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.

59   Implications for Transit Agencies This chapter 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 use analysis from the prior chapter, specifically examining trip patterns in proximity to high-frequency fixed-route transit. The second half of this chapter examines the broader implications of shared micromobility’s impacts on transit agencies, including on funding and the financing of public infrastructure, interaction with agencies’ civil rights obligations under ADA and Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, and implications for the rider experience. Micromobility Usage Patterns and Impacts The impact of dockless shared micromobility on other forms of transportation, particularly public transit and docked bikeshare, is a key question in this report. To supplement the user-focused survey data in the previous chapter, this chapter uses publicly available docked bikeshare data to observe total trips before and after the addition of dockless shared vehicles. For dockless vehicles, which can start or end a trip at any location, aggregated trip data also were used to observe the use of the vehicles near transit stops. There is some overlap between the cities here and the metro areas surveyed in the previous chapter, but the data in this section were dependent on established relationships with cities and operators and their willingness to provide aggregated data for this study. The question of data availability also affects the cross-section of metro types examined, especially on the less-populated end of the scale: although the research team strived to represent smaller cities and less-populated regions, the places available for analysis were limited to Populus partner cities where all parties to the data consented to data sharing. The Populus research team collaborated with cities, counties, and scooter operators to use aggregated shared-scooter data to show scooter use around transit stations. Four major scooter operators, Bird, Lime, Lyft, and Spin, consented to use of their data in these aggregated forms. Note that in many of these cities, smaller scooter companies also operate but were not included in the analysis. The five regions were chosen from Populus’ existing partner cities and were selected based on a few additional criteria in order to create a range of cities in terms of density and access to transit. Figure 27 shows the jurisdictions: Arlington County, VA; Baltimore, MD; Cleveland, OH; Indianapolis, IN; and Oakland, CA. Arlington County and Oakland were selected to represent dense, urban environments with more access to transit. Cleveland and Indianapolis were selected to represent more car-centric cities. However, Cleveland is also distinct from Indianapolis in that Cleveland provides numerous transit options as well as a vehicle rebalancing requirement whereby operators are asked to leave scooters in locations that are often near transit stations. Finally, Baltimore has a popular scooter C H A P T E R 4

60 Transit and Micromobility program and is a relatively dense city, but public transit is less accessible across the city. The regions are shown in Table 3 along with the major transit services used in the analysis. Scooter Impacts on Docked Bikeshare To examine the trend in bikeshare trips in relation to the introduction of shared scooters, this report shows weekly or monthly trip docked bike volumes in Arlington County (for Capital Bikeshare, which operates across the D.C. region) and Oakland (Bay Wheels, which operates around the Bay Area; until June 2019 the system was known as Ford GoBike). Figure 28a shows weekly trip volumes for Oakland’s docked bikeshare system from July 2017 to October 2019. In Oakland, dockless shared scooters were introduced in September 2018 (indicated by the vertical dashed line). As shown in the figure, trip volumes for the docked bikeshare system declined from October to December 2018, around the time of the introduction of scooters, but also coinciding with likely seasonal variation. Then the docked trip volume increased again starting in January 2019, and despite considerable fluctuation, the overall trend was growth in the use of docked bikeshare. Arlington County shows clearer seasonal fluctuation in docked bike use (with large drop-offs in winter) than is visible in the Oakland example. Figure 28b shows weekly trip volumes from January 2017 through November 2019. Shared e-scooters were launched in early October 2018, Source: Populus. Figure 27. Cities or counties where scooter use data were approved for use in this study.

