General Provisions

Introduction

Before considering operations, parking & street design, equity or other policy areas, cities will need to develop general provisions such as the basic legal framework to allow these services and vehicles to operate in their communities.

Cities should begin by considering how they want to structure this policy, whether as a permit, license, or contract along with the desired length of the policy instrument. Most cities have adopted pilot programs of three, six, or twelve months which provides cities the ability to learn about services, providers, operations and their impacts before settling on a longer period for their operations through a permanent permit or licensing structure adopted by municipal ordinance.

Cities will also need to determine how many operators they want, the basic insurance and liability standards for operators, fee structures and the dedication of that revenue, and if there will be any prerequisites that will be required for operators. Cities will also need to identify the administrative and oversight functions necessary for effectively engaging with operators.

National Standards

All local governments developing shared micromobility policies should include these general provisions to ensure that their regulations address these issues similarly across communities.

1

Right to operate

Shared micromobility service operators are only allowed to operate with legal permission.
2

Right to revoke permits

Cities should reserve the right to revoke permits from operators who do not meet the requirements they've set.
3

Right to deny

Cities should reserve the right to deny any service provider from receiving a permit based on current or past conduct.
4

Appeals Process

Cities should have some form of appeals process for operators to appeal denial of permits, suspension or revocation of their permit. The appeals process shall include proper notice and a hearing in front of a quasi-judicial officer.
5

Transfer of permits

All permits or licenses granted should be non-transferrable to other entities, parent companies or subsidiaries without appropriate notice to and approval from the city.
6

State and federal laws

Cities should require all operators to understand and certify that they comply with any and all relevant state or federal laws.
7

Indemnification

Cities should require all companies to indemnify the city from legal liabilities associated with, or for any loss or damage to persons or property, arising from the use of the public space or public right-of-way for its business operations. Cities should exempt indemnification for loss or damages that arise from its own negligence and willful misconduct.
8

Commercial liability

Cities should require that companies have commercial liability insurance coverage and set a minimum required level of coverage.
9

Insurance bonds

Used to make sure that companies are financially responsible for any damage their vehicles cause or any maintenance their operations requires.

Policy Sections

Policy Structure

Before cities allow these services into their community, they will need to establish the legal framework for their operations. Cities will first need to determine the legal mechanism that allows operations. Cities can craft blanket policies to allow the entrance of any new providers without requirements, permits that allow for operation over a set period of time, or contract directly with a single service provider.

Memorandum of Understanding Services Contract

A city council-approved motion allowing for the immediate introduction of provider operations by requiring Operators enter into a service contract with the City. MOUs have been used during some cities' short-term pilot programs.

Pro

Enables the immediate introduction of vehicles; cities do not have to go through the process of developing permitting or licensing structures or engage in procurement.

Con

May not allow for specific management approaches to achieve outcomes; may not allow cities to adjust or update specific operating guidelines as quickly as a permit or license unless MOU language may be negotiated and amended administratively after council’s initial authorization.

Permit or License

A structure that allows companies to operate with specific conditions for a set duration of time.

Pro

Creates a framework for operations with specific provisions that can be updated and adjusted; allows cities to test and learn from their experience during each permit period.

Con

Can be difficult to manage large number of providers, new applicants, and vehicles on the road; can be difficult to manage large number of providers, new applicants, and vehicles on the road; some cities may interpret a permit request to be more difficult to reject or to withdraw.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
Seattle’s free-floating bike share pilot program allows up to four street use permits and allows the vendor to use or occupy Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) right-of-way consistent with Seattle Municipal Code by deploying bicycles, electric bicycles, tricycles, and other like personal-mobility devices for public rental. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

Request for Proposals

The end result of a procurement process to secure an exclusive provider(s) for shared micromobility services.

Pro

Allows for a company(s) to provide the service, making regulation and management easier.

Con

Could restrict a diversity of providers and a full marketplace of different vehicles and uses from developing; may hinder healthy competition between operators that may improve features and services available to residents; could be a slow process to get started or a slow process for adjusting contract terms.

Case Study

Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis has contracted with NiceRide to be the exclusive docked and dockless bikeshare operator in the city (note: this relationship does not apply to e-scooters). Minneapolis' contract with Nice Ride Minnesota

Recommendations

Cities will need to bear in mind how long they want their initial regulatory structure to last. A shorter term of three or six months may allow them to rapidly update their regulations as they learn more about how these services operate and impact their community. But, a short length instrument should really only be used as an initial step. Cities should strive to create a stable, predictable environment for private providers and residents to foster the adoption of these services.

A permitting and licensing structure for shared micromobility services is the preferred legal framework for allowing their operation. Permit and licensing structures establish minimum qualifications for permit or license holders, establish clear guidelines for operation, and include a method for due process. This allows the city to create a permanent, performance-focused regulatory framework similar to permitting processes the city may use for other types of commercial activity, while maintaining a competitive market with a variety of consumer choices, encouraging high service quality and affordability for the public.

Using such a method, operators may be required to re-apply for a permit or license on a yearly basis, providing cities the opportunity to observe whether permit or license holders have been compliant with the requirements and to use that data to determine whether the permit or license should be renewed or revised.

Total Permits

In concert with fleet sizes, cities will need to consider how many operating permits in total that they will grant to operators and how they will determine that threshold. Capping the number of operators may make it easier for cities to manage these services, but cities should make sure that permit caps do not prevent these services from scaling across the community or hinder their adoption. If cities decide to limit the number of permit and license holders, they may still choose to accept permit applications on a rolling basis, allowing initial operators to help develop the market, while maintaining the opportunity to add more operators in the future as others approach the city.

Permit, No Cap

No limit on the number of operators in a community.

Pro

Creates an open marketplace and may be easier for smaller companies to launch; cities do not have to go through an application or vetting process to select specific vendors.

Con

Hard to control an influx of operators; can make it challenging for cities to get to know operators; if operators aren't competing for a spot, they may be less likely to tailor their service to a city's unique needs or innovate and improve their service in competition with other operators; if minimum fleet size requirements are not additionally enacted, operators without the resources or operational expertise to offer robust coverage may launch, providing a poorer service with geographic disparities.

Case Study

Dallas, TX
Dallas has created a framework to permit operators, but doesn't cap the number of permits issued or the number of bikes allowed. Dallas' Dockless Vehicle Ordinance

Permit, With Cap

Specific limit on the number of companies that can operate.

Pro

Easier for cities to manage fewer operators; provides ability for cities and operators to build and grow their relationships; rewards companies that will follow the standards and expectations set by the city; likely creates a healthy competition between companies that improves service for residents.

Con

Cap could possibly prohibit smaller, less experienced or financed operators from deploying; cap is not tied to the number of bikes in the community, which is likely a greater concern than total number of operators; If fleet caps are enacted, but permits aren't granted to the maximum number of operators, this could prevent permitted companies from scaling and deploying additional vehicles throughout the community.

