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.

1   When docked bikeshare appeared a decade ago, few could have imagined the explosive evolution of small, low-speed mobility into the variety of devices, business models, and operational arrangements that characterize the sector now known as “micromobility.” This growth has been accelerated by infusions of private capital, popular enthusiasm for the devices, and economies of scale for the vehicles and technologies that underpin micro- mobility services. This report combines survey and trip data with operational lessons from agencies and cities that are working to maximize the public benefit of the expanding micromobility market. This information is intended to fill gaps in understanding of public transit agencies’ role with regard to micromobility by helping agencies identify: • Characteristics of micromobility devices and business models; • The range of regulatory levers for micromobility (generally at the municipal level), transit agencies’ role in regulation, and micromobility’s interaction with the built environment; • Who is using micromobility and how it is used, both on its own and connecting to transit; and • The impact of micromobility on bus and rail transit ridership, operations, and economics. This study considers micromobility’s interactions with transit in a range of urban envi- ronments, agency sizes, economic circumstances, and transportation contexts. The report concludes with a Partnership Toolkit, which, building on the analysis and case studies presented throughout the report, provides a guide for transit agencies that are considering whether and how to collaborate with micromobility providers. Impacts of COVID-19 This report was written at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, but most of the data collection and analysis took place earlier. Likewise, operational examples and case studies cited throughout largely cover the pre-COVID period. In 2020 and 2021, micromobility appeared to serve as a mode perceived as providing a lower risk of exposure than riding in shared, closed vehicles like those of transit or ride-hail services. However, as travel overall fell to historic lows, so did micromobility ridership in most places, and usage patterns of the micromobility trips that remained differed from those before the crisis, with longer trips and a shift away from peak-hour and transit-connecting usage (Holder 2021; Heineke et al. 2020). As the pandemic’s longer-term impacts on communities, travel choices, and public agencies are still emerging, it is difficult to describe them with confidence. For that reason, this report describes the transportation context as it existed on the eve of COVID-19—acknowledging that massive changes will have taken place by the time the S U M M A R Y Transit and Micromobility

2 Transit and Micromobility pandemic’s direct effects subside, but that these outcomes are unknowable while we are still in the middle of the crisis. Defining Shared Micromobility The term “micromobility” can encompass a broad variety of small, low-speed vehicles intended for personal transportation in urban areas. In popular usage, it is commonly applied to shared bikes, motorized kick scooters, and other personal transportation devices [National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) 2019a, 5; Chang et al. 2019, 2; National League of Cities (NLC) 2019, 6]. This study will follow the vehicle taxonomy provided by SAE International, which classifies powered micromobility vehicles based both on form factor and on physical characteristics. Expanding on the powered micro- mobility taxonomy provided by SAE J3194 (SAE International 2019), this study defines “micro mobility” as services using vehicles with the following characteristics: • Designed for human transport on pavement (excluding mobility aids intended for use by people with disabilities and low-speed vehicles like golf carts), • Top speed of 30 mph or less, with full or partial human power, • Unloaded weight of less than 500 pounds, • If motorized, an electric motor rather than an internal combustion engine, and • Deployed as part of a shared fleet available for use by the general public. The Micromobility Market With the introduction of free-floating modes of micromobility, many jurisdictions have shifted to managing the public right-of-way for these services, including regulating how they may operate on sidewalks and roads or in other public spaces. Micromobility adoption has grown rapidly since shared scooters’ appearance in 2018. The number of shared micro- mobility trips in the United States more than doubled between 2017 and 2018 (NACTO 2019b). Shared scooters and bikes operated legally in some 180 U.S. municipalities on the eve of COVID-19 in 2020, which is nearly double the count of the 2018 season (Smart Cities Dive 2020; NACTO 2019b). Dockless scooter services in U.S. cities are dominated by a few major operators, but many smaller regional operators also offer shared bicycles and scooters, with some specializing in working with smaller jurisdictions or campuses. Large programs, with thousands of vehicles, are in place in large or fast-growing cities, while smaller cities or college towns may have fleet counts in the dozens or hundreds. Regulatory and Policy Review Transit agencies generally lack the regulatory powers that state or local governments possess, and they achieve policy goals largely through partnerships with operators and coor- dination with regulating agencies. Put another way, cities regulate, while transit agencies partner. City departments of transportation (DOTs) use regulation as a tool to manage micromobility; transit agencies partner with private or nonprofit operators and with sur- rounding jurisdictions. This section surveys the whole of the regulatory environment, start- ing at the local level and then moving to the transit agency’s role. Key Areas of Local Regulation Most local enabling statutes and permit requirements for micromobility typically cover some combination of several key regulatory approaches [Shared-Use Mobility Center

