Transit and Micromobility (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

99   Digital Policy and Compliance Digital policy, compliance, and enforcement are important tools in shared micromobility programs as they help ensure that city and transit agency policy outcomes are achieved. • Digital policy – The universe of data-driven procedures, tools, and policies that a city or regulating agency uses to manage a micromobility system operating within its jurisdiction. • Compliance – Cities and regulating agencies use micromobility data that are shared with them or that they are able to collect to understand if operators are in compliance with agreed upon regulations and service-level agreements. Performance data convey whether providers are operating in agreed upon areas adhering to geofenced areas, meeting their maximum fleet deployment, and responding to complaints in a timely manner. • Enforcement – When providers are shown to not be compliant with service-level require- ments and other digital policies, regulating agencies can impose fines and other penalties to ensure compliance in the future. Enforcement actions can range in severity and include impounding improperly parked devices, limiting legal fleet size, fines, suspension, and revo- cation of permits. Different Approaches to Digital Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement The following sections show examples from cities with a range of different approaches to digital policy, compliance, and enforcement of micromobility operators. These examples focus on municipalities as opposed to transit agencies. As discussed previously, cities regulate micro- mobility, and to enact digital policy with transit operations in mind, coordination is critical. Passive Digital Policy Early in the development of municipal dockless mobility programs, cities began experi- menting with geofences—a tool to communicate that specific rider or mobility service provider (MSP) behaviors are disallowed or required. These actions include disallowing riding in a specific zone, reducing the maximum operable speed in a specific zone, requiring trips ending in an area to have vehicles left in a designated parking area, slowing trips to a stop in a specific zone, disallowing MSPs from deploying vehicles in a specific zone, and requiring MSPs to deploy in a specific zone (including predetermined daily deployment numbers). Early examples in the development of digital policy include: • Santa Monica establishing a no-ride zone along a linear beachfront bike path, • San Antonio establishing a no-ride zone around the Alamo national monument, and • Portland (OR) preventing riders from leaving scooters in city parks and on important multi- use paths. A P P E N D I X B

100 Transit and Micromobility While geofencing is an important tool for cities and transit agencies to achieve positive operational, safety, and policy outcomes, one-way communication of digital policy without establishing a compliance protocol or a means to communicate performance eliminates cities’ ability to understand the impact, viability, and efficacy of geofencing tools. This passive approach to digital policy does not allow for enforcement or ensure consistent application of the digital policy as designed by the public agency. LADOT and Active Digital Policy LADOT has taken a much more proactive role in developing digital policy to meet public mobility and right-of-way management objectives. LADOT has also established a clear nexus between outcomes, service-level agreements (SLAs), and compliance thresholds and enforce- ment actions. In 2019, LADOT established a special operations zone (SOZ) in Venice, which sought to address vehicle oversaturation and illegal riding on the Venice boardwalk and canals and to reduce vehicle speeds to 0 miles per hour. LADOT’s hypothesis was that stronger use of digital policy to enforce parking and deployment rules would ensure a more organized public right-of-way. The SOZ’s impact was clear: MSPs adhered to restrictions on scooter deployments, and the existence of geofences led to dramatically lower presence of scooters on the Venice boardwalk and canals. LADOT also leveraged several enforcement actions once infractions were proven through MDS data. While this more sophisticated approach requires resources and investment in MDS technology, development and implementation of digital policy and compliance checking has proven to be more effective than passively requiring a type of geofence to be implemented. While transit agencies like LA Metro have begun to experiment with geofenced parking and deployment incentives and restrictions at transit stations, digital policy and active compliance and enforcement should be developed and monitored in partnership with the cities that permit shared micromobility services. This will lead to more robust digital policies that reduce potential externalities (e.g., MSPs creating their own exclusion zones that respond to onerous parking fees set by transit agencies). MDS, Communities Against Rider Surveillance, and Privacy The MDS is a critical tool for establishing and ensuring the success of the Venice SOZ. MDS is an open-source system that communicates information and policy details between public agencies and MSPs operating in the public right-of-way. MDS enabled LADOT to convey and monitor adherence to digital policy. Originally pioneered by LADOT, the specification is now managed by OMF. Over 80 cities and transit agencies have adopted MDS and can collect historical and real-time trip and vehicle status using MDS. MDS provides the structure for MSPs to share data with cities and also allows cities to communicate directly with MSPs through digital code. Some organizations and MSPs have expressed concern about the ability to re-identify specific people using MDS trip data that have been anonymized and do not have the appropriate protec- tions and management protocols established. In February 2020, amid a dispute between Uber and the city of Los Angeles over data-sharing requirements, an Uber-backed coalition established Communities Against Rider Surveillance (CARS), a group of community organizations that is raising awareness of privacy concerns and protesting MDS being imposed by governments. While the debate around mobility data and privacy will continue, cities and transit agencies can adopt privacy principles, establish data use protocols, and partner with data platforms to ingest, aggregate, and safely visualize digital policy performance.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-67437-9 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 7 4 3 7 9 9 0 0 0 0