Case Study

Denver, CO
As part of their initial 12-month pilot program, Denver has made two distinct permit types available for operations within the City’s public right of way. A total of 5 bicycle/e-bicycle permits will be offered and a total of 5 e-scooter/other approved dockless mobility vehicle permits will be offered. Permits are processed on a first come, first served basis. Denver's Dockless Mobility Vehicle Pilot Permit Program Overview

Cap Based On Overall Vehicles

No limit on the number of providers, but city will stop granting new permits once the total number of vehicles in the city has reached a specific threshold.

Pro

Allows city to focus on the total of vehicles operating in the city and how best to manage those vehicles; creates the potential for more companies operating smaller fleets; fosters healthy competition between companies as it focuses on fleet size instead of total operators.

Con

Companies may race to deploy as many vehicles as possible to flood the market and shut out competitors from entering; if vendors flood the market, cities will have fewer vendors to choose from to see which work best with their unique needs; market flooding could present challenges for cities to manage a sudden influx of new vehicles; chosen cap may prevent the program from scaling as demand grows for the services; may hinder operators ability to provide service to all parts of the city.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
If Seattle Department of Transportation's (SDOT) initial application process results in the approval of permits for four vendors, then each vendor may initially have no more than 5,000 devices deployed in the City at a time. If the initial application process results in SDOT approving permits for three or fewer vendors, then the Program Manager shall notify companies of the maximum number of devices they may have deployed in the City at a time. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

Recommendations

While it is beneficial to have a wide variety of operators, especially in the early stages of deployment, cities should focus less on the total number of companies and more on managing fleet size effectively to create a scalable and sustainable program so the whole community can benefit from these services.

Since these services are still in their infancy, the number of permits or vehicles necessary to appropriately serve individual communities and the city as a whole—while still creating an attractive and profitable market for operators—remains unclear. Overly restrictive fleet size caps could prevent services from scaling as demand grows and may even hinder operators from operating a system that provides service equitably to all parts of a city.

Cities should approach and create permit caps based on how many vehicles they want operating in their community. If a total permit cap has been determined, but all the available permits aren’t granted, the framework should be flexible enough to allow permitted companies to increase their fleets up to the total vehicles desired. Any permitting structure based on fleet size should establish clear, utilization-based formulas for the expansion of operator fleets once operations commence, to avoid degradations in service reliability as demand grows.

Fee Structure

It requires staff time and other fiscal resources for a city to administer and enforce a shared micromobility regulatory program. Cities have a number of options at their disposal to generate revenue and recover these costs. Permit and license fees play a valuable role in ensuring cities are appropriately funded to monitor use of the right-of-way by micromobility companies as well as have the resources necessary to manage shared micromobility services operating in their communities.

Permit/License Fee

These are overall fees associated with applying for a permit or license.

Pro

Provides a baseline for entry; ensures that companies are able and committed to operating; provides funding up front that allows cities to proactively allocate resources.

Con

Could turn away smaller companies or those that don't have many resources up front.

Case Study

Various
This amount ranges greatly from city to city:

Washington, DC initially charges $325 that covers the permit, application and technology fees. Washington, DC's Dockless Vehicle Permit Application

Santa Monica charges an annual operator fee of $20,000, a business license tax of $75 and cASP state mandated fee of $4. Santa Monica's Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program Administrative Regulations

Per Vehicle Charge

These are fees based on the total number of vehicles that are operating.

Pro

Ensures that fees scale with the increase in vehicles; ties revenue to related administrative, maintenance and other needs; should make providers consider increases to their fleet more thoughtfully.

Con

Could make potentially successful operators nervous of heavy investment in their fleets; could slow down ability for operators to scale across the community; requires more closely tracking the number of devices; requires administrative infrastructure for period billing; since it is not tied to actual vehicle usage, this may undermine the financial viability of operators in areas with lower usage or during off-peak seasons when usage is lower.

Case Study

Various
This amount ranges greatly from city to city:

Washington, DC charges a per bike fee that ranges from $5-$60 depending on when the vehicle(s) enters operation. Washington, DC's Dockless Vehicle Permit Application

Santa Monica charges an annual device charge of $130/device and a daily public right-of-way fee of $1/device. Santa Monica's Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program Administrative Regulations

Per Trip Fee

This is an agreement in which a fee is charged for each trip that occurs on an operator’s platform.

Pro

Provides an additional incentive to cities to ensure services are successful as they would receive additional revenue as programs flourish; incentivizes cities to actively manage these services, shape additional policies to support shared micromobility services and expand infrastructure and resources to foster their adoption; ensures that fee levels are proportional to usage.

Con

Cities wouldn't receive substantial revenue if program is unsuccessful or doesn't scale; challenging to project revenue and budget program management expenditures accordingly.

Relocation Or Vehicle Impoundment

Fees based directly on the resources expended to impound or relocate vehicles.

Pro

Creates incentive for operators to quickly maintain their vehicles; helps cities keep sidewalks and right-of-way clear by ensuring unsafe or damaged vehicles are removed swiftly; helps defray the costs of enforcement and compliance; ensures companies have appropriate staffing and operations plans to manage their fleets.

Con

Could discourage providers from deploying out of fear of additional fees for improperly parked vehicles over which they have little control; without proper parking or right-of-way infrastructure provided by the city, impound fees could be seen as unavoidable in certain communities.

Case Study

Los Angeles, CA
Any fees arising from the need for City crews to relocate or remove vehicles from any location where a vehicle is prohibited under this permit shall equal the Bureau of Sanitation’s Maintenance Laborer hourly rate plus any additional storage/impound fees. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit

Recommendations

In developing an overall fee structure, cities should think holistically to ensure those fees reflect the full and actual costs of administering and managing these services in their community. Conducting a cost analysis study can help determine the true financial costs of administering a shared micromobility regulatory program. Per-trip fees offer the ability to provide mutual incentives for both the city and operators to provide and manage shared micromobility services on a sustainable basis.

When developing a fine or penalty structure for noncompliance, cities should ensure that those fines or penalties also reflect the full costs borne by the city to manage noncompliance (i.e. cost of removal for a vehicle blocking the right-of-way, impound fines or repeat offender fines.)

Cities should also consider how they distribute this revenue and should use it not only on program administration, but toward fostering the adoption of these services by investing it in building more supportive infrastructure such as bike lanes, parking areas, or bike racks that will allow for the safe and efficient operation and storage of these vehicles.

Dedication of Revenue

Cities are generating revenue from these services and should develop clear policies for how this revenue should be spent. This revenue can and should be dedicated to a number of related expenses arising from the introduction of these services, such as administration, maintenance, improving and maintaining infrastructure as well as outreach and engagement. Cities must strike a balance and determine how this revenue can help foster the adoption of these services and contribute toward their desired outcomes.

Administrative

Dedicates revenue toward the staff time needed for oversight, compliance and management of these services.

Pro

Allows cities to recoup the costs related to managing these services; covers the costs of staff to craft new policies and strategies, adjust and update regulations, manage operators, analyze data, perform community outreach and engagement.

Infrastructure

Dedicates revenue to create new infrastructure and dedicated space to ensure the safe operation and storage of vehicles.