Implications for Transit Agencies 61   as indicated by the vertical dashed line. Docked bikeshare trips appeared to decline slightly overall from 2017 to 2019, but it is unclear if that is linked to the availability of scooters. In both regions, it is unclear whether a decline in dock-based bike trips soon after the introduction of scooters was a result of the introduction of a dockless system or a consequence of seasonality or other operational factors. 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 To better understand dockless vehicle use in relation to transit stations in the five regions, the researchers used trip origin and destination counts within the jurisdictions. Overlaid with the trip starts and ends are the locations of major transit stations. For the regions explored, stops for basic local bus service were not included because of their ubiquity throughout the cities; stops more typically within walking distance to one’s home makes the analysis difficult to meaning- fully parse. However, bus rapid transit (BRT) was used in Indianapolis and Cleveland, which in both cases have fewer stops, more frequent service, faster boarding, and more direct routes through the downtown core. Using the data from the four major scooter operators where they are active, trip origin and destination counts were aggregated over the service areas in each of the regions. Figure 29 visualizes scooter use across the regions, with the darker-shaded areas experiencing more trip starts and ends. Data represent one month of trips in October 2019. In general, in all the cities, more trips occurred in the urban core and in university campus areas. What varied between the cities was the type and location of available transit. It is difficult to link trips starting and ending to connections to transit, but understanding use patterns of shared scooters is a first step. The densely populated suburban jurisdictions of Oakland and Arlington County (Figures 29a and 29b, respectively) show more trip starts and ends in the vicinity of major transit stops, both regional heavy-rail lines. In Cleveland and Indianapolis, both the center cities of smaller metropolitan markets (Figures 29c and 29d, respectively), there was some correlation with BRT lines, but in Cleveland there was less alignment with heavy- and light-rail line stations outside the urban core. In Baltimore (Figure 29e) the areas with the most trip starts and ends did not line up with the locations of the major transit stops as was the case in Oakland and Arlington. City/County Population (2018 est.) Dockless Micromobility Service Area Major Transit Services Used for Location Analysis Arlington County, VA 238,000 County limits with some restricted areas (i.e., the Pentagon) Metro Baltimore, MD 602,000 City limits with equity zone distribution requirements Light RailLink, Metro SubwayLink, MARC Cleveland, OH 384,000 City limits with rebalancing locations focused in certain parts of the city Rapid Transit (Red Line), Light Rail (Green, Blue, Waterfront), Bus Rapid Transit Indianapolis, IN 867,000 City limits with access zone and high utilization distribution requirements IndyGo Bus Rapid Transit (Red Line) Oakland, CA 429,000 City limits BART Table 3. Study regions and their major transit services.

62 Transit and Micromobility (a). Oakland GoBike/Bay Wheels docked system weekly ridership, June 2017–October 2019. Dockless scooters were introduced in early September 2018. (b). Arlington Capital Bikeshare docked system weekly ridership, January 2017–November 2019. Dockless scooters were introduced in early October 2018. Note: The vertical dashed lines indicate the introduction of dockless shared scooters. Figure 28. Docked bikeshare trip volumes.

Implications for Transit Agencies 63   (a). Oakland, CA. (b). Arlington County, VA. Figure 29. Relative numbers of dockless shared-scooter trips in Oakland, CA, Arlington, VA, Cleveland, OH, Indianapolis, IN, and Baltimore, MD. (continued on next page)

64 Transit and Micromobility (c). Cleveland, OH. (d). Indianapolis, IN. Figure 29. (Continued).

Implications for Transit Agencies 65   Trip Proportions near Major Transit Stops Operator-provided data cannot definitively prove which scooter trips were being used as first- or last-mile connections to transit, which would require trip-chaining data or continuous observation of the same individuals to confirm. However, the data can be used to observe where shared-scooter trips were starting or ending in proximity to transit (as in the previous section and illustrated in Figure 29). To pair with the maps, the five charts in Figure 30 show the percentage of trip origins or destinations (aggregated to the zones visualized in the hex areas in Figure 29) that were within a specified distance of a major transit station: ⅛ mile, ¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1 mile. The buffer assumes the stations are points, which may not accurately describe larger metro stations with multiple entrances and exits, but larger metro stations should be captured with the smallest (⅛ mile) buffer. In general, Arlington, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Oakland appear to show some correla- tion between the location of trip starts and ends and major transit stops. This is also true in the cities without any distribution requirements as there could be other confounding factors, such as proximity to restaurants, work, and other popular destinations, that are common to the urban core areas. Oakland and Arlington County (Figures 30a and 30b, respectively) both primarily have metro stations in their dense downtowns, with rail lines connecting to the primary urban cores of their regions. In Arlington County, 42% of trip origins or destinations fell within ⅛ mile of a metro station, and in Oakland 30% did. At lower levels of association, the rapid transit and light rail in Cleveland and BRT in Indianapolis (Figures 30c and 30d, respectively) saw less than 20% of scooter trips starting or ending within ⅛ mile. In all these cities, three-quarters or more of scooter trips (and as high as 99%) started or ended within 1 mile of major public transit services. (e). Baltimore, MD. Source: Populus analysis of scooter company data. Figure 29. (Continued).