Summary 3   (SUMC) and New Urban Mobility Alliance (NUMO) 2020]. (The Micromobility Policy Atlas, which contains several dozen local micromobility regulations from the United States and elsewhere, is available at https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/atlas/.) These regulatory levers are detailed in the main text of this report, with examples from relevant jurisdictions. The most common areas of local regulation include the following: • Vehicle location: Operation, parking, and geographic limitations. • Limiting overall scale and impact: Fleet caps, utilization targets, and provider counts. • Rider and public safety, which center on – Speed limits, – Vehicle requirements (international standards, federal consumer regulations, or state standards for bikes or personal e-mobility vehicles), – Helmet use, – Rider age restrictions/license requirements, and – Hours of operation and curfews. • Operator responsibilities: Parking enforcement, rebalancing, maintenance, and communications. • Social equity considerations: Geographic distribution and access for the unbanked or people without smartphones. • Data-sharing requirements and standards/specifications. • Risk management, including insurance coverage and performance bonds. The Transit Agency’s Regulatory Role Most of the regulatory mechanisms described previously sit outside the control of transit agencies. Transit agencies’ specific policy areas of interest include: • Safe station access, • Managing network demand, • Risk management, • Digital policy and data sharing, • Fare integration, and • Equitable access. Partnerships take place in the physical, digital, and policy realms. Transit agencies partner with cities to plan and build physical infrastructure to enhance access to transit, increase rider- ship, and increase customer safety. On the digital front, to enable station-area planning and informed decision making, transit agencies coordinate with city regulators to ensure agency access to micromobility data. In the policy realm, agencies partner with cities to develop equitable access, contribute financial or in-kind resources for program management, and pursue other policies needed to achieve their vision and goals. We are still early in understanding the transit agency role in the governance of micro- mobility systems. Given their ability to regulate, city DOTs are the natural leaders for micro- mobility governance. The understanding that transit agencies need to become partners and begin their own micromobility policy development has only been realized recently as agencies across the United States begin to interact with micromobility vendors. As more agencies experi- ment and develop their own micromobility policies and partnerships with cities, best practices will become clearer. Government subsidization of micromobility is possible today, but a fully validated pay- ment model has not yet been achieved. While publicly subsidized docked bikeshare is common, transit agency subsidies for dockless micromobility are only starting to emerge. To exclusively

4 Transit and Micromobility subsidize trips that provide first- and last-mile access, a transit agency would either need a fully integrated payment system (subsidizing only those trips that take place both on transit and via micromobility) or access to trip data (subsidizing trips that definitively start or end within a specified geofenced area of transit service). Alternative models, such as offering free transit with a micromobility receipt or subsidizing trips based on vendor invoicing, are administratively burdensome and leave opportunities for fraud. Mobility hubs provide a new framework for city and transit agency partnerships at the physical, digital, and policy levels. However, there are few examples of mobility hub implementation, and it is too soon to tell whether hubs further empower transit agencies to achieve their policy priorities. Mobility hub best practices and demonstrated outcomes are a necessary area of further research. Micromobility and the Built Environment As major mobility destinations and transfer points, transit stations and stops are natural centers of mobility activity—including those related to personal bikes and other small devices, docked bikeshare, and shared dockless micromobility services. Historically, transit agencies have implemented and managed bicycle parking on their property and coordinated the siting of docked bikeshare and bicycle parking nearby. Agencies saw benefits with this approach; reports have found that over 50% of docked bike users frequently linked bike- share and transit trips (NACTO 2016). The appearance of private, dockless micromobility increases the need for coordination between transit agencies and cities. By taking a more active role in the development and management of micromobility systems in collaboration with municipal partners, transit agencies can ensure that these services meet both agency and city goals. There are five key areas in which this built-environment coordination takes place: • Transit access and parking • Street management and first/last mile • Demand management • Data (and its relationship to the built environment) • Infrastructure funding Cities and transit agencies can rely on existing bike parking and station siting guid- ance around transit but must expand the array of approaches to accommodate dockless micro mobility. Transit agencies and local jurisdictions have long managed the access and right-of-way for personally owned bicycles and bikeshare stations to ensure first- and last- mile connectivity and pedestrian access. Dockless micromobility provides new connections to transit and heightens the need to manage access and redesign rights-of-way. The ability to park dockless vehicles anywhere necessitates new design guidance and forms of infra- structure such as mobility hubs, while incentives and enforcement should explicitly support transit access. Cities and transit agencies must coordinate on data sharing and availability to achieve beneficial outcomes concerning the built environment around transit stations and stops. The growth of dockless micromobility requires policy coordination between local jurisdic- tions and transit agencies. When infrastructure supports the use and growth of micromobility, micromobility is a demand-management tool for cities and transit agencies. Because of its atomized presence and permeability throughout a city—with vehicles’ ability to reach, but also be abandoned in,

