cellphone locations, as this would not meet cities’ permit requirements. • Challenges and limitations of geofencing: Rowe echoed Bird representatives’ comments regarding the precision of the GPS system; he said coordinates are presumed to be accurate to within 50 feet. He noted that the system is less accurate in areas where buildings obstruct the GPS signal. o As noted by the representatives from Bird, GPS is a two-dimensional system. Rowe gave an example of an altitude-related conflict in Portland, where he worked with the Portland Bureau of Transportation and Portland Parks and Recreation to create geofencing boundaries around the city’s parks. In and around the city’s Waterfront Park, multiuse bridges (where scooter riding is permitted) pass over park areas where scooters are prohibited or speeds are limited. In this case, geofencing boundaries were trimmed to prevent “false positives” where scooters riding legally would be mistakenly slowed or stopped. o Rowe noted that geofencing does not affect privately owned scooters. • Sidewalk riding: Like Bird, Spin is among the scooter companies involved in San Jose’s Sidewalk Riding Prohibition Technology Program. Rowe said Spin has investigated several alternative technologies, including the use of Bluetooth beacons and cameras to detect when a scooter is on the sidewalk, but that none has proved workable yet. • Sharing shapefiles: Rowe described Spin’s experience with developing geofencing boundaries around parks in Portland and then allowing those shapefiles to be shared with other vendors. Although Spin invested time working with two agencies to develop the boundaries, Rowe noted: “It’s mostly about the safety of people in Portland, so it’s OK to share with everyone.” He concurred with Bird’s representatives that having cities provide shapefiles of their desired boundaries to vendors is a good approach. Related Resource: Spin, Skinny Labs Inc., 2019. http://spin.app Spin currently provides shared e-scooters in 62 cities and 16 campuses throughout the United States (scroll down the homepage to view a map of current locations).
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 21
Rider Advocacy Group
Santa Monica Spoke Contact: Cynthia Rose, Director, Santa Monica Spoke, [email protected].
Santa Monica Spoke is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving walking, biking and healthy active transportation in Santa Monica. The organization is a local affiliate of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the California Bicycle Coalition.
We spoke with Cynthia Rose, director of Santa Monica Spoke and a member of the board of directors of the California Bicycle Coalition. Rose served on an advisory committee that helped write Santa Monica’s scooter rules. Below are the key topics we discussed.
• Coordination between Caltrans and local jurisdictions: Rose is supportive of geofencing. She noted that geofencing boundaries outlining prohibited areas or speed restrictions are currently set by the municipalities that issue permits to vendors. If Caltrans decides to pursue geofencing, Rose recommended that Caltrans coordinate with local jurisdictions in the area to avoid conflicts between local and state efforts. In some areas, especially near the border between two municipalities, it may be necessary to contact more than one municipality to ensure that all affected vendors are included in any updates to geofencing boundaries. • Emerging technologies: Rose also recommended that Caltrans look to “regulate with an eye on the future,” and said agencies should be ready to incorporate emerging technologies that will allow them to better integrate e-bikes and e-scooters into any regulations being developed. • Differences between e-bikes and e-scooters: Rose noted that e-scooters are fundamentally different from e-bikes in terms of maneuverability (scooters are able to nimbly weave around pedestrians in a way that can create conflicts). She suggested that in an area where geofencing is used to regulate the speed of both e-bikes and e- scooters, it may be appropriate to set a lower speed for e-scooters than for e-bikes. She also suggested that there may be paths or other areas where e-bikes would be appropriate, but e-scooters would not. o Regarding e-bikes, Rose noted that there are two kinds of e-bikes: pedal-assist e-bikes, which require the rider to pedal in order to engage the motor, and throttle e-bikes, which do not. Rose said shared mobility bikes are typically pedal-assist, which means that a rider could pedal faster than the top speed set by a geofence. • Rider experience with crossing into a prohibited area: Rose said that some e- scooter vendors initially raised concerns that using geofencing to slow a scooter to zero mph (as in an area where scooters are prohibited) would present a safety hazard, leading to riders falling off the devices. She said that in practice, however, the e-scooter decelerates gradually, and using zero mph boundaries has not created a safety issue. o Rose noted that zero mph boundaries can create a challenge for riders when there is a delay in an e-scooter recognizing the geofence (potentially due to a ping rate that is slower than expected). Riders who are not aware of the
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 22
boundary may find themselves farther into the prohibited area than is desirable when the e-scooter stops. o Rose suggested that this could be helped by having an audible warning on the e- scooters, similar to the beep that scooters emit when they fall over, that would alert riders that the boundary is approaching.
Related Resource: Santa Monica Spoke, Santa Monica Spoke, undated. https://smspoke.org/about/ From the web site: Santa Monica Spoke [i]s a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to improving walking, biking and healthy active transportation in the City of Santa Monica. We are a community based nonprofit working to make Santa Monica more sustainable, and a better place to live, walk, bike, work and play. [The organization advocates] the implementation of Complete Streets Policies that support and protect all users, (pedestrians and people on bikes) and the use of public transit and shared mobility options to promote fewer single car trips for a healthier, safer, more sustainable environment for the community at large.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 23
Local Practices and Regulations
The citations below provide information about the use of geofencing with e-bikes and e-scooters in local jurisdictions and by universities in five states: California, Colorado, Florida, Oregon and Texas. Contact information, either from survey responses or identified using the resources cited, is included for many of the agencies and organizations addressed below.
Note: This is an emerging topic that has yet to be thoroughly studied through formal research projects. To provide a fuller picture of agencies’ experience in this area, the citations that follow include supplementary information from media outlets.
California
State and Local Practices and Regulations Project in Progress: Curbside Management: Understanding Impacts of On-Demand Mobility on Public Transit Use and Vulnerable Road Users, California Department of Transportation, start date: April 2019; expected completion date: June 2020. Project description at https://transweb.sjsu.edu/mctm/research/utc/Curbside-Management- Understanding-Impacts-Demand-Mobility-Public-Transit-Use-and-Vulnerable-Road-Users From the description: The goal of this project is to develop recommended best practices of curb management for an array of innovative transportation modes (e.g., carsharing, bikesharing, scooter sharing, ridesourcing/transportation network companies (TNCs), etc.). Such practices may include mechanisms such as: (1) fees for access and use; (2) prioritizing access for public transportation, cyclists, pedestrians, elderly, youth, and disabled populations; (3) geofencing to limit curb access; and (4) pricing to reflect key priorities (e.g., high-occupancy vehicles, walking and cycling, clean vehicles, etc.).
AB-1112 Shared Mobility Devices: Local Regulation, California Assembly Bill 1112 (2019- 2020), June 2019. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1112 This California Assembly bill, most recently amended and re-referred to the Committee on Transportation on June 19, 2019, reads in part: The bill would allow a local authority to enact reasonable regulations on shared mobility devices and providers within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, requiring a shared mobility service provider to obtain a permit. The bill would allow a local authority to ban persons from deploying and offering shared mobility devices for hire on its public right of way, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 24
Related Resource: “State Bill Taking Aim at City Bikeshare, Scooter Regulations Stalls in Senate,” Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, San Francisco Examiner, July 2019. https://www.sfexaminer.com/the-city/state-bill-taking-aim-at-city-bikeshare-scooter- regulations-stalls-in-senate/ From the article: Assembly Bill 1112 [AB 1112], authored by Assembly member Laura Friedman (D- Glendale), has sputtered to a stop in the state Senate along with some other shared mobility-related bills after it met with growing opposition from California cities. …. Some parties besides shared mobility operators had problems with California cities’ opposition. The Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF], a nonprofit aiming to protect civil liberties, hoped the bill would prevent cities from disclosing personal trip data of e- scooter and e-bike renters. Even without names attached, EFF argued, it is easy to identify who took individual trips and track a person’s movements. But in June, the state Senate Committee on Transportation voiced its own concerns with AB 1112. In particular, the committee questioned AB 1112’s restrictions on cities’ ability to require shared mobility companies operate in what are called “communities of concern.” Essentially, this is a requirement cities use to ensure poor people and minorities have access to services. As written, AB 1112 would have removed this option. The committee also expressed concern AB 1112 would undermine local authorities’ ability to regulate speed limits for shared mobility services. “It is unclear why these two specific aspects of shared mobility device regulation should be singled out for state regulation while all other specifics are left up to local authorities,” the senate transportation committee wrote in its evaluation of the bill.
