Background/History

E-scooter sharing benefits from the convergence of several technologies. The mode synthesizes affordable battery technology and the low-cost mobile computing and communications technology that underpins dockless bikesharing. The scooters themselves started out as inexpensive commodity devices, with a cost much lower than that of the heavy-duty bikes used for traditional bikeshare, that could be rapidly manufactured and delivered by the container. With user-facing technologies derived from ridehailing and dockless bikes, this combination of factors enabled a quick deployment to a customer base capable of readily taking up new technologies and service models. Anybody with access to a smartphone and a bank card or online payment account can download an app, find a charged scooter, unlock it, and rent it on a per-ride basis.

The breakneck evolution of dockless micromobility (i.e. bikesharing and scooter sharing, for now) from privately owned bicycles and station-based public bikeshare outpaced regulation in its early stages, and many local codes did not have any clear regulation for, or even definition on, dockless shared vehicles, especially those deployed by private parties. Just as dockless bikesharing faced a backlash among the public and elected officials when first introduced, e-scooters faced negative media attention for their operations and parking. Early start-ups saturated key intersections with scooters and announced their availability through social media and street outreach. The services elicited protests both for their aesthetics and for their creation of new obstacles to travel on the public right of way. 

Along with dockless bikes, shared scooters represented an entirely new way for private entities to use (and make money from) the public way, which many cities were not statutorily prepared to contemplate. With thousands of the vehicles showing up uninvited just a few years after ridehail companies had used similar tactics to stake out their markets, many jurisdictions announced outright bans on scooter sharing (at least temporarily), while other cities piloted ways to explore the services while they developed permitting processes to better align their deployment with public goals. 

The mode remains popular regardless of the additional regulation. According to the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), there were 88.5 million shared scooter rides in 2019, a massive increase from 38.5 million rides in 2018. E-scooter share operators have also become acquisition targets for larger mobility companies such as Lyft and Ford. Other e-scooter companies have undergone massive growth, like Bird, which became a publicly-traded company in 2021. This reflects a larger trend towards consolidation in the industry. For more information on the growth of this mode, please see the 2021 Highlights from SUMC’s Metro Profile Updates.

This learning module will examine definitions of electric scooter sharing; ways that jurisdictions have planned for the arrival and operation of the mode, along with model policies; public-private partnerships; and finally, case studies on scooter sharing.

Next Subsection

Definitions

Shared Electric Scooters The users of these vehicles, also called “electric kick scooters,” stand on the scooter, which has smaller wheels than an e-bike—typically less than 16 inches. Most often, users begin the trip under human propulsion with a kick, then proceed to throttle via an electric motor. Similar powered seated scooters (i.e. kick scooters with a saddle) also exist, with a footrest on the base of the vehicle.

Shared Electric Mopeds These vehicles fall between e-bikes and motorcycles. The user is seated, and the vehicle is solely powered by the electric motor. The motor and operational speeds (see the California DMV definitions) are low enough that many states do not require additional licenses or endorsements beyond those required for an automobile. The sharing technology is also app-driven.

Source: Revel

Previous Subsection

Type of Service

The technology that enables electric scooter sharing evolved from bikesharing’s “smart bike” model, and it operates similarly: a smartphone app allows users to register for the service, locate and unlock/lock vehicles, and pay for rides. The scooters contain GPS and mobile telemetry units to communicate their status to the operator. Most scooters communicate a constant stream of data “breadcrumbs” that allows operators (and regulators) to monitor route, speed, maintenance needs, operating and parking location, and in some cases, incursions into geographies or parts of the right of way where they are forbidden.   

Shared electric mopeds tend to borrow from (also relatively new) free-floating carsharing technology. Like their privately owned, gas-powered forebears, shared electric mopeds tend to share regulations that are beginning to be based on power output or speed. Smaller vehicles usually require a standard automobile license, as opposed to a motorcycle license, and operate in the public right of way. Although the regulations vary by state, the California DMV provides a helpful illustrated guide along with their descriptions.

Both types of shared fleets are accessed via a smartphone app. The scooters contain all of the electronics and locking mechanisms, and can be tracked by the user, operator, and if relevant, the regulating agency.

Next Subsection

Safety

Safety is a prime concern for scooter sharing systems. A study on scooter share safety conducted by the Austin Public Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that first-time users were especially likely to crash. The first of its kind, the study looks at scooter share safety by examining emergency room visits followed by telephone interviews. Just as with bikesharing, safe streets, access to helmets, and equitable enforcement of traffic laws should be examined. Seated scooters and other more stable vehicle formats might also be more accessible to users with disabilities that make stand-up scooters not feasible to use. The CDC study also found that infrastructure issues such as potholes and limited protected lanes also contributed to increased risk for accidents. These issues require a more comprehensive approach by cities to build-out micromobility infrastructure. Such investments benefit all users from those operating their own bikes to bikeshare and e-scooter programs and are important to assure a safe operating environment and to promote their use.