Pro

Allows cities to build out the right-of-way to ensure the safe operation and storage of these vehicles, from parking to new bike lanes; infrastructure funds can also support Vision Zero, Complete Streets or other programs; new infrastructure will foster the adoption of these services and help operators scale their services.

Case Study

Portland, OR
Portland has created a New Mobility Account for all shared scooter fees, surcharges and penalties that shall be used by the Portland Bureau of Transportation for administration, enforcement, evaluation, safe travel infrastructure, and expanded and affordable access. Portland's Shared Electric Scooters Permit

Maintenance

Dedicates revenue toward the costs associated with maintenance operations, such as repairing the right-of-way, that is required as a result of micromobility operations.

Pro

Allows cities to cover the cost of maintenance required to operate and maintain parts of the right-of-way used by shared micromobility services.

Outreach and Engagement

Dedicates revenue toward the costs associated with engaging with residents, riders, local businesses and community groups to ensure that all members of the community understand these new services, how to use them and create open channels for communicating.

Pro

Allows cities to better understand neighborhood needs and how to tailor regulations; may help ameliorate concerns about new services and their perceived impacts; allows cities to proactively conduct outreach to users and potential users about applicable local laws; should better inform how to use services responsibly and safely; should help to foster adoption of new mobility options.

Recommendations

Cities should balance and dedicate revenue toward all four of these needs and others they feel are appropriate. While many cities have included maintenance and administrative fees in their regulations to help cover related expenses, most have later found to have underestimated the cost of other things like outreach and engagement or they failed to include active management tools such as software platforms. To ensure services can operate sustainably, ongoing fees should be reassessed annually to ensure city program expenses are covered to achieve program management objectives.

Additionally, many cities haven’t included the cost of maintaining or expanding infrastructure. Including this could help the private sector feel ownership over local infrastructure that will likely increase the adoption of their services and guarantee their safety and success moving forward. Cities should identify the infrastructure they need and commit revenue toward this end, while ensuring the costs imposed on riders of shared active transportation services are equitable.

Operations

Introduction

Since these services arrived in cities, local governments have struggled and been challenged to develop new methods to manage their operations and keep up with vehicles that have blocked sidewalks and the right-of-way, created safety hazards, or haven’t been equitably distributed throughout the community.

In order to ensure these services are operating in accordance with the city’s stated long-term goals and outcomes, cities will need to include specific requirements for fleet operation in their policies. These requirements should include standards for determining the total size and makeup of the fleet, where these services can operate and how vehicles should be distributed across the community. And, in order to ensure operators are meeting these requirements, they should set strict policies for enforcement and their right to remove vehicles when they create safety concerns or other problems.

National Standards

All local governments developing shared micromobility policies should include these general provisions to ensure that their regulations address these issues similarly across communities.

1

Geographical Boundaries

Cities should set clear geographical boundaries for the operation of shared micromobility services and establish fines or incentive structures for vehicles left outside these boundaries.
2

Staffing & Operations

Cities should require vendors to share company staffing and labor plans and how they will manage their vehicles. Cities should also require companies to have local operations centers to manage vehicles, data, and customer service or regional operational centers if it is reasonably practical to oversee the surrounding markets.
3

Company Contact

Cities should require operators to provide contact information for a local manager or operations staff that can handle city requests, emergencies, and other issues as they arise.
4

Special Situations & Emergencies

Cities should require operators to work with the city to co-create appropriate action plans for emergencies, extreme weather and special events.
5

Interjurisdictional Policy Consistency

Cities should work together with neighboring communities and regional entities to co-develop a regional approach or other informal agreement to promote a more seamless experience for operators and users traveling from one community or jurisdiction to the next.

Policy Sections

Fleet Size

To manage the introduction of these vehicles, many cities have created caps on the number of vehicles that can operate in their jurisdiction at once. Developing caps is allow cities to incrementally develop a sense of how these services operate and their impacts, and then balance that against the benefits they bring.

Some cities have started with very low vehicle caps, while other have set higher caps or no caps at all to allow these vehicles to deploy and scale much faster. Other cities have combined this approach, starting with a lower cap that can be raised over the course of the pilot period and as vendors meet specific criteria set out by the city.

In any scenario, it’s important to use the information learned during initial operations and further refine permit conditions and tailor policies toward furthering a city’s stated goals and outcomes.

Small

Cap of under 500 total vehicles in city.

Pro

This approach allows time to learn and become comfortable with these services before they scale; cities shape discussions around management, parking, right-of-way access and other issues and then update their policies; mitigates any potentially negative impacts of the presence of these services in the public right of way such as obstructed sidewalks; gives the public time to acclimatize to these new services and vehicles in their communities.

Con

Under small, fixed caps, operators may struggle to provide a level of service that fully meets market demand; low fleet caps may hinder the effort to fully integrate micromobility as a reliable transportation option; companies may struggle to generate revenue with a lower number of vehicles; companies will be more likely to pull out if cap remains low and they do not view the city as a market worth investing in; service may not be consistently available to underserved residents who could benefit most from new mobility options.

Case Study

Washington, DC
Washington, DC's initial pilot period allowed operators up to 400 vehicles, with no built in mechanism for raising the cap during the pilot. Three companies pulled out during the initial pilot, citing concerns about the challenges associated with providing adequate service and generating sustainable revenue from such a small fleet size. Washington, DC has since updated their pilot to allow for 600 vehicles per operator. Washington, DC's Dockless Vehicle Permit Application

Large

Cap of above 2,500 total vehicles in city.

Pro

Allows companies to operate at a scale that has greater financial viability; provides immediate impact for residents by offering greater service reliability; companies able to generate more revenue with larger fleet sizes, so higher caps will encourage investment while also incentivizing other companies to deploy; with a steeper learning curve, cities will be able to identify and address major challenges more quickly than with a lower cap; allows cities to more accurately assess impacts of services on travel behavior and mode shift.

Con

Harder for cities to manage the problems with larger fleets; many problems may become serious from the start; negative impacts could discourage potential users and complicate city efforts by creating a negative perception of these services, unless these externalities are well-managed through other performanced-based aspects of the regulatory structure for company operations, such as rebalancing frequency, complaint response times, etc.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
If the initial application process results in SDOT approving permits for four vendors, then each vendor may initially have no more than 5,000 devices deployed in the City at a time. If the initial application process results in SDOT approving permits for three or fewer vendors, then on the date of permit issuance the Program Manager shall notify the vendor in writing of the maximum number of devices the vendor may have deployed in the City at a time. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

None

No vehicle caps in city.

Pro

Allows companies to operate at a scale that has greater financial viability; provides immediate impact for residents by offering greater service reliability; companies able to generate more revenue with larger fleet sizes; no cap may encourage investment while also incentivizing other companies to deploy; with a steeper learning curve, cities will be able to identify and address major challenges more quickly than with a lower cap; allows cities to accurately assess impacts of services on travel behavior and mode shift.

Con

A large cap is still a cap, but without any mechanism to limit the introduction of new vehicles, companies could continue to deploy, potentially exacerbating challenges such as safety or hazards in the right-of-way; negative impacts could discourage potential users and complicate city efforts by creating a negative perception of these services unless these externalities are well-managed through other performance-based aspects of the regulatory structure for company operations, such as rebalancing frequency, complaint response times, etc.