“Scooter Wars: Local Approaches to Regulating Shared Mobility Devices,” Zachary M. Heinselman, Emily B. Milder and Laurence S. Weiner, League of California Cities 2019 Spring Conference, May 2019. https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional- Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2019/Spring-2019/5-2019-Spring;-Heinselman-Scooter- Wars-Challenges.aspx From the conference paper: In late 2017, seemingly overnight, electric scooters appeared on the streets and sidewalks of the City of Santa Monica, and soon became ubiquitous throughout several Los Angeles neighborhoods and the Bay Area. The scooters—dockless, accessed via a smartphone app, able to reach speeds of fifteen miles per hour, usually operated on the sidewalk by riders without helmets, and often haphazardly parked or tossed in the public right- of-way—are despised by some and loved by others. Cities, concerned that the scooters pose safety hazards to pedestrians, riders and drivers, and frustrated by the unsightly scattering of vehicles not in use, have taken various approaches toward regulating these new “shared mobility devices.” This paper will explore several of those specific approaches and address the most significant challenges faced by cities in designing and implementing shared mobility device (“SMD”) regulation, namely, potential conflicts with the California Vehicle Code, enforcement capability, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), liability for personal injuries, and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 25
Motorized Scooter, State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2019. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/scooters From the web site: A motorized scooter may be operated on a bicycle path, trail or bikeway, but not on a sidewalk. An individual shall not operate a motorized scooter: …. • On a highway with a posted speed limit greater than 25 miles per hour (mph) unless it is within a Class II or IV bikeway. However, a local authority may adopt an ordinance or resolution authorizing operation of a motorized scooter on a highway with a posted speed limit of up to 35 mph. A Class II bikeway provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. A Class IV bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways can provide for one-way or two-way travel. A motorized scooter may not be operated at a speed in excess of 15 mph on all highways, including bikeways, regardless of a higher speed limit applicable to the highway.
Beverly Hills Contact: Christian Vasquez, Transportation Planning, City of Beverly Hills, 310-285-1161, [email protected].
Scooters, City of Beverly Hills, 2019. http://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/policedepartment/policedivisions/traffic/scooters/ This web site includes the following scooter advisory: The Beverly Hills Police Department will continue to enforce regulations on the use of motorized scooters throughout the City of Beverly Hills. This will include impounding shared mobility devices and issuing citations related to vehicle code violations resulting in fines. The City Council adopted an urgency ordinance on July 24, 2018, to temporarily prohibit shared mobility devices, specifically motorized scooters, within Beverly Hills [c]ity limits. The ordinance prohibits the shared devices from being placed in any public right-of-way or on public property, operated in any public right-of-way or on public [property].
Related Resource:
“Beverly Hills Extends Electric Scooter Ban By One Year,” Luke Harold, Park Labrea News/Beverly Press, December 13, 2018. https://beverlypress.com/2018/12/beverly-hills-extends-electric-scooter-ban-by-one-year/ From the article: The six month ban on shared mobility devices in Beverly Hills, mainly aimed at Bird and Lime saturating local streets with scooters, expired this month without a new ordinance council members were hoping for to regulate the devices. Riders zipping past pedestrians on sidewalks at speeds up to 15 mph and scooters left in public rights of way contributed to the Beverly Hills City Council’s decision to ban the
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 26
devices, unless the city and the shared mobility companies can agree on a regulatory framework. Citing a lack of cooperation from the scooter companies over the past six months, the City Council approved a one-year extension to its shared mobility device ban at its Dec. 11 meeting. The ban could be shortened if council members establish a pilot program.
Los Angeles Contacts: Jose Elias, Bureau of Transportation Technology, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 213-972-4944, [email protected]; Alison Hewitt, University of California, Los Angeles, [email protected].
Dockless Mobility Program: More Choices + Better Mobility, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, undated. https://ladot.io/programs/dockless/ From the web site: People in Los Angeles deserve safe and comfortable transportation choices to get around this great city. That’s why LADOT [Los Angeles Department of Transportation] created a pilot [o]ne-[y]ear permit to regulate and manage dockless scooters and bicycles. LADOT will work to ensure safety, comfort and equity for all who wish to use dockless scooters and bikes. …. Who is enforcing State and City rules? LADOT will ensure that [d]ockless [m]obility [p]roviders follow regulations outlined in the [o]ne- [y]ear permit. LAPD [Los Angeles Police Department] will ticket anyone they find riding an e- scooter on the sidewalk. Any vehicle parked in any one location for more than 5 consecutive days without moving is subject to removal by LA Sanitation. LAPD traffic divisions are responsible for ticketing sidewalk riding. For concerns about sid[e]walk riding, community members may contact LAPD division captains.
Related Resource: “LA Leaders Say Scooter Companies Must ‘Step Up and Do Better,’” Elijah Chiland, Curbed Los Angeles, June 14, 2019. https://la.curbed.com/2019/6/14/18679094/los-angeles-scooters-rules-pilot From the article: Three months into a new permitting program regulating dockless bikes and scooters on the streets of Los Angeles, city leaders expressed frustration Wednesday with the results of the one-year pilot so far. …. Under the terms of LA’s yearlong pilot, which began in March, eight companies have been authorized to deploy a combined 36,170 devices (a mix of scooters and electric bikes) throughout the city. A report from the city’s transportation department shows the vehicles have gotten a fair amount of use. Between December 31 and April 15 (when companies only had conditional permits and could deploy fewer vehicles), users took nearly 1.9 million rides on the devices.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 27
Electric Scooter Policy, UCLA Transportation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2019. https://www.transportation.ucla.edu/getting-around-campus/electric-scooter-policy From the web site: UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles] prioritizes the safety of the campus community. UCLA Transportation would like to highlight the importance of campus road safety and provide an overview of state laws regarding electric scooters.
Related Resources:
“UCLA Transportation Agreement With E-Scooter Companies to Impose New Restrictions,” Stephen Wyer, Daily Bruin, September 15, 2019. https://dailybruin.com/2019/09/15/ucla-transportation-agreement-with-e-scooter-companies- to-impose-new-restrictions/ From the article: UCLA said its goal is to minimize the impact on pedestrians, improve safety and benefit students. To this end, UCLA has made infrastructure improvements on campus such as introducing new protected bike lanes, as well as repairing and repaving campus streets to create better riding conditions. In conjunction with such efforts, the e-scooter vendors are implementing more sophisticated geofence software on their apps, which will prevent students from parking in restricted areas and keep e-scooters off sidewalks and pedestrian areas. A geofence is a virtual parameter in a physical area that, when crossed, will send a message to the user.
“UCLA Reaches Agreement With Three E-Scooter and E-Bike Companies,” Karen Hallisey and Alison Hewitt, Press Release, University of California, Los Angeles, August 2019. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-reaches-agreement-with-three-e-scooter-and-e-bike- companies From the press release: As part of a shared mobility strategy, UCLA has signed a provisional contract with Lyft, Bird and Wheels to provide electric scooters and bikes to the campus community. According to the agreement, shared e-scooters and e-bikes from unapproved vendors can continue to ride through campus roads, but they will be impounded if parked on campus. For pedestrian safety, e-bikes and e-scooters are prohibited on campus sidewalks and pathways. …. The arrangement soft-launched Aug. 1; a full pilot program will roll out this fall. …. Geofencing will limit motors to 1 mile per hour in UCLA’s pedestrian dismount zones, such as Bruin Walk, and help riders find approved parking zones. … Dismount zones have also been delineated in campus areas with high foot traffic to minimize impacts on pedestrian walkways.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 28
San Diego Contact: Ahmad Erikat, Traffic Operations, City of San Diego, 619-533-3045, [email protected].
Motorized Bicycle and Scooter Sharing, Bicycling, City of San Diego, 2019. https://www.sandiego.gov/bicycling/bicycle-and-scooter-sharing From the web site: There are several bicycle and scooter sharing companies currently operating in the City of San Diego. The [c]ity has shared applicable rules and regulations and safety guidelines with the bike and scooter sharing companies and is monitoring the operations to ensure the companies and their customers are aware of these rules.