Some cities, such as Seattle in 2018, banned scooters altogether due to concerns about safety. However, Seattle reintroduced scooters in 2020 with updated safety rules. Some of this willingness to open doors back up to scooter companies may be due to data coming out of cities suggesting safety concerns can be managed. For example, in Portland, OR, there were 176 scooter-related emergency room visits from July 25 to November 20, 2018, which the city stipulates was fewer than the number of bicycle injuries over the same period.

Scooter companies are aware that concern regarding scooter safety is a major obstacle to greater deployment and use. In July 2019, Lime launched its Public Policy and Safety Advisory Board to help develop city-level micromobilty regulations. Another major operator, Bird, launched a 100-city tour to increase safety through virtual and in-person rider trainings.

Most cities do not require helmet-use for scooter users over 18 years, although there are free helmet distribution programs in several cities. For SFMTA’s scooter share pilot program, increasing helmet access was a safety priority for the agency, despite state law not requiring scooter riders to use them. As part of the permitting requirements, the SFMTA included a criterion for promoting and distributing helmets to riders to encourage their use. As a result, permittees distributed 1,775 free helmets to users through events or upon request. Helmet use was further monitored by the SFMTA as a safety performance indicator, and permittees were encouraged to investigate the feasibility of including a helmet with each scooter rental.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Data Specifications

As a new form of micromobility, scooter sharing systems often use the same data standards as bikeshare systems. The General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) is the most well-established data standard for micromobility services, and is used by more than 520 bikeshare and scooter share providers worldwide. GBFS makes real-time information available to users relating to availability of vehicles or docks. GBFS is intended to be open to the public, and thus does not include data on routes, users, or locations during trips, mainly to account for the privacy of users.

Many systems, like Oakland, CA, Chicago IL, Miami, FL, and Minneapolis, MN, use the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) for their scooter sharing systems. MDS is another data specification for use by micromobility providers, and is also intended to inform policymakers, planners, and regulators. MDS can provide information on what vehicles are in operation, battery charge, trip data, location, cost, and vehicle condition. 

More information on these data specifications can be found here:

GBFS:

1. MobilityData GBFS Resource Center
2. NABSA: “GBFS & Open Data”
3. GitHub Repository for GBFS
4. GBFS Slack Channel

MDS:

1. Open Mobility Foundation’s GitHub Repository for MDS
2. Shared-Use Mobility Center: “Mobility Data Specification: A Data Standard for Shared Mobility Providers, Los Angeles, California, 2018”

Previous Subsection

Disadvantaged Communities

There is a precedent in pilot projects and programs for other modes (e.g. free-floating carsharing) to require location of a minimum number of vehicles within lower-income or otherwise transportation disadvantaged neighborhoods. The scooter pilot in Chicago adopted these principles to require the scooter companies to re-balance a percentage of their vehicles within two priority zones every morning. Per the city’s regulations, 25% of e-scooter fleets must be distributed to areas deemed to have the highest need for mobility options. This initiative has shown promise, with a Lime report of the city’s scooter share pilot program showing that nearly 40% of rides had started or ended in those priority neighborhoods. However, some equity advocacy groups note that distribution requirements are not enough to fully address equity, and that those requirements should be coupled with community-building work to foster a long-lasting, operational commitment to mobility justice. Following the pilot, Chicago recently implemented a permanent program incorporated under its Divvy system. Under this system, low income residents can get an annual membership for $5 under the Divvy 4 Everyone program. 

Oakland, California also includes an equity clause in their scooter regulations that requires a program to serve lower-income residents. As currently formulated, the program offers $5 annual memberships to lower-income residents. 

Other examples of cities working to ensure equitable access to scooters include:

• Requiring operators to facilitate cash payment options for the unbanked and/or non-smartphone options and/or discounted membership plans for low-income riders (San Francisco, CA):
• Establishing distribution requirements in certain geographic areas (Milwaukee, WI) or related incentives like the ability for operators to increase fleet size if they meet certain distribution goals (Denver, CO).
• Requiring community outreach & engagement efforts (Santa Monica, CA).

Next Subsection

Adaptive Scooter Share

Some scooter sharing programs have also made efforts to make systems more accessible for users with physical disabilities. For example, the Oakland Department of Transportation (DOT) and Lime launched the first e-scooter program for riders with disabilities in the US. These adaptive scooters include an installed seat and wider handlebars to better accommodate users with limited mobility. As another example, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) now requires that any scooter share permittees operating in the area include a variety of adaptive scooters in their fleets. Adaptive vehicles in these systems include 3-wheeled scooters and scooters with seats.