66 Transit and Micromobility (b). Arlington County, VA. (a). Oakland, CA. (c). Cleveland, OH. (Note: BRT is the top line.) Figure 30. Number of trips within 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile of major transit stations.

Implications for Transit Agencies 67   Standing out among these transit systems is the BRT in Cleveland, which includes three routes throughout the city with over 100 stops, and had 68% of scooter trips within ⅛ mile. Like a more traditional bus route, Cleveland’s BRT has frequent stops, particularly in the dense, well-connected areas that typically support more scooter activity. It is unclear whether the high proportion of nearby scooter trips was actually being used to connect to transit; however, given the moderate levels of scooter activity near Cleveland’s other transit stops, it seems unlikely that the BRT is unique in attracting an extraordinary number of riders. More likely the data are just showing trips that are in the same destination-dense corridors but not necessarily connecting. Also possibly confounding the analysis is Cleveland’s policy requiring that scooters be rebalanced to locations within commercial districts and near transit stations, bus stops, recreation centers, libraries, and parks. It is difficult to disentangle the distribution requirements to transit stations from what is observed with the origins and destinations location data. (d). Indianapolis, IN. Source: Populus analysis of dockless shared-scooter trip data. (e). Baltimore, MD. Figure 30. (Continued).

68 Transit and Micromobility In Baltimore, the pattern of usage appears to differ from the other cities. Referring to Figure 30e, areas of high scooter use do not appear to line up with the location of Metro, light rail, or MARC stations. In terms of proximity to transit, the curve of the distance to transit lines is more gradual and rises to lower peaks (less than 60%) than in the other regions, indicating a smaller proportion of trips even at some remove from transit but still potentially connecting to it. In fact, only 2% to 6% of trips started or ended within ⅛ mile of any of the transit stations, and this range only rises to 4% to 15% within ¼ mile of a station. The areas experiencing more trip starts and ends are located around the Inner Harbor, along main north–south corridors, and around some of the universities in the city. These locations do not line up with where non-bus transit is located. Baltimore does have one of the more popular scooter programs observed, but acting as a first- or last-mile solution may not be one of the main use cases for shared scooter users there. Changes in Use of Transit and Other Modes Since the researchers cannot say strictly from the analysis illustrated in the previous section whether the addition of shared scooters changed transit use, survey data can help inform the understanding of scooter user behavior. The metro area survey specifically asked users how their use of transit and other modes had changed since they started using shared scooters. Across metro areas (and again using frequency-weighted measures), the largest percentage of scooter users said they saw either no change, more use, or significantly more use of transit since they began using shared scooters (see Figure 31). However, approximately 20% to 30% of scooter users indicated they were using transit less or significantly less often than before. Given these responses, it is reasonable to say that for some Figure 31. Scooter user response to how their transit use behavior changed since they started using shared scooters.