Speed and parking are restricted for dockless bikes and scooters in areas of the city. A map of restricted areas is available at https://sandiego.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c342a8e0c9354323b8210 dab0e930bc9.
Related Resources:
§83.0308 Geofencing Speed and Operating Restrictions, Chapter 8: Traffic and Vehicles, San Diego Municipal Code, June 2019. https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter08/Ch08Art03Division03.pdf From page 6 of the PDF: (a) Through geofencing or similar technology, an operator shall reduce the speed of any motorized scooters and motorized bicycles in the operator’s fleet to eight miles per hour or less at [specified locations.] …. (b) Through geofencing or similar technology, an operator shall prevent any motorized scooters and motorized bicycles in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked or ending a ride, and shall reduce the speed of its motorized scooters and motorized bicycles to eight miles per hour at [specified locations.] …. (c) Through geofencing or similar technology, an operator shall prevent any motorized scooters and motorized bicycles in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked or ending a ride, and shall reduce the speed of any motorized scooters and motorized bicycles in its fleet to three miles per hour at [specified locations.]
“New Regulations for Dockless Scooters, Bikes Take Effect,” FOX 5 Digital Team and Andrew Nomura, KSWB (FOX 5), July 1, 2019. https://fox5sandiego.com/2019/07/01/new-regulations-for-dockless-scooter-bikes-take- affect/ From the article: The package of regulations, which was passed by the City Council in April, limits the speed of dockless scooters from 15 mph to 8 mph in high-traffic areas like Spanish landing and near Petco [P]ark, and as low as 3 mph along the Embarcadero, the Martin Luther King Jr. Promenade and the boardwalk in Mission and Pacific Beach.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 29
Scooter companies like Bird, Lime and Razor will now [be] required to use geofencing technology on their scooters to limit speeds and parking abilities in designated areas around the city. Bird already uses geofencing to reduce scooter speeds in areas like the Santa Monica Beach Bike Path. Scooter riders are banned from parking the devices near hospitals, schools, beach area boardwalks, the Petco Park perimeter and the north and south legs of the Embarcadero. The city is designating scooter parking zones along city streets to decrease the number of scooters parked on sidewalks. In downtown, scooter riders and companies are only able to park devices in groups of four, with at least 40 feet between groups.
“Deadline Reached for San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s Scooter Company Ultimatum,” Mackenzie Maynard, KGTV (ABC 10 News San Diego), July 30, 2019. https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/mayor-faulconers-deadline-for-scooter-company- ultimatum From the article: The city is cracking down on its scooter regulations and making sure riders are not able to go above certain speed limits and are parking in the proper areas. …. In a statement Monday evening, the mayor’s office said: “All [s]hared [m]obility [d]evice [o]perators that received a [n]otice of [v]iolation have responded that they are in compliance. [c]ity staff will be monitoring and testing geofenced areas throughout the week to ensure compliance is occurring. If the [c]ity finds that one or more operators are not in compliance, staff has been directed to revoke permits per the [m]unicipal [c]ode.”
San Francisco Contact: Adrian Leung, Transportation Planner, Livable Streets, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, [email protected].
Powered Scooter Share Permit and Pilot Program, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2019. https://www.sfmta.com/projects/powered-scooter-share-permit-and-pilot-program From the web site: The SFMTA [San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency] released the application for its Powered Scooter Share Permit Program in July 2019, which will take the place of its current [p]ilot [p]rogram set to wrap this coming fall. This program is aligned with our city’s goal to provide numerous reliable transportation choices to move in San Francisco. The newly adopted Powered Scooter Share Permit Program incorporates lessons learned from the 12-month Powered Scooter Share Pilot as well as the City’s 18-month Stationless Bikeshare Permit Program to create a more useful, safe and equitable citywide program. The application is also accompanied by a series of supporting documents which seek to establish stronger guidance and clearer requirements around key issues such as the distribution of devices, operational sustainability, community engagement processes, and data sharing and accountability standards.
2019-2020 Powered Scooter Share Permit Program—Revised, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, September 27, 2019. https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2019/10/9-27- 19_powered_scooter_share_policy_directive-revised-signed.pdf From the memorandum: This memorandum provides direction to SFMTA Scooter Share Program staff regarding the issuance of permits for powered scooter share operations in San
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 30
Francisco. This directive reflects due consideration of the public interest and safety of the transportation system and is based on findings and analysis by the SFMTA. In accordance with San Francisco Transportation Code Sec. 916, SFMTA scooter share program staff [is] directed to: • Issue 12-month permits to Jump, Lime, Scoot and Spin, with a start date no later than October 15, 2019. Each permit will allow 1,000 scooters, with the potential for the permittees to increase the number of scooters to a maximum of 2,500 scooters each during the term of the permit.
San Jose Contact: Shireen Santosham, Chief Innovation Officer, City of San Jose, [email protected].
Micro Mobility: E-Scooters, Bike Share and More, City of San Jose, undated. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/micro-mobility From the web site: E-scooters began appearing in San Jose in March of 2018, with multiple companies now operating e-scooter sharing programs on our streets. The City has developed regulations to ensure these systems are operated safely and responsibly and a permit program will go into effect in February 2019.
Shared Micro-Mobility Permit Administrative Regulations, Department of Transportation, City of San Jose, undated. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=38091 This document “sets forth the requirements and procedures for permits issued for the operation of Shared Micro-Mobility Device Systems in the City of San Jose.”
Sidewalk Riding Prohibition Technology: Sidewalk Riding Prevention Technology Requirement and Evaluation Schedule, City of San Jose, undated. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/micro- mobility/sidewalk-riding-prohibition-technology From the web site: All e-scooter operators that have obtained a Shared Micro-Mobility Permit with the City of San Jose must participate in an evaluation process to demonstrate the effectiveness of the technology they will rely upon to prevent the use of shared e-scooters on public sidewalks by July 1st 2019. … Operators shall demonstrate the technology applications proposed are effectively preventing sidewalk riding in the [d]esignated [a]rea by January 31, 2020.
Santa Monica Contact: Kyle Kozar, Mobility Division, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8341, [email protected].
Shared Mobility Pilot Program Summary Report, City of Santa Monica, November 2019. https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/SantaMonicaSharedMo bilityEvaluation_Final_110419.pdf Highlighted below are selected excerpts of this report that summarizes results of Santa Monica’s shared mobility pilot during the period October 2018 through September 2019: • Impacts of the pilot program are examined on page 6 of the executive summary (page 6 of the PDF):
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 31
Santa Monica was one of the first cities to enforce geofencing and digital policy tools to remedy parking, safety and oversaturation problems. For example, the City and service providers implemented a deactivation zone around the beach area, which brought devices to [zero] mph, largely eliminated conflicts, safety issues and number of devices along the beach path. • Improved device technology is addressed on page 41 of the report (page 51 of the PDF): The City instituted creative digital policy solutions like “geofencing” to mitigate parking issues and conflicts between scooters and pedestrians on Santa Monica’s beach bike path. A geofence was created around the entire beach area. At first, the geofence simply reduced device speeds, but ongoing conflicts resulted in the need to establish a geofence that brought electric scooters to a gradual stop. Bringing scooters to a stop largely eliminated conflicts and safety issues along the beach path, as fewer users brought shared electric scooters or bikes to the beach path and trips on the beach path reduced by 70 [percent]. Sidewalk riding and drop-zone parking compliance are potential future use cases that could be tested and refined as GPS technology and environmental detection become more reliable. • The need for improved product resilience is addressed on page 44 of the report (page 54 of the PDF): In general, devices were ridable and geofencing tools were working effectively to keep users from encroaching on restricted areas such as the beach path. While field tests were qualitative scans of devices and not full fleet inspections, they enabled Santa Monica staff to give service providers feedback on product issues such as stopping distances, remaining tire treads, lights, exposed cables, and other general maintenance issues. It was the operators[’] responsibility to test and ensure the safety of the service provider. • Public management of the right of way is addressed on page 56 of the report (page 66 of the PDF): The City can continue to expand the availability of drop zones and companies can integrate in-app solutions to encourage riders to park in geofenced drop zones. Santa Monica should continue to work on tools and data systems for efficient and effective PROW [public right of way] management for mobility service like MDS [mobility data specification].