Source

Previous Subsection

Environmental Impact

The study of the possible environmental benefits of electric scooter sharing is in its early stages. Any mode that encourages an overall mode shift from single occupancy vehicle (SOV) car trips might positively impact the environment. In its 2018 evaluation, Portland, OR found evidence that “suggest[ed] that e-scooters facilitate mode shift, most notably away from walking, single occupancy vehicles, and ride-hailing. Comparing these percentages to the total number of scooter miles traveled during the e-scooter pilot (801,887 miles), we estimate that e-scooters replaced approximately 301,856 vehicle miles that would have been traveled in single occupancy vehicles and other shared vehicle trips” (PBOT, 27).

However, some questions remain about the environmental impact of e-scooters when their overall lifecycle is taken into consideration. For example, a 2019 study from North Carolina State University suggests that the pollution from scooter production (typically in Southeast Asia), shipping to the US, and then deployment and redistribution of the vehicles around a city (typically in cars, trucks, or vans) is greater than pollution from a standard bus with high ridership, an electric moped or an electric bicycle. If a scooter trip were to replace a trip taken by car, it would be more efficient, but the study researchers found that only about one third of scooter users surveyed would have otherwise used a car; almost half said they would have biked or walked if the scooter had not been available.

Many companies are working to make their scooters more environmentally-friendly. For example, Swiftmile produces solar-powered charging stations for dockless scooters, and partners with operators and agencies to add the stations to city transportation landscapes. Though the e-scooters can still operate in a free-form manner, users can dock them at the end of their rides. This sustainably charges the vehicles, reduces the number of scooters that operators need to collect and rebalance, and reduces on sidewalk clutter. These docks are available in several cities in the US, including Austin, TX, Miami, FL, Pittsburgh, PA, and is forthcoming in Chicago, IL.

Overview

Across the US, cities have taken a variety of different tracks to regulate the deployment and use of e-scooters. Some have passed city ordinances that set speed and weight limits for the vehicles and dictate where they are allowed to operate, while others have launched public-right-of-way (PROW) permit programs, where interested operators must apply for permits from the city. These permit requirements often have stipulations regarding minimum and maximum fleet sizes, parking restrictions, data sharing requirements and permit and/or per vehicle costs. Often, city ordinances and operating permits are written to pertain to both e-scooters and dockless bikeshare systems.

One unique challenge of scooter sharing planning is with speed management. Cities running scooter sharing programs must determine a maximum operating speed to coincide with safety concerns, region geography, and infrastructure. Most scooter sharing programs cap the speed at 15-20 miles per hour. Some cities reduce the top speed further through geofencing or disallow riding altogether in certain high-traffic areas like downtowns and shopping districts.

Next Subsection

Regulations

E-scooter sharing has only existed since 2017, yet city and state regulations of the mode are extensive, largely due to unique safety concerns associated with e-scooters. One major concern is not with the scooter operators, but with the vehicles themselves when parked. As such, many cities with scooter sharing programs include provisions in their contracts that prohibit the e-scooters from blocking sidewalks. As an example, Chicago, IL required for its scooter sharing pilot program that all e-scooters be parked in accordance with current bicycle parking regulations, namely out of the way of roads and sidewalks, and further required that vendors be equipped with photographic and geofencing technology to ensure compliance to these laws. These regulations are especially important for the safety of the disability community and compliance with the ADA. In response to a request from the blind community in Charlotte, North Carolina, scooter parking is prohibited in areas adjacent to an Association for the Blind building. 

The Shared-Use Mobility Center maintains a Micromobility Policy Atlas which outlines policies and regulations for scooter sharing programs around the world, including operating rules, equity plans and requirements, data standards, communications, and geofencing guidelines. The Atlas also includes links to original policy and regulatory documents.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Reading

The below examples represent an evolution of scooter policy from an emergency reaction to the adoption of it as a micromobility transportation option.