Case Study

Dallas, TX
Dallas has created a framework to permit operators, but doesn't cap the number of permits issued or the number of vehicles allowed. Dallas' Dockless Vehicle Ordinance

Dynamic

Cities can tie fleet size to the performance of operators which can fluctuate up or down given operator performance on a range of issues. These performance measures may be related to city goals around equitable distribution, fleet makeup requirements, vehicle ridership or tied to time-based milestones. Increases can either rise automatically as soon as companies hit certain thresholds or vendors can be required to apply for an increase.

Pro

Establishes a clear framework for operators to guide their operations and ties their desire for larger fleets to their performance; should reward the best operators in the community; creates a system in which cities can start with a low cap, but can scale up quickly depending on how well the operators are performing without crafting an entirely new permit framework; incentivizes companies to match their operations with specific city goals and interests. Requires a clear understanding of the goals and outcomes; offers flexibility while still providing the city protection against the possibility of companies deploying an excessive number of devices surpassing the number required to serve the public; allows operators to expand their fleets in a controlled way and fosters operators’ ability to serve all areas of the city, helping ensure service reliability.

Con

Requires a clear understanding of the goals and outcomes the city is most interested in. Requires additional staff time, resources, and expenses to effectively manage the program; can discourage vendors who may not be able to meet thresholds for cap increases; Cities must ensure they obtain accurate data from operators regarding device utilization, and must provide staff and technical resources for monitoring and enforcement of compliance with dynamic caps; may result in a disincentive for companies to serve communities with low demand for their services that may struggle with performance measures that are appropriate for other parts of the community.

Case Study

St. Louis, MO
St. Louis permit starts with a fleet size upon launch of 500 bikes. The fleet may then expand by up to 350 bikes per month, with a maximum fleet size of 2,500. After 2500 bikes have been deployed, if the company can demonstrate an upward trend in rides per bike per day and has implemented their education and social equity plan then the Director of Streets can approve an increase in fleet size. The city would like to see at least 2 rides per bike per day or other metric analyzing bike usage to be considered for an increase in a fleet above 2500 bikes. St. Louis' BikeShare Program Permit Requirements

Recommendations

When determining a fleet cap size, cities should consider how to serve the whole community equally, how to foster the adoption of these services as a reliable transportation option and the impact fleet size will have on companies and their ability to operate sustainable services. As these services are still in their infancy, it’s still unclear what an appropriate fleet size should be as it relates to population, density or other community factors.

Cities should set dynamic caps and start with a low, but reasonable number to ensure they have time to learn how to best manage these services in their communities. These caps should be tied to performance measures, such as the number of trips per vehicle per day, and be set to increase as operators meet city stated goals. Additionally, some cities have set “soft” caps, creating incentives that allow extra vehicles over and above their fleet size cap as a bonus for operators who engage in some specific behavior, such as offering ten extra vehicles for every adaptive vehicle that’s included in a fleet (adaptive vehicles include a wide range of devices such as tricycles, hand-pedaled cycles, recumbent cycles, and others.)

Cities should also account for seasonal weather changes, the school year or other appropriate factors. Many cities have also implemented fleet size minimums to ensure companies are able to operate for a consistent period of time. If cities choose an initially small fleet cap, fees should be introduced that are proportionate and scale with the fleet size, avoiding unsustainable financial burdens associated with high fixed permit fees that may not be recouped in a small market with low usage.

Further, by linking fleet size caps to performance measures without equitable distribution requirements, it may disincentivize companies to serve communities with an initial low demand for their services, but where the city would like to foster their availability and usage. This could be addressed by either excluding vehicles deployed in designated underserved communities from these requirements or developing different requirements within those communities.

Fleet Makeup

Shared micromobility providers are able to provide a range of vehicles, including manual bikes, electric bikes, electric scooters, or adaptive vehicles. Each of these vehicle types has a specific use case and it’s in cities’ best interest to provide a diverse array of these vehicles to meet the needs of its residents. Cities have a number of tools at their disposal to either incentivize or require a diversity of vehicle types.

Pedal Bikes

Standard two-wheeled bicycles.

Pro

Easy to deploy; low barrier to entry; health benefits associated with cardiovascular exercise; do not require charging; can include basket or other compartment for storage while riding.

Con

When parked, take up more space than scooters; not as fast or easy to use as e-bikes or scooters; requires physical exertion that may be difficult or unappealing to some riders; requires seat adjustment prior to riding; have lower per-vehicle ridership rates than scooters or e-bikes.

Electric Bikes

Pedal-assist electric bicycles.

Pro

Easier to ride than pedal bikes, especially in hilly areas; can include basket or other compartment for storage while riding; comfortable for extended trip lengths.

Con

More expensive and heavier than pedal bikes or scooters; requires regular charging and potentially charging infrastructure; requires seat adjustment prior to riding.

Case Study

Los Angeles, CA
Operators must reserve a minimum of 50 percent of their fleet size for electric-assist vehicles unless providing adaptive bicycles (non-electric) for persons with disabilities. Operators that do not provide 50 percent of their fleet size for electric vehicles must reserve a minimum of 1 percent of their fleet size for adaptive bicycles. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit

Electric Scooters

Stand up, two-wheeled electric scooters.

Pro

Inexpensive; higher per-vehicle ridership number than pedal bikes; faster than manual bikes; have been adopted by individuals who will ride scooters, but not bikes; early rider data indicates scooters are being adopted by men and women at more equal rates than bikes; lightweight and simple to ride with no equipment adjustments required.

Con

Require regular charging; new vehicle type can confuse users on where to store or ride safely; no cargo capacity; shared micromobility product development is still in its infancy so there are few options that are sufficiently durable for long-term use so far.

Adaptive Vehicles

Adaptive cycles include a wide range of devices with two, three, or more wheels such as tricycles, hand-pedaled cycles, recumbent cycles where the rider sits back in a seat, tandem cycles with more than one rider, and others.

Pro

Creates additional mobility options for individuals with differing abilities, especially those who are not able to comfortably ride bikes or scooters; provides access to shared micromobility for individuals who may not have not been able to use these services; comes in a variety of different vehicle types that cities can experiment with and direct toward specific populations or specific use cases.

Con

Typically more expensive than traditional bicycles; vehicle types may not have been used before and cities may struggle to attract new users to them; may require additional safety features that cities will have to learn more about and include in any policy or permit; may be difficult to establish useful, widely available network on a free-floating basis given very small demand for these devices.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
Seattle has created an adaptive fleet size bonus that encourages vendors to deploy adaptive cycles as part of their free-floating fleets. Vendors who deploy adaptive cycles receive application preference and could get a bonus of up to 1,000 extra devices. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

Recommendations

Cities should use their policies to foster a range of vehicle types and incentivize a balanced deployment, with an emphasis on electrified device types that generate strong ridership and serve the public efficiently.

