Equity
Introduction
Shared micromobility services have great potential to provide additional access for underserved individuals and individuals with disabilities, especially in transit-poor communities.
Equity means investing in the most underserved communities, involving people who have been systematically excluded from the transportation planning process and prioritizing projects that serve those most vulnerable to poor roadway design. Shared micromobility services can introduce affordable, emission-free, and car-free transportation options to communities that otherwise may not have them, creating greater access to jobs, education, healthcare, and more. But without thoughtful planning, there’s no guarantee this will be the case. Without policy guidance, these services might not be deployed in underserved communities or communities of color or enable access to residents that lack a smartphone or bank account.
Services also may prove too expensive for many underserved residents without a discount fare structure. To ameliorate these challenges and use these services to enhance equitable access, cities and operators are testing a number of potential solutions including requiring a specific percentage of vehicles be available in specific communities at all times, developing discounted fare structures, and providing phone- or credit-free access.
It will be critical for cities to authentically engage with individuals, community based organizations, local businesses, business associations and others to learn the needs and desires within each neighborhood and tailor policies appropriately to ensure that shared outcomes are achieved.
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
Discount Programs
Cities should require operators to provide fare programs and pricing options that address the needs of underserved residents.
-
2
Equity Plans
Cities should require operators to have detailed plans on how their service will increase access and opportunity for all community members with an emphasis on communities that have historically disinvested.
Policy Sections
Equitable Distribution
In order to ensure that these services are available to residents and communities that could benefit the most, many cities such as St. Louis, Seattle, Washington, D.C. and others have required operators to place a certain percentage of their fleets in designated equity areas as determined by the city.
Require a percentage of vehicles in underserved areas
Operators are required to place a certain percentage of their fleets in specific areas designated by the city.
Pro
Ensures vehicles are available in communities that could benefit the most and may not be placed organically; strongly encourages adoption in these communities.
Con
Potential for operators to be frustrated if vehicle distribution does not match demand; extra time and costs associated with oversight and compliance checks; additional resources required by operators for oversight and rebalancing.
Case Study
Portland, OR
Portland requires the deployment of a minimum of 100 Shared Scooters or 20% of the Permittee’s fleet (whichever is less) each day in the historically underserved
East Neighborhoods as defined by the City of Portland’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Portland's Shared Electric Scooters Permit
Cap size increases for deployment in underserved areas
Operators who deploy and maintain additional vehicles in underserved communities are rewarded with higher fleet size caps.
Pro
Incentivizes companies to ensure vehicles are available in communities that could benefit the most and may not be organically; encourages adoption in these communities; takes advantage of operator desire to increase fleet caps to achieve community goals.
Con
Potential for cities or operators to place vehicles into underserved areas and ignore need to monitor how these vehicles are operating and impacting equity goals.
Recommendations
Cities should set requirements for vehicle operation in underserved communities and create additional incentive structures for operators to deploy in these communities.
Cities should establish these requirements from the onset to foster adoption in these communities early on and help the cities assess the potential equity impacts.
While it’s important to require vehicle distribution based on equity, the presence of shared micromobility vehicles in these communities should also not take away from the need to continue to provide transit and other mobility services in these areas. Cities should pair these incentives with additional opportunities and programs to increase access to transit and other mobility options in these communities.
Non-digital / Credit-free Access
As app-based services, many shared micromobility services are not accessible for individuals without a bank account, smartphone or phone service that can support the data requirements. Cities will need to develop strategies and requirements to ensure these services are available and accessible for all users and have a positive impact on equity.
Cash Payments
Users can rent a vehicle by paying cash at nearby convenience stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, community centers, and other businesses.
Pro
Makes vehicles more accessible for all users; users do not have to go through process of getting and refilling cards at stations or other stores.
Con
Requires companies to install additional infrastructure for deposits; difficult to make change; could require additional funds to be deposited in the middle of a ride.
Case Study
Washington, DC
Washington, DC requires that dockless bicycles and scooters must also offer a cash
payment option, and the ability to be located and unlocked without a smartphone. Washington, DC's Dockless Vehicle Permit Application
Pre-paid Cards
Users can purchase specific cards to use for trips and can refill cards with cash or credit at stores throughout community.
Pro
Makes vehicles more accessible for all users; easy to prepay and refill for rides; able to tie card to specific users or discount programs.
Con
Requires operators to install additional infrastructure for card readers; does not apply across different services.
Pair With Transit Cards
Would allow users to pay for shared micromobility services with the same card they use for public transit.
Pro
Would make services more accessible for all users and integrates access across modes; would allow discount programs to be easily applied across different services; wouldn't require customers have cash or a separate card.
Con
While desirable, considerable technical and operational challenges; isn't in use anywhere around the world; would require operators and cities to install complimentary and likely additional infrastructure.
Third-party Call Center To Schedule Rides
Phone based service allowing customers to book and pay for rides remotely.
Pro
Makes services more accessible for more users.
Con
Challenging to use call center to locate available vehicles given their frequent movement and repositioning; would not be available to those without phone service or credit card to facilitate payment.
Recommendations
In order to create a transportation network that’s accessible to all users, cities and transit agencies should consider partnering with operators to develop a program that would combine transit fare cards with shared micromobility services. This would allow publicly created discount fare programs to be applied across operators and services as well as allow individuals without bank accounts, smartphones or a phone plan that can support the data requirements.
Adaptive Equipment
Adaptive vehicles, such as tricycles, hand-pedaled cycles, recumbent cycles and others, have the opportunity to enhance access for individuals with disabilities who otherwise rely on cars or paratransit for most of their transportation needs. Cities should use their policies or permits to encourage the deployment of these vehicles and determine how they can best provide access throughout the community.
Percentage Of Fleet
Creates a requirement that a portion of any micromobility fleet includes adaptive vehicles.
Pro
Sets a baseline floor requiring adaptive vehicles in any fleet that scales with growth.
Con
May eliminate providers that are unable to provide adaptive vehicles but otherwise could be good operators and city partners.
Incentivize With Fleet Size Cap Increase
Creates an incentive to tie the addition of adaptive vehicles to increases in the overall fleet size cap.
Pro
Encourages more adaptive vehicles; incentivizes companies by rewarding them with benefits they desire.
Con
Adaptive vehicles are not required, only incentivized.
Case Study
Seattle, WA
Seattle's permit requirements offer a fleet size bonus to encourage operators to deploy adaptive cycles as part of their free-floating fleets. Operators who deploy adaptive cycles receive application preference and could get a bonus of up to 1,000 extra devices. Seattle has also partnered with a local organization that specializes in adaptive cycles to increase adaptive cycling access. Seattle's Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements
No Requirements
Pro
Allows any operator into the community, regardless of whether they're able to provide adaptive vehicles.
Con
Doesn't create access for individuals who cannot ride regular scooters or bikes.
Case Study
Various
Most cities do not require adaptive vehicles.
Recommendations
In order to guarantee the deployment of adaptive vehicles, cities should require their presence, either as a percentage of the fleet or as a total number of vehicles. To foster operators adding more adaptive vehicles into their community, cities should incentivize operators with desirable benefits, such as increases to the fleet size cap.
With adaptive vehicles, cities should also partner with local organizations to not only help develop and refine their regulations, but determine how best to engage with the community around issues such as what vehicles types are most desired and where vehicles should be distributed or deployed to make sure they’re where they’re needed most. Cities should also consider incentivizing operators to allow individuals to request adaptive vehicles be brought to their home or business.