Implications for Transit Agencies 69   people, scooters have replaced or reduced public transit trips (as also suggested in Figure 25). For others, the addition of scooters may have increased public transit use because it enables them to more quickly and easily access transit. Funding/Financing Impacts, Civil Rights, and Other Agency Concerns Transit agencies may struggle to understand the potential risks and benefits of leveraging, partnering, and actively managing shared micromobility services. Transit agencies need more information on the experiences of their peers and the potential funding, civil rights, and service quality implications of a growing micromobility market. This section summarizes three of the key risk areas for transit agencies. This analysis is not comprehensive but investigates key implications for transit agencies in greater detail. • 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 increasing ridership and revenue for the public transit system. Transit agencies have limited operational funds to invest in new service types, but capital funds can be used to support micromobility infrastructure. • Civil rights and social equity implications – Transit agencies are federally required to ensure equitable access to their programs but lack specific guidance from the FTA on how that applies to agency partnerships with micromobility services. Transit agencies seeking mobility- manager status must consider ways to help transform micromobility services from a private, permitted amenity that is available to those who can access and pay for it to a public mobility option that breaks down systemic barriers to mobility and access. • Transit rider experience implications – Whether or not they are operated in partnership with transit agencies, shared micromobility services have the potential to benefit transit riders’ experience by alleviating peak-period crowding on transit (Pucher and Buehler 2009) and rider demand for bringing devices on board. However, shared micromobility services could also reduce the quality of the rider experience if device parking and use are not well planned in and around stations and stops. Further, the current digital experience of trip planning, booking, and payment is disaggregated. As the global micromobility industry evolves, its full effects on transit agencies and the services they provide are not yet known. This section uses current research or evaluation outcomes (where available) to demonstrate the range of possible micromobility impacts on transit agency operations and customer experience. Funding and Financing Implications Micromobility has positive and negative effects on transit agency funding and financing. Micromobility has potential as a first-/last-mile transit access mode, particularly in major urban areas (Lime 2019). The first-/last-mile use case supports transit ridership and can increase the frequency of transit use, thus increasing an agency’s fare-box revenue. However, micromobility may also replace shorter transit trips, such as in cases where taking a bike or e-scooter for short distances is more convenient and time efficient than taking a bus or train. Santa Monica’s 2019 shared mobility survey found that 4% of e-scooter trips would have otherwise been made by transit (Santa Monica 2019a). Similarly, the Populus Groundtruth survey data provided in Chapter 3 show the proportion of scooter trips that displace public transit at between 0.5% and 10%, depending on the market. Public Subsidies for Micromobility Operations. Some cities are contemplating publicly subsidizing shared micromobility services to reduce rider trip costs (particularly for riders

70 Transit and Micromobility with low incomes), to create a market for micromobility in underserved and disadvantaged areas, and to support the long-term financial sustainability of these services. Many dock-based bike- share systems have received public support, and cities and transit agencies could further extend this level of subsidization so that newer micromobility systems—such as dockless bike and e-scooter share systems—can scale and provide more options when and where people need them and at potentially lower prices in some circumstances. Subsidies could be used to encourage broader use of active transportation and public transit, and ultimately, a long-term mode shift. Some cities initially aimed to have bikeshare systems be self-sustaining and funded through revenue, but due to the expense of operations, subsidies remained necessary, especially to expand services into underserved areas. Private interest in operating bikeshare systems without govern- ment subsidy has increased and accelerated with the introduction of free-floating micromobility technology. However, a city takes on inherent risks when it shifts from a publicly owned and operated mobility model to a privately owned one. As with any other contracted service, if the privately owned micromobility operator goes out of business or simply leaves a market, a juris- diction can be left without any micromobility service. The risk of operator exit could be greater without an operating contract or subsidy. Limited Operational Funding Sources. Operational funding for micromobility systems is harder to come by for cities and transit agencies. For the purposes of federal funding, the FTA does not consider bikeshare a form of public transportation, and it does not define micro- mobility specifically (FTA 2020d). Certain capital costs associated with bikesharing, such as the cost of installing docking stations and infrastructure, though not of the bikes themselves, can be covered by FTA funding programs when functionally related to public transportation. The Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority (COMET) in Columbia, SC, provides an example of a transit agency using FTA formula funds to support the expansion of bikeshare as a first-/last-mile amenity for its riders. The agency’s approach is described in Chapter 5. The FTA provides some guidance on capital or operational funding eligibility for e-scooters and other micromobility services (FTA 2020a; FTA 2020b). Given the potential for shared micromobility services beyond bikeshare to support public transportation, as docked bike- share does, transit agencies may benefit from further guidance and new sources of operational funding if they are to financially support micromobility services. Funding Examples. Many docked and privately operated bikeshare systems, such as Bay Wheels (San Francisco Bay Area) and Citi Bike (New York City), rely on advertising revenue for operational funding. Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C., and Divvy Bikeshare in Chicago were initially operated or capitalized with public funding, including local and federal funds. Capital Bikeshare still operates with a public subsidy, but in 2019, Divvy shifted to private owner- ship with Lyft through a 9-year contract. Lyft is investing $50 million in Divvy and is additionally required to make annual payments to the city, starting at $6 million and increasing by 4% each year. The city of Chicago and Lyft share revenue (Buckley 2019). A number of examples exist of micromobility systems subsidized through transit agency partnerships. Micromobility partnerships that are underway could provide guidance on how transit agencies could subsidize micromobility in the future, especially in markets where operators would have trouble operating profitably. For example, in the Greater Dayton RTA’s partnership with e-scooter operator Spin, RTA provides staff time (device pickup, charging, and drop-off), while Spin provides the vehicles themselves and operates the digital platform. The staff time provided by RTA offsets Spin’s overall operating costs, enabling it to operate in Dayton, which it would have been unable to do otherwise. Another example is Kansas City Area Transportation Authority’s (KCATA) funding of bike and scooter share through a contract and partnership with a local nonprofit (RideKC Bike 2020). Los Angeles’s docked Metro Bike