“How Santa Monica Established Order From Scooter Chaos (And What It Can Teach LA),” Ryan Fonseca, News Post, LAist, Southern California Public Radio, November 22, 2019. https://laist.com/2019/11/22/santa_monica_scooter_program_mobility_future.php From the news post: “Like everywhere else in Southern California, the highest percentage of trips are under two miles. ... [T]here are lots of other ways to get around,” said Francie Stefan, acting chief mobility officer and assistant director of planning for the city of Santa Monica. “That was sort of the mindset ... we don’t know, but we won't know if we don’t try.” And scooters were a way to try. In September 2018, the city launched a pilot program, embracing scooters and e-bikes as a viable transportation method, and studying how they were being used in Santa Monica. The city issued permits to four companies and set a vehicle cap for each, but allowed for fleet sizes to fluctuate based on the popularity of the devices. Here’s the most recent fleet size:
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 32
• Bird: 750 electric scooters. • Lime: 750 electric scooters. • Lyft: 750 electric scooters. • Jump: 250 electric scooters, 750 e-bikes.
That adds up to 3,250 devices, though on an average day, about 2,250 are available across Santa Monica, city officials said. The 16-month pilot was set to expire on Dec. 30, but the Santa Monica City Council voted last week to extend it through May 2020. With that added time, city staff “will be developing a pilot 2.0,” Stefan said, to explore enhanced regulations and improvements to streets.
Scooter and Bike Share Services, Planning and Community Development, City of Santa Monica, 2019. https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Transportation/Shared-Mobility-Services/ From the web site: To expand the diversity of transportation options in Santa Monica, and address the challenges introduced by new technologies, the Santa Monica City Council approved a 16-month Shared Mobility Pilot Program that launched in September 2018, allowing four private companies (Bird, Jump, Lime and Lyft) to provide shared mobility services in the public right-of-way. The program enabled the City to: • Develop a new area of policy, regulation and enforcement through firsthand experience. • Move quickly to adapt to a rapidly changing industry, but leave room to learn and adjust as appropriate. • Test new device and service providers in a growing industry. • Explore partnership models with private companies. • Explore possibilities for data capture, structures and utilization. • Allow the City time to experiment with different management tools like “[g]eo-fencing” and creation of shared mobility device drop zones. On November 12, 2019, Council voted to extend the [p]ilot [p]rogram through May 2020, allowing time to pave the way for a second pilot program with intensified regulations that facilitates greater customer reliability and affordability, and more effectively achieves safety and public outcomes.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 33
Colorado
Denver Contact: Nicholas Williams, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Public Works, City of Denver, 720-865-8709, [email protected].
Denver Will Go Out to Bid for Bike Share and Scooter Operator(s), City and County of Denver, November 2019. https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-department-of-public- works/newsroom/2019/bike-scooter-operators.html From the web site: Denver Public Works has announced it will go out to bid for one or more companies to operate shared bike and scooter services in Denver. A contract will replace the current system by which scooter, e-bike and dockless bike companies operate in Denver, which is by permit. The announcement of the competitive bidding process approach comes on the heels of Denver Bike Sharing’s announcement that it will cease the operation of Denver B-cycle on January 30, 2020. …. Scooter and e-bike companies currently permitted to operate in Denver will continue to operate through Denver’s Dockless Mobility Pilot Permit Program until the city’s contracted vendor(s) begin operating, which is anticipated in summer 2020.
Fort Collins Contact: Amanda Mansfield, Transportation Planner, FC Moves, City of Fort Collins, 503-536-3103, [email protected].
Electric Scooters are Here!, FC Moves (Transportation Planning), City of Fort Collins, undated. https://www.fcgov.com/escooters/ From the web site: The City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University (CSU) are proud to announce that we are partnering with Bird for a 12-month e-scooter share pilot program. Bird, the founder of shared e-scooters, began offering its safety-focused, environmentally friendly service via the Bird app to Fort Collins and the CSU campus on October 23, 2019.
Bird, the City and CSU will lead an ongoing e-scooter safety education campaign to familiarize the community with the rules of the road and best practices for responsible use of Bird.
The web site offers a list of frequently asked questions, including this discussion of geofencing requirements: Bird’s technology complies with the City’s geofence requirements, and all scooters operating in Fort Collins will be programmed to decelerate to a stop within a quarter mile of the City’s and University’s designated no-ride zones, or other areas that City and/or University officials will define at a later date. Riders will receive an in-app notification informing them that they are in a no-ride zone and redirecting them to permitted areas to ride.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 34
Florida
Tallahassee E-Scooter Pilot Project, City of Tallahassee, 2019. https://www.talgov.com/place/pln-scoot.aspx From the web site: The City Commission has extended the initial three-month pilot period for an additional six months. This means scooters will be on the streets until March 15, 2020. During this time, citizens will have the opportunity to ride electric scooters, or e-scooters as they are commonly known, and provide feedback. Five rideshare companies (Bird, Lime, Spin, VeoRide, and one as of yet unknown vendor) will provide up to 1,000 e-scooters for use until the pilot project’s conclusion on March 15, 2020.
Related Resource:
“Tallahassee Requires Bird and Gotcha to Remove Scooters After Geofence Issues,” Monica Casey, WCTV Eyewitness News, July 2019. https://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Tallahassee-requires-Bird-and-Gotcha-to-remove- scooters-after-geo-fence-issues-513263571.html From the article: Bird and Gotcha have been required to suspend all operations in Tallahassee as of Friday night until the issues [with geofences around college campuses] are resolved. Scooters are not allowed on FSU [Florida State University], FAMU [Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University] or TCC [Tallahassee Community College] campuses as part of the City of Tallahassee’s three-month pilot program. In an email to Gotcha, a senior city planner explains that yesterday when the City tested the geofence, Gotcha scooters were not functioning. Members of the Gotcha team had to unlock the scooters for the City, after which the City learned that the scooters were going through the geofence, and therefore violating the agreement with the City. …. Both companies are also warned that if scooters are redeployed before the issue is resolved, they will be kicked out of the pilot program. Bird and Gotcha will need to prove that their scooters slow down and stop in the no-ride zone, and then seek authorization from the City to be re-tested and ultimately re-deploy.
Oregon
Eugene Contact: Rob Inerfeld, Public Works Engineering, City of Eugene, 541-682-5343, [email protected].
E-Scooter Pilot Program, Engage Eugene, City of Eugene, undated. https://engage.eugene-or.gov/escooters From the web site: The City of Eugene is working to create and implement an [e]-[s]cooter [p]ilot [p]rogram. There are several things that need to happen first before the program can officially
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 35
launch. This includes potentially making changes to city code, establishing criteria for selecting e-scooter companies, and creating regulations to govern how and where e-scooters may operate. Currently, the program is predicted to launch in spring or summer 2020.
Portland Contact: Love Jonson, Active Transportation and Safety Operations/E-Scooter Program Assistant, Portland Bureau of Transportation, 503-823-6114, [email protected].
Portland’s ongoing e-scooter pilot program, which began in April 2019 and continues through April 2020, includes geofencing requirements. In October, the Portland Bureau of Transportation provided all permitted scooter companies with digital copies of the geofences successfully implemented by Spin.
Love Jonson, e-scooter program assistant at Portland Bureau of Transportation, explained the agency’s action: Our [a]dministrative [r]ule, which regulates e-scooter operations in Portland, gives PBOT [Portland Bureau of Transportation] the authority to produce geofence shapefiles and requires companies to employ them and update as needed. … The intent behind this was to standardize the specific boundaries across companies.
(Note: See TRN-15.01–New Mobility–Shared Electric Scooters in Related Resources below for Portland Bureau of Transportation’s administrative rule. Section 8.E provides information about geofencing, beginning on page 18 of the report.)
When asked whether other companies have been able to use Spin’s shapefiles easily, Jonson noted that Portland Bureau of Transportation’s “enforcement staff is currently auditing geofencing across companies and should have some results [in late November].”