Cities should also create strong incentives to encourage providers to conduct outreach to individuals with disabilities to learn about their needs and determine the best ways to provide meaningful options for these individuals. While there are many remaining questions about how best to deploy these vehicles to provide reliable, convenient access, they have the potential to increase access and opportunity and operators should work with community groups to better understand these challenges.

Fleet makeup requirements and vehicle caps are two items that need to be considered hand-in-hand. If low, fixed fleet caps are introduced without specific fleet makeup requirements, operators may either choose not to deploy or homogenize their fleets to maximize those vehicle types that have the highest ridership and revenue numbers, likely reducing the diversity of rider types. Cities and operators should endeavor to create conditions that support a varied fleet that serves differing needs and consumer preferences their community.

Geographic Distribution

One major concern for cities is ensuring that vehicles are both accessible and available for all members of the community, especially in underserved communities, but also aren’t clustering in a single area, overburdening sidewalks or other public spaces.

Cities will need to create policies that set a standard for where these vehicles should and shouldn’t be operated or parked as well as how they should distributed and rebalanced throughout the day, as either maximums or minimums.

Distribution Based On Equity Zones

A certain percentage of vehicles are required to be placed in specific pre-determined zones based on equity criteria.

Pro

Ensures vehicles are available in parts of the community that lack robust mobility options; creates additional opportunities and access for individuals in car-dependent areas; creates inexpensive, easily accessible mobility options in communities that need them the most.

Con

Vehicle distribution may not match up with demand; may require companies to distribute vehicles to parts of the city where they won't be used as much or where they cannot generate as much revenue; requires resources to monitor and rebalance vehicles.

Case Study

St. Louis, MO
St. Louis has created a requirement that operators rebalance bikes to improve usage and spread/social equity outcomes. At least 20% of bikes will be located on a daily average in the designated Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods. At least 1.5% of bikes will be located on a daily average in each of the designated neighborhood groupings. St. Louis' BikeShare Program Permit Requirements

Vehicle Caps In Downtown Areas

Creates a cap on the number of vehicles or percentage of fleet that can be operated in a downtown zone at any given time.

Pro

Ensures vehicles do not concentrate or clog the downtown core; should help with excess vehicles overburdening parking or operational areas.

Con

While adhering to the downtown zone caps, vehicles may not be in the areas that need additional mobility options most; mostly a parking mitigation strategy and not really focused on balanced distribution; requires operators to actively remove/manage vehicles throughout the day to stay compliant with the cap.

Case Study

Palo Alto, CA
Palo Alto has created a requirement that at no time no more than fifty percent (50%) of a permittee's free-floating bicycles and scooters be located in the Downtown Palo Alto or California Avenue Business Districts to ensure that bicycles and scooters remain dispersed throughout the City. Palo Alto's Interim Bicycle & E-Scooter Sharing System Permit Program

Caps Based on Vehicle Density

Vehicles cannot be distributed or parked in a place above a certain density level.

Pro

Ensures vehicles do not concentrate in certain parts of the city; keeps clusters of vehicles from possibly clogging the right-of-way; incentivizes distribution throughout the community.

Con

Does not set out a framework for where vehicles should be distributed, only that they shouldn't be clustered too heavily in certain areas; necessary density level will need to change throughout community and may be too high or too low in certain areas.

Block Face Maximums

Operators cannot exceed a certain number of vehicles per block face.

Pro

Keep vehicles from clustering together and possibly overburdening parking spaces or clogging the right-of-way; incentivizes distribution throughout the community.

Con

Does not set out a framework for where vehicles should be distributed, only that there can't be too many in one place; block face maximums will need to change throughout community and may be too high or too low in certain areas.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
Seattle has set limits for block face density that any operator shall not leave more than 15 of its devices parked on any single block face in the city measuring up to 1000 feet long. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

Recommendations

Not all of the policy options are mutually exclusive and there are a number of different approaches described above, but cities will need to determine how best to manage geographic distribution and vehicle density across the city to achieve their outcomes. While it is important that these options match demand, they should also be available for all residents when they need them.

Cities should ensure that policies for distribution are based on providing service throughout the community, especially in underserved areas that lack robust mobility options, but also take into account the operational challenges and extra staff time, for both cities and operators, associated with maintaining specific distribution regulations.

It will be important for cities to engage with individuals, community based organizations, local businesses, business associations and others to learn the needs and desires within each neighborhood. Cities should also consider regulations for where vehicles are distributed each morning or waiving vehicle density restrictions for special events.

Enforcement

In order to keep fleets moving and active, cities should clarify when operators need to retrieve, move or remove vehicles that are stagnant, unsafe or inoperable. Cities should also set the frequency for when providers need to rebalance their fleet and the length of time the city will give companies to move vehicles before impounding them.

Vehicle Blocking The Pedestrian Throughway

Companies are required to remove vehicles that blocking the right-of-way within a set period of time.

Pro

Ensures that vehicles that are blocking the right-of-way are removed.

Con

Raises the cost of operation for the operator.

Case Study

Los Angeles, CA & Santa Monica, CA
Los Angeles, CA permit requirements include a provision that between the hours of 7am and 10pm daily, operators shall remedy inoperable or improperly parked vehicles within two hours. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit

Santa Monica's administrative guidelines state that any device that is parked incorrectly shall be re-parked or removed by the operator within 1 hour of receiving notice between the hours of 7am and 10 pm daily. Santa Monica Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program Administrative Regulations

Fleet Rebalancing

Requires companies to rebalance bikes as necessary to stay within the specific regulations for density and distribution.

Pro

Ensures fleet density and distribution are maintained throughout the day in accordance with city goals.

Con

Could raise the cost of operation for the operator.

Unsafe Or Inoperable Vehicle

Requires that companies remove unsafe or inoperable from service.

Pro

Ensures vehicles are reliable, readily available, and safe for users; ensures cost for removal is the responsibility of the operator.

Con

Raises the cost of operation for the operator.

Case Study

Durham, NC
Durham requires that permittees shall not deploy a shared device that is inoperable or unsafe to operate and that permittees shall remove from device operating areas within 24 hours of notice any inoperable shared device or any shared device that is not safe to operate. Durham's Shared Active Transportation Ordinance

Stagnant Vehicle

Requires that companies move vehicles that haven't moved in a predetermined amount of time.

Pro

Ensures vehicles are not left in front of businesses or residences if they're not in use for a long period of time.

Case Study

Durham, NC
Durham requires that permittees shall remove every bicycle and electric assisted bicycle before it is parked in the same location for more than seven consecutive days. Durham's Shared Active Transportation Ordinance

Recommendations

Cities should set clear directives for when companies need to move their vehicles, based on different levels of need, and set penalties for noncompliance. Cities should be clear across their permit regulations on what constitutes noncompliance, the timeframe for rectifying and the exact penalties and fines for noncompliance.

Cities can consider coupled penalties for companies that do not comply with these provisions such as reductions in fleet size, fines or additional operating fees.

Equipment & Safety

Introduction

Cities need to be sure shared micromobility vehicles are safe for riders and residents.