Implications for Transit Agencies 71   Share system is funded by LA Metro (through the region’s Measure R sales tax revenue) and is explicitly part of its transit system (LA Metro 2020a). Metro’s bikeshare subsidy is about $8 per ride (LA Metro 2019b). The COMET, in Columbia, SC, uses FTA formula funds to buy stations and support transit rider use of docked bikeshare. These partnerships are described in greater detail in Chapter 5. These examples do not cover direct-to-consumer subsidies, which is a model being used to support first-/last-mile connections by ride-hailing companies. In those examples, such as the Sacramento Regional Transit District’s (SacRT) 2016 pilot to alleviate parking demand at its Golden 1 sports arena, and Solano Transportation Authority’s (STA) ongoing pilot to connect county employees with regional rail, the transit agency directly subsidizes each eligible customer fare. Customers typically use a ride code within the app to access the subsidy; at the end of the month, the ride-hailing company invoices the transit agency for all eligible trips in the subsidized program (Curtis et al. 2019). This subsidy model could be used for a micromobility system. However, because a transit agency cannot digitally verify the trips, this approach requires a high level of trust between the private operators and the governing agency. An invoice-based subsidy system therefore requires a considerable amount of staff time to verify. The only way for transit agencies to scale such a program is to use a data-sharing protocol, such as the MDS, to link known micromobility trips to known transit trips in the data architecture. From the customer perspective, this could mean booking and paying both for transit and micromobility trips within the same application. Only those micromobility trips that truly serve the purpose of the program (e.g., first-/last-mile connectivity) would be subsidized. Infrastructure Funding The public and private sectors have an interest in developing micromobility infrastructure such as parking corrals and protected bike lanes. Guidance published by local municipalities and the FTA established before the growth of dockless micromobility models remains relevant and should be referenced. Pioneering cities like Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Seattle have experimented with micromobility infrastructure to achieve better outcomes in public-space management. Private companies have yet to show the capacity to fund public micromobility infrastructure at scale (and likely will never do so), so transit agencies and local jurisdictions should partner to improve infrastructure. With improved infrastructure, transit agencies can reap the benefits of more seamless connections between transit and micromobility services. If micromobility users are supported with safe routes to destinations with dedicated lanes and easy-to-locate parking locations, transit agencies could see ridership and revenue increase as well as improved customer satisfaction. Case Studies. Examples of private-sector infrastructure funding are limited, and the private sector’s approach has changed over the last few years. In 2018, Bird created its own voluntary program to pay cities $1 per scooter per day to contribute to local micromobility infrastruc- ture investments (Schmitt 2019). However, by early 2019, Bird ended the voluntary program (Schmitt 2019). Through their permit programs, some cities now require a similar fee to support micromobility infrastructure funding. And while the per-scooter-per-day voluntary payment from scooter companies did not last, at least one company is now piloting the use of its own charging stations, which controls its operational costs by reducing rebalancing needs and supports cities’ goals to organize micromobility devices and keep sidewalks clear. Portland. PBOT collects a per-scooter-trip surcharge. Revenue collected from the sur- charge, fees, and penalties funds the city’s New Mobility Account, which covers costs related