Summary 5   a nearly infinite number of locations—the growth of dockless micromobility heightens regulat- ing agencies’ responsibility to manage the vehicles’ use in streets, on sidewalks, and in other public rights-of-way. Growth in transportation options has long been understood as a remedy for car reliance and a complement to transit ridership. Micromobility companies can support the expansion of on- and off-street infrastructure in multiple ways. Cities, transit agencies, and micromobility companies share an interest in the growth of safe, accessible micromobility infrastructure. Permit fees could support limited infra- structure investment, but companies’ primary support of infra structure investment will come through demonstration projects, advocacy campaigns, and community organizing. Micromobility Users and Utilization This study used survey and operational trip data to provide a picture of who is using micromobility, as well as the services’ impact on transit and docked bikeshare. Using representative survey data from 18 U.S. metro areas, the authors present demographic and travel behavior data for scooter and non-scooter users. While the data include infor- mation from metros of a variety of sizes, transit system extents, and urban forms, the research was limited by data availability and operator participation, and for that reason does not include metro areas at the smaller end of the population scale or cities or towns in rural areas. Overall, almost 10% of survey respondents had ridden a shared scooter. About twice this number had used either a shared bike or scooter (here called “micromobility users”). In general, cities with lower levels of regulation, especially caps on fleet size, had higher scooter adoption rates. The survey also found the following about the demographic characteristics of micro- mobility users: • Scooter and micromobility users are younger than the general population of their metros, with peak use in those under 35 and few users above 55. • In contrast to micromobility, in which the gender split is fairly even, a slight majority of scooter-only users are female. • Compared to the general population, more non-white people use scooters and micro- mobility. Hispanic and Asian people make up the bulk of this difference. • People of all income levels use scooters and micromobility, with a fairly small variation from the general population across income levels. However, adoption rates do rise with income, especially for micromobility. The survey also examined how scooter users make use of other modes of transport: • Scooter users are less likely to commute alone by car and more than twice as likely to commute by transportation network companies (TNCs) across all metro types, but use of transit and carpools varies. In areas with higher transit use, scooter users commute by transit at a lower rate and carpool more than non-adopters, while in low-transit-use areas, the inverse is true. • Scooter users’ households have more cars in general than non-adopters’ households, and notably, more scooter users’ households have three or more cars. This is consistent with the higher income associated with scooter adoption but may also point to younger people who live in group households with several roommates.