Among the documents cited below are two that Jonson provided: a policy notice Portland Bureau of Transportation recently sent to permitted e-scooter companies (Attachment A) and a document listing research that Jonson compiled about geofencing/speed governing in other cities (Attachment B).
Related Resources:
Shared Electric Scooter Pilot, PDX On the Go, Portland Bureau of Transportation, City of Portland, 2019. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77294 From the web site: E-Scooter Pilot Program Responding to input from thousands of Portlanders, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has announced new measures to improve public safety and protect [c]ity parks as part of this one-year pilot program.
The E-Scooter Pilot Program starts April 26 and lasts until April 26, 2020. It follows a 120-day pilot program in 2018 that showed e-scooters have the potential to help reduce congestion and pollution. But the 2018 pilot also raised concerns about people riding e-
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 36
scooter[s] on sidewalks, in violation of state traffic laws, creating conflict with people walking and people with disabilities.
Following the pilot, PBOT [Portland Bureau of Transportation] will evaluate the program and engage the public to develop recommendations for permanent rules for shared e- scooter use for the City Council to consider.
TRN-15.01—New Mobility—Shared Electric Scooters, Portland Bureau of Transportation, undated. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/690212 This administrative rule describes the bureau’s shared electric scooter policy, regulations and permit requirements. See page 18 of the report for geofencing-related requirements.
Speed Governing Policy Notice—Portland, Portland Bureau of Transportation, October 2019. See Attachment A. This notice, sent to all permittees participating in the 2019-2020 Shared Electric Scooter Pilot Program, addresses ongoing efforts to test speed governing as a condition of the permit. The letter also informs permittees that effective November 1, 2019, the agency is requiring all e-scooter companies to implement speed governing in specified areas.
The policy letter also notes that one company, Spin, has already voluntarily implemented speed governing according to the terms described in the letter. A digital copy of Spin’s geofences was provided to other permittees, with the note that Spin’s “geofences have been trimmed to account for roads and bridges that intersect these spaces. They have also been trimmed by approximately 30 feet from area boundaries to account for GPS accuracy and to mitigate against adverse impacts for e-scooter users riding legally on immediately adjacent facilities.”
Speed Governing in Other Cities, Love Jonson, Portland Bureau of Transportation, undated. See Attachment B. This document, prepared by Jonson, highlights geofencing and speed governing requirements in four California cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and Santa Monica); Hoboken, New Jersey; Chicago; Detroit; and the University of Texas at Austin.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 37
Texas
Austin Contacts: Jason Redfern, Parking Enterprise Manager, City of Austin, 512-974-7020, [email protected]; Justin Schneider, Community Engagement Specialist, City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department, 512-974-6572, [email protected].
E-Bikes and E-Scooters on Austin Trails Pilot Program, Speakup Austin!, City of Austin, 2019. https://www.speakupaustin.org/e-trails From the web page: The goal of this pilot is to understand whether Austin trails might be suitable for electric-assist bikes and electric scooters. This [p]ilot [p]rogram will examine how these vehicles impact the comfort, mobility and safety of trail users as well as trail integrity.
Related Resource: “Geofencing Aims to Stop People Riding Scooters in Austin Parkland,” Kate Winkle, KXAN, September 4, 2019. https://www.kxan.com/news/geofencing-aims-to-stop-people-riding-scooters-in-austin- parkland/ From the article: Scooter riders who try to hop onto the Hike-and-Bike Trail will find themselves slowing down and get an alert that they’re not supposed to be there.
The change using geofencing technology is part of a partnership between scooter companies and Austin’s Parks and Recreation and Transportation [d]epartments. Scooter users aren’t supposed to ride on non-paved trails and only electric bikes are allowed right now on the Hike-and-Bike Trail. …. Currently, a pilot program is in place where scooters are allowed on certain trails and the city is asking for feedback. It’s expected to end in late September, and initial findings will be shared this fall. (Note: The web site indicates that a report will be prepared for presentation to the Urban Transportation Commission during the period from September to December 2019. The report will be shared with the community.)
“Geofencing to Govern Scooter Accelerations on Campus Begins March 26,” Press Release, Parking and Transportation Services, The University of Texas at Austin, March 25, 2019. https://parking.utexas.edu/news/geofencing-govern-scooter-accelerations-campus-begins- march-26 From the press release: Beginning tomorrow, Bird, Jump, Lime and Lyft will use geofencing to implement a maximum acceleration of 8 mph on their scooters in defined areas of campus. … Signage at major campus entry points will alert riders approaching a speed zone location.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 38
Electric Scooters, Parking and Transportation Services, University of Texas at Austin, 2019. https://parking.utexas.edu/electric-scooters-0 From the web site: Scooter Parking Locations and Speed Governed Zones Click on a scooter icon in the map to see a photo of the location and the type of scooter parking provided there. The red zones represent speed governed zones in which you should expect your rented scooter to slow down (8 mph). The blue and yellow zones represent zones where standard scooter speeds of up to 15 mph can be expected. Click the panel icon in the top left of the embedded map to customize your current view.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 39
Related Research and Resources
Below are links to the web sites of selected e-scooter vendors used by the local jurisdictions highlighted in this Preliminary Investigation. Following the vendor list is a sampling of publications that address alternative technologies and inconsistent throttling (a technology- related challenge associated with geofencing).
Vendors
Lime, 2019. https://www.li.me/en-us/home Map of locations: https://www.li.me/locations Lime lists a presence in 92 cities and 22 college campuses in the United States.
Lyft, Inc., 2019. https://www.lyft.com/ Map of locations: https://www.lyft.com/scooters#cities Lyft scooters are available in 21 cities in North America.
Skip, undated. https://skipscooters.com/ The Skip web site indicates the availability of its e-scooters in the Washington, D.C., area but does not appear to provide a current, comprehensive list of cities where the e-scooters are available. The City of San Diego survey respondent also noted that Skip e-scooters are among those available through the city’s one-year pilot program.
Alternative Technologies
“In Some New Cars and E-Scooters, It Isn’t Up to You How Fast You Drive,” Matt McFarland, CNN Business, April 2, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/tech/speed-cars-scooters-bikes/index.html From the article: The [University of Texas at Austin’s] approach relies on geofencing, in which computerized location technologies, such as GPS and Bluetooth beacons, are used to identify a scooter’s location and adjust its maximum speed. Other techniques to limit micromobil[i]ty speeds are being developed.
At least one Silicon Valley startup, lvl5, is experimenting with using cameras mounted on the devices to identify sidewalks or roads with artificial intelligence, and adjust speeds accordingly.
Onboard Maps and Geofencing, Superpedestrian, Inc., October 2, 2019. Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e8ezs5b28I From the description: The Superpedestrian scooter stores the maps for geofencing onboard our vehicles, avoiding the need for commands to arrive from the cloud. Operators can apply rules including speed and parking limits and the vehicle enforces them within 1 second—or 7 meters in full speed—an order of magnitude better than current industry standards.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 40
Related Resource: Intelligent Operating System for Fleets, Superpedestrian, Inc., 2019. https://www.superpedestrian.com/en/software From the web site: Onboard geofencing improves speed, power and parking compliance.
“Scooters Are Suddenly Everywhere. What Should Cities Be Doing About It?” Daniel C. Vock, Governing, November 27, 2018. https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-electric-scooters-bird.html Note: The following is from an interview with David Estrada, policy expert at Bird Rides, Inc. From the article: Can you use geo-fencing to limit where people can park their scooters? The geo-fencing can be tough if you’re just using GPS, but what we can do—and we are doing this—is to create parking zones: If you park within 15 feet of this, we’ll [mark you as] having parked there. If you try to park 100 feet away, we may not let you end the ride.
We’re also partnering with cities in actual infrastructure that they put in. There are these little Bluetooth beacons. They’re small and they interact with the vehicle, and they can tell much more detail where the vehicle is, whether it’s six inches or a foot away. We can create parking zones by putting these beacons in cities. We can even put them along sidewalks to determine if people are riding on sidewalks.