72 Transit and Micromobility to program administration and enforcement, safe travel infrastructure, and expanded and affordable access (PBOT 2020a, 2020b). Phoenix and San Francisco. Scooter company Spin installed “Spin Hubs” in Phoenix— docking stations that also charge scooters. Spin was the only operational scooter company in the city’s yearlong pilot, which ran through September 2020. The hubs were operational in two other pilots on private property in Ann Arbor, MI, and Washington, D.C. (Stone 2020; Teale 2020). In spring of 2020, the company announced an extension of the concept to a larger transit-adjacent mobility hub concept, located alongside private bike parking at the Caltrain SF Bike Hub, operated by Tranzito, in San Francisco (Skinny Labs/Spin 2020). Civil Rights and Social Equity Implications Shared micromobility services have the potential to increase access and mobility. However, this outcome is not guaranteed for all segments of the population or in all geographies or times of day, and left unmanaged, micromobility has the potential to exacerbate historical inequalities. While bike- and scooter-sharing companies have made voluntary investments to broaden the reach of their services, local incentives or requirements are often required to ensure access in neighborhoods with few transportation options, to ensure reservation and payment options for people without smartphones, and to ensure options for people with disabilities. Research into scooter-share perceptions and use indicated that public support for micromobility was higher among low-income groups (Clewlow 2019a), but several cities’ pilot evaluations since then have indicated difficulty in reaching this population through low-income fare programs (see PBOT 2019 and Santa Monica 2019a, for example). There are implications for transit agencies con- sidering partnerships with micromobility services because they have federal requirements to ensure access for people with disabilities and to all regardless of race, color, or national origin, and because communities of color are disproportionately low income. Background on FTA Guidance While the FTA provides broad guidance on the relevance of bikesharing for transit agencies, this guidance is limited to general information and the cases where FTA funding can be used for bikesharing capital costs. As of early summer 2021, FTA had not issued guidance concerning any other micromobility modes. In an interview with the research team, representatives from FTA’s legal and innovation groups indicated that they had not received any inbound requests from transit agencies seeking clarified guidance on transit agencies’ roles and responsibilities as related to partnerships with other micromobility modes (FTA 2020e). The FTA does not interpret micromobility—including public bikeshare systems—as public transportation. The statutory definition (49 U.S.C. § 5302) of public transportation is “regular, continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that are open to the general public or a segment of the general public defined by age, disability, or low-income” (FTA 2020a). Public transportation is considered “shared ride,” in the sense that multiple customers use the same vehicle concurrently. Bikeshare and other micromobility modes are considered “shared use” because individuals do not share the same ride on micromobility devices but instead access a shared fleet of vehicles at different times. There are no plans to adjust or reinterpret the statutory definition of public transportation. Any changes to the wording of the statutory definition of public transportation would require an act of Congress. Under this definition and current guidance, there is also no requirement (nor means) for micromobility rides to be included in National Transit Database (NTD) reporting, even if provided on services subsidized or directly operated by a transit agency.