Many micromobility companies are creating new vehicle types, many of which are still in their earliest product development cycles. And, many of the vehicles being used today haven’t been specifically designed for heavy use in a shared capacity. It’s critical to ensure these vehicles are physically able withstand the rigors of operating every day, and in a shared capacity, which often places a greater strain on equipment than typical consumer use.

It’s also critical as these vehicles have the necessary safety and visibility equipment and are inspected and maintained regularly to ensure rider safety. Making sure these vehicles are safe—and communicating clearly with the public about how cities and operators go about this—will be a crucial component of creating safe operating conditions to foster their increased adoption among all residents.

National Standards

All local governments developing shared micromobility policies should include these general provisions to ensure that their regulations address these issues similarly across communities.

1

National Vehicle Safety Standards Compliance

Cities should make sure vehicles meet national safety standards such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and should provide data back to federal regulators to inform and help update these standards.
2

State And Local Safety Standards

In addition to national safety standards established by the CPSC, vehicles should comply with any state or local safety standards.
3

State Vehicle Classification

Various states have vehicle classifications that could cover some of these shared vehicles. It's important for cities to understand what those classifications are in their state, whether or not these vehicles are regulated by them, and if there additional requirements by the state that need to be accounted for in local policies such as helmet laws, safety equipment or operational restrictions. Cities should explore if the absence of an applicable definition enables the city to create a classification on the local level with accompanying operating rules.
4

Inspection And Maintenance

Cities should require and set the frequency that operators conduct regular inspection and maintenance of vehicles that accounts for both normal wear and tear as well as vandalism or other atypical events to ensure their safety. Cities should also require auditable record-keeping by operators of their inspections and maintenance operations.
5

Visibility Equipment

Vehicles should have daytime running front and rear lights that are visible from 300ft under normal conditions.
6

Vehicle ID

Cities should require that each vehicle have a unique ID number to identify and track vehicles as necessary.
7

Maximum Speed

A maximum speed should be set for these vehicles (i.e. scooters at 15mph & Class 3 e-bikes at 28mph.) Electric bikes with pedal assist should shut off at 15 mph. It should be noted, that some local governments have created differential speed limits for areas such as highly traveled corridors or those with high pedestrian activity.
8

Theft And Alert System

While not necessary, requiring a tip over sensor or alert system can help operators determine if the vehicle isn't upright and potentially creating problems. This sensor can also provide valuable data to cities to help them refine parking and storage options.
9

Remotely Disable Vehicle

Companies should have the ability to remotely disable vehicles as necessary. Cities should set out specific conditions for when providers should disable vehicles and when the city can request the deactivation of a vehicle.
10

On Vehicle GPS

Cities should require all company vehicles to have an active and working GPS device to track vehicles at all times. This GPS unit should report the vehicle's location at least every 90 seconds.

Policy Sections

Helmet Requirements

Cities have the option to require helmet use to further advocate for user safety.

Pair Helmet Law For Shared Micromobility With General State Or County Helmet Laws

Pro

Ensures consistent requirements across all active vehicle types, shared and not shared; will lead to increased rider safety.

Con

Difficult to enforce, especially among users who spontaneously chose to take a shared micromobility vehicle; places burden on consumer; creates potential barrier for entry among lower-income individuals who may not be able to afford a helmet.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
Seattle requires operators to inform riders of King County helmet laws. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

Cities Establish Their Own Helmet Requirements, Separate From State Laws

Pro

Allows cities to create separate helmet policies by vehicle type; create standards that match up best with particular needs or concerns.

Con

Require Companies to Provide Helmets To Users

Pro

Leverages operator resources to assist in ensuring users have helmet access; improves safety for all users on all trips.

Con

Cost of providing helmets could prove burdensome and too expensive for companies; logistically challenging for companies to provide helmets for users; increases company liability if helmets aren't effective.

Case Study

Santa Monica, CA
Santa Monica requires operators to provide regular helmet distribution. Operators participate in events with helmet distribution, as well as partnering with local brick-and-mortar establishments for free helmet distribution. Santa Monica's Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program Administrative Regulations

Recommendations

With a general lack of dedicated, protected infrastructure for active transportation and micromobility users across the country while riding, helmet use should be strongly encouraged for all vehicle types.

Cities should also partner with operators on distribution, education and compliance initiatives to make helmets easier to access and more likely to be used.

User Requirements

Like any other vehicle, shared micromobility vehicles can be unsafe if operated carelessly or improperly. Cities should create specific requirements to clarify who is eligible to operate these vehicles in order to ensure their safety and the safety of their users and other road users.

State Issued Identification

Pro

Ensures riders are old enough to be eligible to operate a car and are familiar with rules of the road and basic road safety; creates simplified process for ticketing violators.

Con

Limits the total number of users, potentially limiting the scaling of scooter systems; could create system where users are able to use bikes but not scooters; services could be beneficial to younger users who are most likely to use; likely to exclude lower-income and vulnerable users as they have lower rates of having state issued identification.

Case Study

Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles restricts usage to customers that are a minimum of 18 years old with a Driver’s License. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit

Age Limit

Pro

Allows young adults to use vehicles; creates access to school, jobs and other services, furthering the potentially positive impact of these vehicles.

Con

Creates safety and liability risk if open to people too young to operate safely and responsibly; any age restriction limits total number of users, potentially limiting the scale of scooter system and the mobility options for young adults and children going to and from school or other activities; difficult to enforce age requirement without driver's license requirement.

Case Study

Various
Durham's ordinance states that persons operating motorized scooters must be at least 16 years old and wear a helmet. Durham's Shared Active Transportation Ordinance

Los Angeles restricts usage to customers that are a minimum of 18 years old with a Driver’s License. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit

No Requirements

Pro

Allows young adults to ride vehicles; creates access to school, jobs and other services, furthering the potentially positive impact of these vehicles.

Con

Puts children and young adults, the companies, and possibly the city at risk if they are too young to operate safely and responsibly; no mechanism for prohibiting operation among users that are far too young to safely operate scooter.

Recommendations

Given the safety implications, cities have expressed a concern about minors or individuals who do not understand basic rules of the road operating these vehicles. Cities should follow age requirements prescribed by state vehicle codes for each device type, or if none exist at the state level, the cities should create specific requirements for who can use these vehicles as policies vary by operator.

While these requirements do not need to be as strict as a state issued identification, as this may limit responsible younger riders as well as individuals who may not be able to attain a state issued identification, but can safely operate these vehicles. Cities could also consider requiring parental permission to allow minors to use these services.

Parking & Street Design

Introduction

One of the biggest challenges facing cities since the introduction of shared micromobility services is where these vehicles should operate as well as where they should be parked and stored when they’re not in use.

With a general lack of dedicated, protected infrastructure for active transportation and micromobility users, cities will need to determine where it’s safest for these vehicles to operate and may need to build out new dedicated space for active transportation and micromobility users.

This challenge is coupled with users struggling to park and store vehicles properly — often creating obstructions on sidewalks, the right-of-way and in other public space, creating safety hazards, accessibility issues and slowing down foot and vehicle traffic. Cities will need to determine the best options for their community, such as requiring vehicles to be locked to physical infrastructure, use-specific and marked parking zones, or whether users can park anywhere as long as it isn’t blocking the sidewalk or right-of-way.