“Bird Works on Tech Fixes to Complaints About How Rental Electric Scooters Are Used,” Edward Niedermeyer, Automotive News, August 22, 2018. https://www.autonews.com/article/20180822/MOBILITY/180829886/bird-works-on-tech-fixes-to- complaints-about-how-rental-electric-scooters-are-used From the article: Electric-scooter startup Bird on Wednesday said it’s exploring several new technological tools aimed at eliminating common complaints from riders and the cities where the company operates. …. Bird is working to stop users from dumping scooters throughout the city, and said it could expand the use of the geofencing, which currently stops riders from going into prohibited areas. That geofence could be extended to alert riders to use designated parking spaces, which Bird is working with [the City of Santa Monica] to establish.
Scooters will also be equipped with a tip-over sensor to alert the company to a scooter that may be taking up unnecessary curb or parking area space, and a lock would secure scooters to one of the new designated parking zones.
But the company is still trying to figure out how to get people to stop riding on the sidewalk, which Bird calls an “extremely difficult issue.”
“Given the current limitations of GPS to pinpoint locations of individual riders within a few feet, we are developing other complex technological solutions that would enable us to identify when Birds are ridden on sidewalks,” the company report states. These might include monitoring speed and brake telematics, establishing beacons or sensors around the city, floorboard cameras, sensors to measure the passage of scooters over sidewalk contraction joints, and even cameras that apply machine learning to determine the difference between pedestrians and other objects surrounding the scooter.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 41
Inconsistent Throttling
“Did Your Rented E-Scooter Suddenly Shut Down? Blame the Invisible Geofence,” Sonja Sharp, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2019. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/geofencing-scooters-westside-bird-lime From the article: A Jump rider crossing Whitworth Drive at full throttle on Robertson Boulevard will find the scooter slowing to the Beverly Hills speed limit of 5 mph from the L.A. city limit of 15, while a Bird will stop completely at the border. A Lime can cruise through the city at 15 mph, though, like the others, it won’t be able to end the trip there. Those who abandon their still-active scooters inside city limits can face fines.
“Safety Glitch Lets Some Shared Electric Scooters Exceed Local Speed Limits,” Ryan Felton, Consumer Reports, June 7, 2019. https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/safety-glitch-lets-some-electric-scooters- exceed-local-speed-limits/ From the article: An apparent glitch can cause an electric scooter model available for rent from major companies like Bird and Lyft to experience a sudden burst of speed that exceeds limits set by cities, Consumer Reports has confirmed.
The issue affects an e-scooter model manufactured by Segway, called the Ninebot KickScooter, users on the forum ScooterTalk first said this week. The model is used by many shared e- scooter companies.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 42
Contacts
CTC contacted the individuals below to gather information for this investigation.
State and Local Agencies
California Idaho Jose Elias Ken Kanownik Bureau of Transportation Technology Division of Highways/Planning Services Los Angeles Department of Transportation Manager 213-972-4944, [email protected] Idaho Transportation Department 208-332-7823, [email protected] Ahmad Erikat Traffic Operations North Carolina City of San Diego Hanna Cockburn 619-533-3045, [email protected] Integrated Mobility
North Carolina Department of Christian Vasquez Transportation Transportation Planning 919-707-2601, [email protected] City of Beverly Hills 310-285-1161, [email protected] Oregon Colorado Rob Inerfeld Public Works Engineering Amanda Mansfield City of Eugene Transportation Planner, FC Moves 541-682-5343, City of Fort Collins [email protected] 503-536-3103,
[email protected] Love Jonson
E-Scooter Program Assistant, Active Nicholas Williams Transportation and Safety Operations Deputy Chief of Staff Portland Bureau of Transportation Denver Public Works 503-823-6114, 720-865-8709, [email protected] [email protected] Rhode Island Connecticut Steve Church Marlon Pena Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Intermodal Planning Rhode Island Department of Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation 401-222-6940, [email protected] 860-594-2039, [email protected] Texas Georgia Jason Redfern Hiral Patel Parking Enterprise Manager Director of Engineering City of Austin Georgia Department of Transportation 512-974-7020, 404-631-1519, [email protected] [email protected]
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 43
Wyoming Bonnie Sherman Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager, Keith Fulton Public Transportation Division Assistant Chief Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Wyoming Department of Transportation 307-777-4484, [email protected] 512-486-5972, [email protected]
Wisconsin
Jill Mrotek Glenzinski State Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator Wisconsin Department of Transportation 608-267-7757, [email protected]
Vendors
Bird Rides, Inc. Lys Mendez Government Partnerships [email protected]
Tom Santinelli Product Operations [email protected]
Spin Kyle Rowe Head of Government Partnerships 206-965-5258, [email protected]
Advocacy Groups
Santa Monica Spoke Cynthia Rose Director [email protected]
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 44
Appendix A: Survey Questions The following survey was distributed to members of the AASHTO Council on Active Transportation and selected local jurisdictions in California and other states to gather information about agency experience with the use of geofencing to limit the speed or prevent the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters.
Agency Experience With Geofencing for E-Bikes and E-Scooters
Note: The response to the question below determines how a respondent is directed through the survey.
(Required) Does your agency require vendors of shared/rental e-bikes or e-scooters to use geofencing technology to prevent access to certain areas, limit device speed or designate parking areas? • No (directs the respondent to Agencies Not Requiring Geofencing for E-Bikes or E- Scooters) • Yes (directs the respondent to Details of Geofencing Requirements)
Agencies Not Requiring Geofencing for E-Bikes or E-Scooters 1. Has your agency considered requiring vendors of shared/rental e-bikes or e-scooters to use geofencing technology to prevent access to certain areas, limit device speed or designate parking areas? • No • Yes (Please briefly describe your situation and the factors in your decision process.) 2. Are you aware of municipalities, colleges or other jurisdictions in your state that have implemented geofencing requirements for e-bikes or e-scooters for the purposes described above? • No • Yes (Please briefly describe. If available, please provide contact information for key personnel involved in geofencing efforts at these agencies.)
Note: After responding to the questions above, the respondent is directed to the Wrap-Up section of the survey.
Details of Geofencing Requirements 1. What types of vehicles or devices has your agency restricted via geofencing requirements? Select all that apply. • E-bikes • E-scooters • Other (please describe)
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 45
2. How has your agency used geofencing requirements with e-bikes or e-scooters? Select all that apply. • Prevent access to specific roadways, trails or geographic areas • Delineate operational boundaries for a pilot program • Limit device speed in specific geographic areas or on certain roadways or trails • Reduce riding on sidewalks • Designate approved or prohibited parking areas • Other (please describe) 3. On what types of facilities have you used geofencing to restrict access or limit speed? Select all that apply. • Access-controlled highways • Local roadways • Bridges • Trails or paths (such as bike paths or multiuse trails) • Other roadways (please describe) 4. How long have your agency’s geofencing requirements been in place? • Less than 6 months • 6 months to 1 year • More than 1 year • Other (please describe) 5. Do the geofenced boundaries generally work as expected, consistently across all vendors? • Yes • No (please explain) 6. Within a single vendor’s fleet, do all devices generally behave identically when encountering a geofenced boundary? • Yes • No (please describe, including causes if known) 7. Which vendors of e-bikes or e-scooters has your agency worked with to implement geofencing requirements? Please provide contact information if possible. 8. Which geofencing approaches or related technologies have you investigated, used or discussed with vendors? Select all that apply. • Geofencing using a GPS-enabled device embedded in the e-bike or e-scooter • Geofencing using location data from the rider’s cellphone • Bluetooth beacons embedded in the sidewalk or right of way to delineate boundaries • Other (please describe) 9. Please provide any other details about your experience, including challenges, solutions, lessons learned and experiences with vendors.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 46
10. If available, please provide links to documentation related to your agency’s use of geofencing for e-bikes or e-scooters. Send any files not available online to [email protected]. 11. Please provide contact information for the staff member(s) we can contact to obtain more information about your agency’s use of geofencing for e-bikes or e-scooters. 12. Are you aware of municipalities, colleges or other jurisdictions in your state that have implemented geofencing requirements for e-bikes or e-scooters to prevent access to certain areas, limit device speed or designate parking areas? • No • Yes (Please briefly describe. If available, please provide contact information for key personnel involved in geofencing efforts at these agencies.)