Implications for Transit Agencies 73   However, the FTA considers bicycle facilities and improvements to be “functionally related” to transit when they are located within a 3-mile radius of a transit station or bus stop and, therefore, considers them eligible capital investments for some FTA funding programs (49 USC 5302). The ADA and Expanding Micromobility to People with Disabilities The ADA applies to transit agency services regardless of whether transit services are supported with federal funding. The Micromobility and the Built Environment section of Chapter 2 dis- cusses possible access conflicts when micromobility devices block wheelchair and pedestrian access to transit stations and stops. Public transit agencies clearly understand their responsibility under the ADA to maintain access to their services; however, transit agencies lack guidance regarding the eligibility of federal capital funds for micromobility infrastructure (beyond bike- share). Further, the ADA applies to transit agency actions regardless of whether federal funding is used. Therefore, when engaged as a micromobility funding or operational partner, transit agencies could benefit from explicit guidance regarding adaptive micromobility requirements. Though transit agencies lack specific guidance, some cities have experimented with programs that include accessible micromobility devices. Adaptive micromobility vehicles include hand cycles for individuals with no or limited leg movement; three- and four-wheel cycles for those who need more stability or support; hand-and-foot–powered cycles, tandem cycles, and cycles of smaller sizes. Additionally, the private sector’s introduction of e-bikes and e-scooters into the micromobility market has also increased the accessibility of micromobility for people with certain types of disabilities. Individuals who find it difficult to power traditional bicycles unassisted may have an easier time using e-bikes and e-scooters (SDOT 2019a). Case Studies Seattle DOT’s Adaptive Cycles Program. SDOT found that it had difficulty incentivizing private micromobility operators to provide adaptive micromobility vehicles during its initial free-floating bikeshare permit program in 2018 (SDOT 2018). In the following permit period, SDOT partnered with the nonprofit Outdoors for All to provide adaptive cycles for Seattle resi- dents. Though offered at limited times and locations, Outdoors for All provided free rentals of adaptive cycles throughout the summer of 2019 and brought adaptive cycles to multiple events in Seattle (SDOT 2019b). Oakland Adaptive Cycles and Scooters Programs. The city of Oakland launched a similar program with a partnership between the Bay Area Outreach & Recreation Program (BORP), an adaptive sports nonprofit, and Bay Wheels (Lyft) to provide access to adaptive cycles. Two days a week during the summer of 2019, adaptive bikes were available to any person with disabilities with Lyft’s Bay Wheels app. Additionally, Oakland made adaptive options a requirement for its e-scooter permit program in 2019. Lime has provided e-scooters with a seat, intended for riders unable to use standing e-scooters (Rudick 2020). The private market provides accessible micromobility vehicles, beyond e-bikes and e-scooters, in limited markets. Cities struggle to find the best way to operationalize a shared, adaptive micromobility service that supports the general transportation needs of people with disabilities. However, the Oakland example demonstrates that with the growth of e-scooters, we may see more adaptive e-scooter devices enter the market, particularly in major urban markets. Transit agencies that partner with micromobility operators or operate their own micromobility systems will benefit from cities’ experiences piloting adaptive devices. Title VI and Other Racial and Social Equity Concerns Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial

74 Transit and Micromobility assistance. For transit agencies, this covers any activities funded by the FTA (although there are limited FTA operational funding programs). While the FTA provides guidance on how to apply Title VI generally to all transit agency programs, available guidance is not explicit on requirements related to micromobility opera- tions. In a 2016 “Dear Colleague” letter that serves as key federal guidance on transit agencies’ civil rights responsibilities regarding shared mobility, then U.S. DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx wrote: Given that communities of color are disproportionally low-income, each public transit agency has an obligation under Title VI to ensure that alternative methods of both payment and reservations are available. Most TNCs [transportation network companies] currently lack accessible vehicles for persons with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs. When your agency enters into a covered partnership with a TNC, however, you must ensure that your service is accessible to and usable by persons along the full spectrum of disabilities, including both physical and intellectual disabilities (U.S. DOT 2016). The letter references “service operated under contract or other arrangement or relationship with private entities,” but does not name bikeshare, scooter share, or micromobility specifically. Similarly, most of FTA’s shared mobility guidance focuses on the ADA and Title VI implications of agency partnerships with ride-hailing and microtransit services. Given the different nature of micromobility as compared to ride-hail or demand-responsive transit options, transit agencies could benefit from more specific guidance regarding micromobility. However, regarding the applicability of Title VI to public transit and shared mobility in ways beyond what is specifically discussed in its guidance, the FTA does state (emphasis added): The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the broad, institution-wide application of Title VI. Title VI covers all of the operations of covered entities without regard to whether specific portions of the covered program or activity are federally funded. The term “program or activity” means all of the operations of a department, agency, special purpose district, or government; or the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government. Therefore, compliance with this Circular does not relieve a recipient from the requirements and responsibilities of the DOT Title VI regulation at 49 CFR part 21, or any other requirements under other Federal agencies’ Title VI regulations, as applicable. This Circular only provides guidance on the transit- related aspects of an entity’s activities. Recipients are responsible for ensuring that all of their activities are in compliance with Title VI. In other words, a recipient may engage in activities not described in the Circular, such as ridesharing programs, roadway incident response programs, or other programs not funded by FTA, and those programs must also be administered in a nondiscriminatory manner (FTA 2020c). Beyond Title VI, cities and transit agencies recognize their role in ensuring racial and social equity. As such, jurisdictions regulating or operating micromobility systems have built permit requirements and incentives to expand access beyond owners of smartphones and to low- income communities. Many cities require or provide cash payment options, materials in different languages, non-smartphone access, low-income discount programs, and geographic distribu- tion to underserved areas. Cities are still experimenting with different policy levers to achieve racial and social equity goals, and most recognize that there is a gap in how their regulations translate to outcomes (Santa Monica 2019b). Rider Experience Implications Some of the impacts of micromobility on transit rider experience are not yet well under- stood. The impact of newer micromobility services on transit operations is not well studied, but guidance on designing for bike/transit integration is well established. In 2018, APTA published