Regardless of the preferred regulations on where they should be operated and parked, cities and operators will need to communicate clearly and educate residents and users on these regulations.

National Standards

All local governments developing shared micromobility policies should include these general provisions to ensure that their regulations address these issues similarly across communities.

1

New Street Designs

Cities need to update their street design guidelines to include shared micromobility services and active transportation to create protected and safe spaces for user and riders.

Policy Sections

Parking Requirements

Vehicle storage and parking is one of the main challenges cities face when managing shared micromobility services. After their initial deployment in cities, dockless bikes and scooters were often left parked in the right-of-way, blocking vehicle or pedestrian traffic. While improving, it has taken users time to better understand where and how to store these vehicles properly. Cities will need to determine how best to manage where these vehicles should park in order to mitigate some of their negative impacts.

Designated Areas Where Parking Is Permitted

Specific areas where users must park their vehicles. Can be established through demarcating areas in the furniture zone or right-of-way, converted parking spaces, or through geofencing.

Pro

Creates clear rules for parking; users do not have to spend time looking for a parking space; reduces the likelihood of vehicles blocking sidewalks and the right-of-way; makes parking easier to manage and enforce; leverages existing bike racks and other physical infrastructure; does not require companies to deploy new vehicles that can adhere to lock-to requirements.

Con

May not solve issue of vehicles falling outside of painted box and blocking sidewalk or right-of-way; geofencing technology isn't precise enough for enforcement; creates extra infrastructure to maintain; difficult to communicate about parts of city that have required parking areas and parts that don't; may undermine the free-floating flexibility that makes dockless systems attractive to consumers; choosing designated parking areas may be a prolonged process, because the city must determine the areas parking will be placed and procure a vendor to demarcate the spaces.

Case Study

Seattle, WA
Devices may be parked upright on hard surfaces in the landscape/furniture zone of sidewalks. If there’s no sidewalk, riders may park in a safe location that does not impede other street uses or obstruct pedestrians. Riders can also park at any Seattle Department of Transportation bike rack or corral. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements

Designated Areas Where Parking Is Prohibited

Does not set out or require areas for parking, but clearly spells out all of the areas where vehicles should not be parked.

Pro

Keeps vehicles from blocking sidewalk or roadway.

Con

Does not help to create safe and easily identifiable areas for users to park vehicles, making parking more challenging for users and more difficult for city to manage.

Case Study

Charlotte, NC
Charlotte has created very clear guidance on where vehicles should not be parked. This includes areas in the pedestrian zone adjacent to or within these areas: parklets or sidewalk dining; transit zones, including bus stops, shelters, passenger waiting areas and bus layover and staging zones, except at existing bicycle racks; loading zones; accessible parking zones and associated loading zones; street furniture that requires pedestrian access; curb ramps and signal push buttons; entryways, exits and must maintain a 10 foot clearance; and driveways. Charlotte's Dockless Bike / E-Scooter Share Permit Requirements

Lock To Physical Infrastructure

Requires all vehicles have the equipment necessary to be locked to physical infrastructure when parked.

Pro

Reduces the likelihood of vehicles blocking sidewalks and the right-of-way; makes parking easier to manage and enforce; leverages existing bike racks and other physical infrastructure.

Con

Less flexible than a non-locking system, requires additional infrastructure on bikes and vehicles; cities may not have enough bike racks for vehicles to comfortably park in all areas; many companies do not have vehicles that can comply with these standards, especially scooters; bike racks and appropriate infrastructure may be in low supply in some residential or disadvantaged communities undermining the ability of operators to serve those communities.

Case Study

Washington, DC
Washington, DC has updated its dockless vehicles permit to require that bicycles are equipped with a locking mechanism that affixes the bicycle to an independent, stationary object when parked. This regulation doesn't apply to scooters. Washington, DC's Dockless Vehicle Permit Application

Unrestricted Parking

Users can park vehicles anywhere as long as they don't restrict the movement of the sidewalk or right-of-way.

Pro

More flexible and scalable than a restricted parking system; users do not have to spend time looking for a parking space; does not require new city infrastructure; does not require companies to deploy new vehicles that can adhere to lock-to requirements.

Con

Vehicles more likely to block sidewalks and create unsafe conditions; harder for city to manage vehicle parking than with designated areas; vehicles can be knocked over or fall over accidentally.

Case Study

Durham, NC
Durham only requires that shared devices shall not be parked in a way that may impede the regular flow of vehicular and pedestrian travel in device operating areas or otherwise cause a violation of the City Code: Durham's Shared Active Transportation Ordinance

Recommendations

Cities may consider hybrid models with any of these. For example, within specific, denser areas, cities could require one parking policy, but have a different parking policy in the rest of the community. Cities should also convert current on-street parking spaces to shared micromobility parking spaces or corrals to accommodate more vehicles and foster the adoption of these services.

Cities, in close partnership with operators, will need to clearly communicate their parking requirements to residents and riders through both physical and digital means as well as through traditional communication channels.

Parking Infrastructure

Cities have seen a significant increase in the number of micromobility vehicles that are vying for limited parking space in the right-of-way. To accommodate this growth, in pairing with specific parking requirements, cities should build out new parking infrastructure to ensure these vehicles can be parked and stored safely and out of the way of pedestrians and other vehicles while not in use.

Bike racks

Small micromobility vehicles are parked using existing and new bike rack infrastructure.

Pro

Uses existing infrastructure where its purpose is already understood by general public; relatively inexpensive and quick to install or expand; can serve as additional parking for personal micromobility vehicles; addresses issues with improperly parked devices by providing clearly communicated space and physical support to organize devices.

Con

May overwhelm existing racks and infrastructure; may overtake space used by personal bikes and micromobility vehicles; new racks can only be installed in areas with sufficient space; will take staff time and resources to identify areas for use and expansion.

Demarcated Parking Areas

Parking areas that are clearly marked and designated with symbols, paint, tape, or thermoplastic.

Pro

Relatively inexpensive and quick to install or expand; easily understood by general public; may address sidewalk blockage issue.

Con

If in the furniture zone, may create unintended sidewalk blockage issues if vehicles aren't parked properly or fall over; may encourage sidewalk riding depending on their location; may be limited space in the busiest, most desirable areas for micromobility usage; will take staff time and resources to identify areas for use; may require a prolonged period of time for cities to designate areas, procure services to mark the areas; will require some resources for maintenance and upkeep.

Case Study

Santa Monica, CA
A pilot designated dockless scooter and bike zone on 2nd. St in downtown Santa Monica utilizing street space and a curb bulb out space created at a mid-block crosswalk. The City of Santa Monica is repurposing street space to create shared mobility device zones. Zones are being installed citywide with a focus on major boulevards and neighborhood destinations. Over 60 zones have been installed in the first few months of the city’s pilot program. City staff are scoping locations with input from operators regarding demand in specific locations. Photo from Santa Monica Next

Geo-fencing

A geo-fence is a virtual perimeter for a real-world parking area. Geo-fences can be established by the city and show virtually within each operator's app.

