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.