6 Transit and Micromobility The survey also examined how and why people use scooters. The responses were weighted by frequency of use: • Trips on public transit represented 0.5%–10% of trips replaced by scooters. The largest portion of journeys replaced by scooter trips (46%–78%) would have taken place in cars—either alone, with another passenger, or in a ride-hail vehicle. Walking trips were the next most likely to be replaced: 15%–37% of trips, with the most replacement in areas with the least density and transit service. • Users choose scooters for many trip purposes. The most common trip purposes for scooters were commuting (in denser metros) and socializing (in the less dense metros). • Asked why they chose a scooter on their most recent trip, “It was just for fun” was the most frequent response in all but the densest metros, where utilitarian considerations like speed, reliability, and parking were dominant. Scooters’ competitive prices compared to other modes were also important to a significant minority of users. Implications for Transit Agencies This section explores the benefits and impacts of micromobility with an emphasis on outcomes likely to be valuable to transit agencies. It begins by extending the micromobility analysis from the prior section and examines trip patterns in proximity to high-frequency fixed-route transit. The second part of the section examines the broader implications of shared micromobility’s impacts on transit agencies, including funding and the financing of public infrastructure; agencies’ civil rights obligations under the Americans with Dis- abilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the rider experience. Micromobility Usage Patterns and Impacts Scooter Impacts on Docked Bikeshare Using daily trip counts, the researchers examined docked bikeshare use before and after the addition of dockless shared vehicles in Oakland, CA, and Arlington County, VA. Both regions saw a decline in dock-based bike trips soon after the introduction of scooters, but it’s unclear whether this was a result of the introduction of dockless services or a consequence of seasonality or other factors. And in both cases, docked bikeshare recovered at least its prior level of ridership, and in Oakland reached new heights after scooters’ introduction. Dockless Vehicle Use near Transit Stations The researchers also examined aggregated micromobility trip data to observe patterns in scooter trips starting or ending near high-capacity transit stations [heavy or commuter rail and bus rapid transit (BRT)] in five urban jurisdictions: Oakland, CA; Arlington County, VA; Cleveland, OH; Indianapolis, IN; and Baltimore, MD. • In every region, the vast majority of micromobility trips occurred in the urban core and university campus areas. • Oakland and Arlington County—densely populated jurisdictions in large metro areas—saw most scooter trips clustered along rail corridors, with 56% and 70% of trips, respectively, starting or ending within 1⁄4 mile of a rail stop, and 30% and 42% within 1⁄8 mile. • The less dense cities of Indianapolis and Baltimore showed less association between scooter trips and high-capacity transit stops, as did Cleveland’s rail transit and light-rail

Summary 7   lines. Cleveland’s three BRT lines, with many stops throughout the dense urban core, had much greater association, with 83% of scooter trips starting or ending within 1⁄4 mile of a stop, and 68% within 1⁄8 mile. • In every region except Baltimore, over 90% of scooter trips started or ended within 1 mile of a high-capacity transit stop. Funding/Financing Impacts, Civil Rights, and Other Agency Concerns Docked bikeshare systems are a strong precedent for publicly subsidized micromobility operations, but at present, dockless operations are largely privately supported. The growth of private micromobility has convinced some agencies that the older model of subsidized micromobility is no longer needed. However, reliance on private services leaves jurisdic- tions vulnerable to market whims. In this model, some public entities have found it difficult to effectively convince private operators to provide micromobility access across different geographic, income, and racial populations, as well as for people with disabilities, and have in some cases turned to subsidies or other incentives to ensure deployment in support of public goals. Funding and Financial Implications Transit agencies weigh the costs and benefits of funding micromobility infrastructure and subsidizing services to encourage their use, and thus possibly increase ridership and revenue for the public transit system. Transit agencies have limited operational funds to invest in new service types, but capital funds (including some FTA formula monies) can be used to support micromobility infrastructure such as dedicated parking and bike- share docks. Civil Rights and Social Equity Implications Transit agencies are federally required to ensure equitable access to their programs but do not have specific guidance from the FTA on what exactly that means for partnerships with micromobility services. Existing guidance focuses on two key questions: which fund- ing programs include micromobility (specifically, bikeshare) as eligible expenses and what requirements apply depending on the funding source used. The ADA applies regardless of funding source, and Title VI applies when federal funding is used. Federal sources of operational funding are limited, and FTA’s guidance on what the use of those funds requires in terms of ADA compliance focuses on the use of ride-hailing or other demand–response services, not micromobility. Aside from then-Secretary Foxx’s 2016 Dear Colleague letter (U.S. DOT 2016), there is little guidance on Title VI requirements for federally funded micromobility services. Transit Rider Experience Implications Whether or not it is operated in partnership with transit agencies, micromobility has the potential to improve transit riders’ experience by alleviating peak-period crowding on tran- sit (Pucher and Buehler 2009) and rider demand for bringing personal bikes and scooters on board. However, shared micromobility services could also reduce the quality of the rider experience if vehicle parking and use are not well planned at stations and stops. Further, the current multimodal digital experience of trip planning, booking, and payment is scattered and inconsistent.