Wrap-Up Please use this space to provide any comments or additional information about your previous responses.
Produced by CTC & Associates LLC 47 Did your rented e-scooter suddenly shut down? Blame the invisible geofence By Sonja SharpStaff Writer
Like scores of tourists who zip through Santa Monica on e-scooters every day, 21-year-old Elliot Stevenson had no idea there was a fence around the pier until he hit it.
“I was cruising down the hill and lost power,” the bewildered visitor from New Zealand said as he wheeled his just-rented Lime back toward Ocean Avenue on a recent Thursday afternoon. "[The motor] just stopped.”
Cities across California have followed Santa Monicaʼs lead in limiting the type and number of micro-mobility devices that move inside their borders, and how those vehicles are deployed. Now, many are testing the limits of a technology called geofencing to remotely enforce speed, parking restrictions and even dead zones. People riding Lime scooters cross Ocean Boulevard at Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica. New and evolving geofence agreements between local cities and scooter companies have turned much of the Westside into an invisible obstacle course for riders. To help the perplexed, Lime has deployed “Lime Patrol” to parts of Santa Monica. (Los Angeles Times)
“Even getting the companies to acknowledge that they were capable of geofencing was initially an issue,” said Cynthia Rose, director of Santa Monica Spoke, a bike and pedestrian advocacy group, and a member of the advisory committee that helped write the cityʼs scooter rules. "[Now] itʼs written into their system. When the scooter approaches that area, they slow down and the motor no longer works.”
Eighteen months ago, that application seemed far-fetched. Today itʼs so common, Lime keeps employees on hand to explain it, and to relocate the dozens of scooters abandoned in frustration when they stop.
“We have dedicated people to make sure weʼre in compliance,” said Stephen Lee, an operations manager at the company. “The rules are changing a lot.” Indeed, where fences are and what they do is constantly shifting, the product of agreements that, while often shaped by city ordinance, are designed and negotiated behind closed doors.
“These arenʼt on the books,” said Juan Matute, deputy director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. “Given that what the companies are asked to do changes week to week, it can be hard for an individual to keep up with whatʼs permitted and what each companyʼs restrictions are.”
Paul Richardson, right, a member of the “Lime Patrol” for the scooter company Lime, warns a pair of riders about avoiding no-ride areas near the pier in Santa Monica, that if crossed will cause the scooters to power off. (Los Angeles Times)
While cities around the world have begun to experiment with geofencing, those on L.A.'s Westside are on the cutting edge. But with so many companies operating with different rules in contiguous municipalities, the consequences are sometimes perplexing. The city of Beverly Hills banned scooters in July 2018, but that ban feels different on a Lime than it does on a Jump or a Bird.
Advertisement
A Jump rider crossing Whitworth Drive at full throttle on Robertson Boulevard will find the scooter slowing to the Beverly Hills speed limit of 5 mph from the L.A. city limit of 15, while a Bird will stop completely at the border. A Lime can cruise through the city at 15 mph, though, like the others, it wonʼt be able to end the trip there. Those who abandon their still- active scooters inside city limits can face fines.
“Weʼve had a hard time understanding the geofencing agreements and how theyʼre put in place,” said Eli Kaufman, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, which has begun to advocate for scooter riders. “Thereʼs no didactic signage to let scooter riders know, thereʼs nothing on any of the micro-mobility websites that says this.”
Many companies do designate “red zones” on their service maps, but what actually happens to the scooter inside those boundaries often isnʼt clear until a rider reaches one, experts said.
Advertisement
Signs along the beach bike path in Santa Monica warn riders e-vehicles are illegal, but not that theyʼll stop. Other boundaries are still in flux, their rules and borders changing too fast to signpost.
“Itʼs evolving,” said Maurice Henderson, director of government partnerships at Bird. “Cities are trying to learn from each other. Some are more sophisticated about this conversation than others.”
Advocates say geofencing is more efficient than law enforcement at preventing accidents, and that itʼs less punitive than the fines levied against those who ride on the sidewalk, an infraction that technology isnʼt accurate enough to prevent.
The GPS on a scooter is what data scientists call “noisy,” a bit like a fuzzy radio signal. In ideal conditions, it can guess its location within about 16 feet. But that guess can jump moment to moment, adding a layer of frustration to barriers that, by design, appear suddenly out of thin air.
Advertisement
“The reality of consumer-level devices is that theyʼre going to be pretty noisy, and if youʼre using [geofences] to control something without attempting to filter the noise, itʼs not going to be safe,” said software engineer Morgan Herlocker of Shared Streets, a transportation data company. “Weʼve got systems that are being built without a lot of testing and thereʼs no real safety regulations around a lot of this stuff.”
In addition to shaping geofencing rules, cities have also secured unprecedented rider trip data, a practice that troubles some digital privacy experts.
“A lot of people right now are like, I donʼt care because I donʼt like scooters, but itʼs going to impact everyone eventually,” said Jamie Williams, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “What weʼre seeing right now is cities trying to get data first and decide what to do with it later.”
Advertisement
Both data sharing and the current patchwork of scooter bans and regulations are the subject of state Assembly Bill 1112, which was proposed in February and is likely to be taken up next year. But whether the state steps in to regulate it, geofencingʼs ephemeral urban architecture likely signals something more permanent about scooters in Los Angeles.
“We were thinking maybe this is just going to be a fad,” said Kaufman, the bike advocate. “But I think itʼs pretty clear, the agreements theyʼre making with the cities are a sign these things are here to stay.” City of Fort Collins Traffic Code
PART 21 - OPERATION OF BICYCLES, ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLES AND OTHER HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLES
2101. - General provisions.
(1) Every person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter upon a roadway where bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle and electric scooter travel is permitted shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties and penalties applicable to the driver of a vehicle as set forth in this Traffic Code, except those provisions of this Traffic Code that, by their very nature, can have no application. Said riders shall also comply with special rules set forth in this Part and when using streets and highways within the City, shall be subject to local ordinances regulating the operation bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle and electric scooter as provided in Section 42-4-111, C.R.S. Whenever the word vehicle is used in any of the driving rules set forth in this Traffic Code that are applicable to bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter riders, such term shall include bicycles, electrical assisted bicycles and electric scooters. (a) These regulations not in conflict with the Rules and Regulations promulgated by Colorado State University pursuant to Sections 23-5-106 and 107, C.R.S. shall apply on the campus of the University. (b) The parent of any child or guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit any child or ward to violate any provision of this Part. (2) All persons are prohibited from riding Class 3 electrical assisted bicycles or an electric scooter on a bike or pedestrian path or on a recreational trail unless otherwise authorized by the City Code. (3) Persons prohibited from operating or riding a class 3 electrical assisted bicycle upon roadways: (a) A person under sixteen (16) years of age shall not ride a class 3 electrical assisted bicycle upon any street or highway; except that such person may ride as a passenger on a class 3 electrical assisted bicycle that is designed to accommodate passengers. (b) A person shall not operate or ride as a passenger on a class 3 electrical assisted bicycle unless: (I) each person under eighteen (18) years of age is wearing a protective helmet of a type and design manufactured for use by operators of bicycles; (II) the protective helmet conforms to the design and specifications set forth by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission or the American Society for Testing and Materials; and (III) the protective helmet is secured properly on the person's head with a chin strap while the class 3 electrical assisted bicycle is in motion.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 174, 2017 , §2; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §13; Ord. No. 059, 2020 , §2)
2102. - Reckless and careless riding.
(1) A person who drives any bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter in such a manner as to indicate either a wanton or a willful disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless riding. A person convicted of reckless riding of a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 42-2-127, C.R.S. (2) A person who drives a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter in a careless and imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic and use of the streets and highways and all other attendant circumstances, is guilty of careless riding. A person convicted of careless riding of a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 42-2-127, C.R.S.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §14)
2103. - Left place of safety.
No person shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §15)
2104. - Lane usage.