Pro

Requires no infrastructure; easy to identify areas for parking and no parking.

Con

Not accurate enough yet; GPS can be spotty in urban areas with tall buildings and is generally not precise enough to determine parking compliance; will take staff time and resources to identify areas for use; not easy for user to determine without use of the app; would require significant education and communications; likely better used for operational domain and larger scale applications.

On The Sidewalk

Shared micromobility vehicles can be parked anywhere on the sidewalk in the furniture zone.

Pro

May address sidewalk blockage issue; the use of furniture zone is already understood by general public; can help riders visualize and learn the actual pedestrian throughway; doesn't require any infrastructure or investment.

Con

Space may not be available in areas where the sidewalk isn't wide enough or doesn't have a furniture zone; may create unintended sidewalk blockage issues if vehicles aren't parked properly or fall over; may encourage sidewalk riding; would require significant education and communications to ensure understanding and compliance; may be limited space in the busiest, most desirable areas for micromobility usage.

Case Study

Washington, DC
Lime electric scooters parked on the sidewalk in Washington, D.C. Photo from Joe Flood via twitter

Street corrals

Parking areas that have been designated and marked on the street, such as in a car parking spot. Some cities are testing adapting block ends near intersections, no-parking zones and other areas that do not interfere with bike, pedestrian or other traffic operations.

Pro

Can be relatively inexpensive and quick to install or expand; easily understood by general public; addresses sidewalk blockage issue; adapted spaces can serve multiple functions; promotes active transportation and micromobility usage by creating dedicated parking spaces and increasing visibility.

Con

Typically takes parking spaces when not designated in adapted spaces; may require minor infrastructure to establish and delineate space; may be limited space in the busiest, most desirable areas for micromobility usage; will take staff time and resources to identify areas for use; may be time consuming to install in cities without established corral programs; will require resources for maintenance and upkeep.

Case Study

Washington, DC
A parking space that's been converted to a street corral in Washington, DC. Photo from DDOT

Recommendations

Cities should build or dedicate a variety of parking infrastructure based on the individual needs and circumstances of their community as well as the specific identified areas. Each of these different parking choices have their own advantages and use cases that will depend on specific city or neighborhood needs. Parking infrastructure should also be located near transit or other mobility services to encourage transit use and multimodal behavior.

Regardless of the parking infrastructure desired for these vehicles, cities will need to dedicate staff time and resources to identify and establish appropriate areas, create and maintain infrastructure and communicate with users and residents about proper use. Cities should also consider these costs when determining permit or registration fees as well as dedicate a portion of the revenue generated for these needs.

Cities should partner with operators when determining parking policies, placements and designated areas, signage and communications and consider having operators contribute financially to the maintenance and upkeep of these areas.

Operational Domain

While shared micromobility vehicles can create safety issues while parked, users also face safety issues while operating them in the right-of-way. Active transportation and micromobility vehicles have always faced safety challenges, even in cities with a robust network of bike lanes, but the concern is particularly acute in communities that do not have bike lanes or a culture of active transportation where micromobility vehicles are now operating alongside cars and buses. Cities will have to set clear guidelines for where these vehicles should be operated to make sure roads are safe for all users and they’ll also need to provide the funding or infrastructure necessary to enhance safety through dedicated bike lanes and other infrastructure.

Sidewalk

Vehicles required to operate on sidewalk at all times.

Pro

No new infrastructure; users are not threatened by cars; users may feel safer operating away from the rest of the road network.

Con

Vehicles take up pedestrian space; may put pedestrians in harm due to speed differential; put users in harm if sidewalk is not well maintained or wide enough for operation.

Case Study

Denver, CO
Bicycles and e-bicycles deployed as part of this pilot program will be required to follow all rules of the road when in use. Please note that e-bicycles are permitted to use roadways internal to designated parks but are not permitted to use Parks maintained trails. According to current City and County of Denver Ordinance and State Law, e-scooters are classified as “toy vehicles” and will be required to operate on the sidewalk. All vehicles must yield to pedestrians at all times. E-scooters will not be allowed in striped, protected or otherwise designated bike lanes. E-scooters will not be allowed to operate within designated parks or on Parks maintained trails. Denver's Dockless Mobility Vehicle Pilot Permit Program Overview

Street

Vehicles required to operate on the street at all time.

Pro

No new infrastructure; users are not taking up sidewalk space; users have additional room to operate in the road.

Con

Creates safety hazards to operate alongside cars and other high-speed vehicles, especially in dangerous or busy intersections; does not carve out safe, protected space in the absence of a robust bike network.

Case Study

Various
Most cities' regulations clearly state that operations should occur in the street and follow standard rules of the road and that riding on the sidewalk is prohibited.

Unrestricted

Vehicles can operate anywhere in the city.

Pro

Users able to operate anywhere that make sense for them; allows users to avoid busy or dangerous roads or sidewalks when necessary.

Con

Does not carve out safe, protected space; creates safety hazards for vehicles operate alongside cars, especially in dangerous or busy intersections; may put pedestrians in harm due to speed differential; difficult to manage or set up right-of-way to allow for their safe operation; avoids the creation of a consistent culture for where and how these vehicles should be operating.

Active Transportation and Micromobility Lanes

Vehicles are encouraged to operate in specific, dedicated lanes for their use.

Pro

Creates a safe and efficient space for these vehicles in the right-of-way.

Con

Can add costs to build out infrastructure and lane network; will require political will and funding support.

Recommendations

Cities should be clear with companies and users about where these vehicles should be operated. As most active transportation and micromobility riders are vulnerable road users, it will be important to designate safe spaces for their operations. Cities will also need to check that their choices aren’t in conflict with their state’s law governing these vehicle types.

The rapid popularity and proliferation of micromobility services offers cities an opportunity to dedicate greater lane space and create protected spaces for micromobility and active transportation users. Cities should strive to open as many spaces as reasonably possible to micromobility and create a consistent culture for where and how these vehicles may be operated.

Introduction

1

Right to operate

2

Right to revoke permits

3

Right to deny

4

Appeals Process

5

Transfer of permits

6

State and federal laws

7

Indemnification

8

Commercial liability

9

Insurance bonds

Policy Structure

Memorandum of Understanding Services Contract

Pro

Con

Permit or License

Pro

Con

Case Study

Request for Proposals

Pro

Con

Case Study

Recommendations

Total Permits

Permit, No Cap

Pro

Con

Case Study

Permit, With Cap

Pro

Con

Case Study

Cap Based On Overall Vehicles

Pro

Con

Case Study

Recommendations

Fee Structure

Permit/License Fee

Pro

Con

Case Study

Per Vehicle Charge

Pro

Con

Case Study

Per Trip Fee

Pro

Con

Relocation Or Vehicle Impoundment

Pro

Con

Case Study

Recommendations

Dedication of Revenue

Administrative

Pro

Infrastructure

Pro

Case Study

Maintenance

Pro

Outreach and Engagement

Pro

Recommendations

Introduction

1

Geographical Boundaries

2

Staffing & Operations

3