8 Transit and Micromobility Agency–Micromobility Partnership Approaches As the micromobility marketplace continues to take shape, new types of collaboration between cities, transit agencies, and private operators are emerging to align mobility goals, regulate sensibly, and improve transit access. City and transit agency partnership roles depend on market and transit system characteristics. In urban areas with supportive infra- structure and large and willing customer bases, private operators are eager to deploy. In this case, DOTs take a regulatory approach, and transit agency partnerships focus more on coordination with the city. But in smaller or shrinking cities, vendors may not be clamoring to enter the marketplace like they are in larger or more affluent metros. Public agencies in these areas might still decide that micromobility is worthwhile and seek to attract and actively shape the service in ways that are applicable to their particular needs. Engagement between public agencies and micromobility providers falls along a spectrum of public/private partnership arrangements, from direct agency operation of micromobility services to more private-sector–dependent collaborations in which agencies have little or no control over the private operator’s activities. The following subsections provide summaries of case studies of how transit agencies of various types are working to ensure desired policy outcomes in partnerships throughout this spectrum. Transit Agency–Led Operation or Integration of Services Partnerships with the greatest level of agency control employ a vendor’s vehicles and technology platform, but operations, including customer support, rebalancing, charging, and other fleet maintenance activities, are the responsibility of the public agency or a closely allied nonprofit. The Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (RTA) appears to have gone further than any other U.S. agency in its level of operational involvement, but a number of transit agencies in metros large and small have worked closely with micromobility vendors to create systems that are effectively extensions of the transit system and are clearly marketed as such to the public. Other examples: • Kansas City Area Transportation Authority: RideKC Bike and Scooter • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro): Metro Bikeshare • Austin Capital Metro: MetroBike • The Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority (COMET; Columbia SC): Blue Bike SC Subsidizing Specific Ride Types or Creating Connections Several agencies have sought to take advantage of the popularity of micromobility to subsidize or encourage service at times and places where transit is not available or to create new first-/last-mile options. Examples: • Sacramento Regional Transit District: free light-rail trips for same-day bikeshare users • Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit: capital support for hybrid e-bikeshare for first-/last-mile connections throughout a rail corridor City/Transit Agency Policy Collaboration Another approach is to use policy levers, enforced through local regulatory powers, to encourage desired public outcomes without either direct outlays or subsidies to private operators. City/transit agency partnerships, with formalized communication and shared

Summary 9   goals, enable more effective planning. While this is a well-established approach in other areas of mutual city/transit agency interest, fewer examples of this type of collaboration exist for micromobility. • Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD)/City and County of Denver. An interagency collaboration is using the city micromobility permitting process to build on an existing transit amenity program, promoting vehicle placement at transit stops. This local action is matched by a coordinated transit agency program to designate micromobility parking at transit properties both in the city and in the wider RTD operating area. • Mobility Hubs. Transit agencies can also partner with cities to plan, build, and operate a system of mobility hubs, which colocate micromobility and other shared mobility services, community amenities, and electric mobility charging infrastructure at key transit stations or stops. Examples are: – Move 412 and the Pittsburgh Mobility Collective. Moving toward modal integra- tion with transit, micromobility, and mobility hubs at the center of a comprehensive consortium-based transportation approach. – Metro Transit, Twin Cities. Agency-led pilot of placemaking mobility hubs along BRT lines. – LA Metro/Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Integrated mobility hubs in a variety of contexts, focused on expanding access for low-income communities. Partnership Toolkit The report concludes with a Partnership Toolkit that distills the findings of this study into a set of concrete action items. For transit agencies that are interested in going further and pursuing more direct engagement with micromobility providers, this toolkit provides a set of steps that will help agencies decide why and how to build micromobility partnerships, define goals, and measure success.