(1) (a) Persons riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or parts of roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. (b) Persons riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter two (2) abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. (2) (a) Any person operating a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride in the right-hand lane, subject to the following conditions: (I) If the right-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter shall ride far enough to the right as is reasonably prudent to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicle unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so. (II) A bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter may use a lane other than the right-hand lane when: (A) Preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private roadway or driveway; (B) Overtaking a slower vehicle; or (C) Taking reasonably necessary precautions to avoid hazards or road conditions. (III) Upon approaching an intersection where right turns are permitted and there is a dedicated right-turn lane, a bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter may ride on the left- hand portion of the dedicated right-turn lane even if the bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter does not intend to turn right. (b) A bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter shall not be expected or required to: (I) Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or narrow lanes; or (II) Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the right-hand side of the roadway. (c) A person operating a bicycle or operator of an electric scooter upon a one-way roadway with two (2) or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near to the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as is reasonably prudent, subject to the following conditions: (I) If the left-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter shall ride as far to the left as is reasonably prudent to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so. (II) A bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter shall not be expected or required to: (A) Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or narrow lanes; or (B) Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the left-hand side of the roadway.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §16)
2105. - Turns.
(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection (1), every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall signal his or her intention to turn or stop in accordance with the provisions of Section 903; except that a person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter may signal a right turn with the right arm extended horizontally. (b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter before turning and shall be given while the bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter is stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be given continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle. (2) (a) A person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter intending to turn left shall follow a course described in Sections 901(1), 903 and 1007 or may make a left turn in the manner prescribed in Paragraph (b) of this Subsection (2). (b) A person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter intending to turn left shall approach the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway to the far corner of the curb or intersection of the roadway edges, the bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter shall stop, as much as practicable, out of the way of traffic. After stopping, the bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter shall yield to any traffic proceeding in either direction along the roadway that the bicyclist had been using. After yielding and complying with any official traffic control device or police officer regulating traffic on the highway along which the bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter intends to proceed, the bicyclist or operator of an electric scooter may proceed in the new direction. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection (2), the City Traffic Engineer may cause official traffic control devices to be placed on roadways and thereby require and direct that a specific course be traveled and operators of bicycles, electrical assisted bicycles or electric scooters shall obey the directions of every such device.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §17)
2106. - Sidewalks and trails.
(1) A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and along a recreational trail shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian using the recreational trail and shall give an audible signal or verbal warning before overtaking and passing any such pedestrian. (2) (a) A person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle, shared mobility, as that term is defined in City Code Section 24-178, device or electric scooter upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. A person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk shall do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians. (b) A person shall not ride a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle, shared mobility device, or electric scooter upon and along a sidewalk or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk where such use of a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter is prohibited by official traffic control devices, signs designating a dismount zone, or local ordinances. A person riding a bicycle or electric assisted bicycle shall dismount before entering any crosswalk where required by official traffic control devices or ordinance. A person riding a shared mobility device, toy vehicle or electric scooter shall dismount before entering any crosswalk. (c) A person riding or walking a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter upon and along a sidewalk or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, including but not limited to the rights and duties granted and required by Section 802. (d) Low-power scooters are restricted at all times from riding upon and along a sidewalk, or across a highway or street upon or along a crosswalk, except when the low-power scooter operator has dismounted the low-power scooter and is walking the low-power scooter under human power. (3) Riders of Class 1 and Class 2 electrical assisted bicycles may use paved bike or pedestrian paths and paved recreational trails except where prohibited by the City Code or posted signs. The rider of a Class 3 electrical assisted bicycle shall not use the electrical motor on a bike or pedestrian path or on a recreational trail unless otherwise authorized by the City Code.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 029, 2019 , §3; Ord. No. 041, 2019 , §2; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §18; Ord. No. 059, 2020 , §3)
2107. - Lights, reflectors and equipment.
(1) Every bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter in use at the times described in Section 204 shall be equipped with a lamp on the front emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the front. (2) Every bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall be equipped with a red reflector of a type approved by the State Department of Revenue, which shall be visible for six hundred (600) feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. (3) Every bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter when in use at the times described in Section 204 shall be equipped with reflective material of sufficient size and reflectivity to be visible from both sides for six hundred (600) feet when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle or, in lieu of such reflective material, with a lighted lamp visible from both sides from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet. (4) Every bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall be equipped with a brake or brakes that will enable its rider to stop the bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter within twenty-five (25) feet from a speed of ten (10) miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement. (5) A bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by Subsections (1) through (3) of this Section. (6) No bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall be equipped with, nor shall any person use upon such a vehicle, a siren or whistle. (7) A person shall not knowingly modify an electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter so as to change the speed capability or motor engagement of the electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter without also appropriately replacing, or causing to be replaced, the manufacturer or distributor label, which is required after January 1, 2018, that contains the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter. (8) An electrical assisted bicycle must comply with the equipment and manufacturing requirements for bicycles adopted by the United States Consumer Safety Commission and Codified at 16 CFR 1512 or its successor regulation. (9) A class 2 electrical assisted bicycle must operate in a manner so that the electric motor is disengaged or ceases to function when the brakes are applied. Class 1 and Class 3 electrical assisted bicycles must be equipped with a mechanism or circuit that cannot be bypassed and that causes the electric motor to disengage or cease to function when the rider stops pedaling. (10) A class 3 electrical assisted bicycle must be equipped with a speedometer that displays, in miles per hour, the speed the electrical assisted bicycle is traveling.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 174, 2017 , §4; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §19)
2108. - Parking.
(1) (a) A person may park a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by an official traffic control device or local ordinance. (b) A bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle parked on a sidewalk shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic. (c) A bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle may be parked on the road at any angle to the curb or edge of the road at any location where parking is allowed. (d) A bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle may be parked on the road abreast of another such bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle near the side of the road or any location where parking is allowed in such a manner as does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. (e) In all other respects, bicycles or electrical assisted bicycles parked anywhere on a highway shall conform to the provisions of Part 12 of this Traffic Code regulating the parking of vehicles. (f) Electric scooters may park only in conformance with Section 24-179 of the City Code.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §20)
2109. - Riding behavior.
(1) A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto. (2) No bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall be used to carry more persons at one (1) time than the number for which it is designed and equipped. (3) No person riding upon any bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall attach the same or himself or herself to any motor vehicle upon a roadway. (4) A bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall not be equipped with, nor shall any person use upon a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter, any siren or whistle. (5) A person operating a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter shall keep at least one (1) hand on the handlebars at all times.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §21)
2110. - Regulatory.
(1) A person engaged in the business of selling bicycles, electrical assisted bicycles or electric scooters at retail shall not sell any bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter unless the bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter has an identifying number permanently stamped or cast on its frame. (2) For the sake of uniformity of bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter safety rules throughout the State, the Colorado Department of Revenue, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation, shall prepare and make available to all local jurisdictions for distribution to bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle and electric scooter riders therein a digest of state regulations explaining and illustrating the rules of the road, equipment requirements and traffic control devices that are applicable to such riders and their bicycles, electrical assisted bicycles or electric scooters. The City Traffic Engineer may supplement this digest with a leaflet describing any additional regulations of a local nature that apply within their respective jurisdictions. (3) Where suitable bike paths, horseback trails or other trails have been established on the right-of-way or parallel to and within one-fourth (¼) mile of the right-of-way of heavily traveled streets and highways, the Colorado Department of Transportation may, subject to the provisions of Section 43-2- 135, C.R.S., by resolution or order, and the City Traffic Engineer may, where suitable bike paths, horseback trails or other trails have been established on the right-of-way or parallel to it within four hundred fifty (450) feet of the right-of-way of heavily traveled streets, by ordinance, determine and designate, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, those heavily traveled streets and highways upon which shall be prohibited any bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle, electric scooter, animal rider, animal-drawn conveyance or other class or kind of nonmotorized traffic which is found to be incompatible with the normal and safe movement of traffic, and, upon such a determination, the Colorado Department of Transportation or the City shall erect appropriate official signs giving notice thereof; except that with respect to controlled access highways, the provisions of Section 42-4- 1010(3), C.R.S., shall apply. When such official signs are so erected, no person shall violate any of the instructions contained thereon.
(Ord. 120, 2015 §8; Ord. No. 082, 2019 , §22; Ord. No. 059, 2020 , §4)