Implications for Transit Agencies 75   “Bicycle Transit Integration: A Practical Transit Agency Guide to Bicycle Integration and Equitable Mobility,” which states (emphasis added): Business access and transit (BAT) lanes function as on-street ROW for transit buses. These dedicated bus lanes are intended to bypass automobile traffic and allow transit vehicles to run faster and maintain schedules during peak travel periods. On high traffic streets without bike lanes, cyclists may gravitate to BAT lanes for relative safety. While these lower traffic volume lanes (compared with open traffic lanes) may be attractive for cyclists, the presence of bicycles may interfere with on-time performance and bus operations. On-street separation of bicycles from BAT lanes is generally recommended but sharing BAT lanes may be appropriate in some instances, such as short connections with other bike routes, lower-frequency routes or other unique instances (APTA 2018). Shared micromobility services also have the potential to alleviate demand for personal micro- mobility devices on buses and trains. For example, Caltrain in the Bay Area is studying this potential as it anticipates significant ridership growth over the next 20 years and already has limited capacity for onboard devices. APTA encourages transit agencies to partner with bike- share operators to produce consistent educational materials on the proper way to integrate bikeshare with transit (APTA 2018), but the specific effect of shared micromobility availability on rider demand for onboard personal devices has not been studied. Digital Experience Part of the rider experience comes from the set of digital tools individuals use to navigate a multimodal system. These tools include trip planning, booking, and payment. Often referred to as “mobility as a service,” or MaaS, this integration of the digital experience of multiple trans- portation modes has been posited as a strategy to generate transit ridership, use other sustain- able modes, and improve the overall experience of the mobility system. The theory is that “by providing tailored solutions to individual users according to their needs and those of the system as a whole, MaaS enables not only more efficient usage of transport infrastructure, but also a better customer experience” (Veerapanane et al. 2018, quoted in Smith et al. 2020, 163). To date, implementation of MaaS has been limited to a few European pilots, such as Whim in Helsinki and UbiGo in Sweden, but these pilots show promise for MaaS, at least partially due to the integrated digital experience. Case Studies UbiGo – Sweden. Implemented in Gothenburg as a 6-month pilot between November 2013 and April 2014, UbiGo created a booking, payment, subscription, and incentive platform for transit, bikeshare, carshare, car rental, and taxis. UbiGo offered a monthly subscription for mobility service packages and rewarded customers with points that could be redeemed for goods and services. A study of the UbiGo pilot found that 44% of participants used private cars less often, and 46% used buses more often. Further, it showed a 50% decrease in private car usage alongside increased use of all other modes except walking (Karlsson et al. 2017). Whim – Finland. Operational in Helsinki, Whim is a MaaS platform that combines taxis, rental cars, bikeshare, and public transit and the ability to plan, book, and pay for trips. The program offers several mobility subscription packages at different price points. A study of customers’ mode choice in 2018 found that program participants were much more likely to use transit than the general population (73% versus 48%), but that participants were much less likely to walk or bike than the general population (29% versus 44%). The study also examined the link between bikeshare and transit and found evidence of multimodal trip-chaining. For example, 12% of bike trips were taken within 30 minutes before a public transit trip, and 30% of bike trips were taken within 90 minutes after a public transit trip (Ramboll 2019).