1. Portland, Oregon: While several years old now, the Portland Bureau of Transportation strategy still serves as an example on how to introduce new mobility technology, as it launched a 120-day pilot program for “shared scooters” (i.e. shared electric kick scooters) in 2018 in response to the proliferation of these vehicles in the public right-of-way. Prior to the pilot program Portland reached out to the scooter sharing operators indicating that they were explicitly not allowed to enter the city but that a process was being worked out to accommodate scooters in the near future through a permit application. The permit application includes FAQ (frequently asked questions) with standard questions regarding maintenance, insurance, operations and further outlines additional service requirements. Following a four month “Shared E-Scooter Pilot” and the subsequent 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report, the City of Portland launched the “E-Scooter Yearlong Pilot” on April 26, 2019. The pilot includes low-income pricing plans, as well as cash payment and non-smart phone options. According to a Portland DOT memo released in March 2020, the department recommends extending the pilot with current permittees through the end of the year.
2. Austin, Texas has developed a dockless mobility clearinghouse that includes permit applications and service requirements.
3. Santa Monica, California: The city passed an emergency ordinance in the spring of 2018 to regulate “shared mobility devices,” which includes scooters. This is significant because the city is the home of the early scooter start-up Bird. Bird was among the four companies that the city chose for its initial 16-month Shared Mobility Pilot Program which launched in September 2018. Although this was an emergency ordinance similar to San Francisco, it moved towards a more all-inclusive model. Since that time, the city has updated its administrative regulations, and the City Council voted to extend the first Pilot Program through June 2020 and established a second pilot program with intensified regulations. A staff report to the city council and Shared Mobility Pilot Program Summary Report were released in November 2019.
4. Boise, Idaho passed a bicycle and scooter sharing ordinance that resembles the Santa Monica view of shared mobility. It is notable in its operational allowances. The State of Idaho grants bicycle users wider allowances than other states, and Boise interprets scooters as bicycles in most contexts. Also, the citys’ trails are ADA-accessible, and they allow adaptive e-bikes on those trails.
5. Columbus, Ohio: After scooters arrived in Columbus around July 2018, the city’s Department of Public Service established regulations in August of that year, requiring operators to apply for a permit before deploying vehicles. The regulations defined the mobility devices, and established their speed and operation on the public right-of-way. They also set a city maximum of 8 operators at a time, with each operator permitted to deploy up to 500 vehicles.
6. Arlington County, Virginia: In response to unsanctioned scooter sharing in their jurisdiction, the city instituted a 9-month scooter and dockless bike Shared Mobility Pilot Program in the fall of 2018. In June 2019, the pilot was extended for another six months, until new regulations went into effect on December 31st, 2019. The updated permit application form is available here, and the final evaluation for the pilot was released September 2019.
7. In May 2019, the Oakland DOT released the latest version of its permit application requirements, which among other stipulations, requires that e-scooters have a  maximum speed of 15mph, and that anonymized real-time data is shared with the city in Mobility Data Standard (MDS) format, as has become standard in many markets across the US.

Chicago, IL: In summer 2019, Chicago launched a 4-month pilot program for e-scooters in the city’s west side neighborhoods. Ten scooters companies were permitted to operate in the geographically-established boundary, with a requirement that 25% of their fleets be located in designated “priority areas” where fewer Divvy bikeshare stations are located. The data from the program made available to the public at the Chicago Open Data Portal, the permit requirements are available here. In January 2020, the city released an evaluation report, which recommended a second pilot program in 2020. In 2021, the city announced an expansion to a permanent program.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Other Policy-related Resources

• NACTO:
  • In September 2019, NACTO updated its Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility, which offers guidelines for cities to manage and regulate e-scooters;
  • 2018 Shared Micromobility in the US report
• Urbanism Next
  • Factsheet on emerging technologies in micromobility, 2020
  • October 2019 report on city-level policy approaches to new mobility
• Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit, 2019
• Select Permit Application Requirements & City Ordinances
  • San Francisco MTA, June 2019 Permit Application
  • Portland DOT, March 2019 Administrative Rule
  • Chicago, IL, 2019 Pilot Permit Requirements
  • Dallas, TX, 2018 City Ordinance, Operational Guidelines and Dockless Vehicle Permit Application

Ann Arbor, MI, April 2019 City Council resolution to grant interim PROW permit Spin as only operator in the city

Previous Subsection

Goals and Performance Metrics

As e-scooter sharing is a relatively new mobility mode, determining program objectives and analyzing progress towards those objectives is vital to a successful system. Scooter sharing program goals are often similar to bikeshare goals; namely, to assist with first/last mile connectivity, to offer a more environmentally friendly alternative to driving, or to generally make a city more mobile and accessible. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) developed several performance metrics for their scooter sharing pilot program in 2019, all relating to specific topic areas. For example, to address ridership and demand, SFMTA’s performance measures examined included: number of unique users, number of trips taken, and trip duration. Furthermore, SFMTA promoted inclusive and equitable service and examined availability and usage of e-scooters as well as outreach in target neighborhoods. As with bikeshare, e-scooters can help further a transportation network’s larger equity goals, and it is equally important to develop equity objectives for scooter sharing programs and be able to measure the program’s performance towards those objectives. 

For more information, please see SUMC’s learning module on setting project goals and performance metrics.

Next Subsection

Partnership Considerations

The shared electric scooter mode is relatively young, as of the writing of this Learning Module. It is not surprising, then, that public-private partnerships are also relatively new to the industry. The pilot projects serve mostly a regulatory function. While the pilot programs might be technically framed as partnerships, in that the public agencies are calling for proposals and offer some form of exclusive operation rights, they largely spring from regulation and permitting.

Since the summer of 2018 when many scooter companies were launching unsanctioned operations in local rights-of-way, many cities have passed regulation, often grouped with dockless bikes, and future partnerships might include additional transit-supportive and equity provisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, several transit agencies turned to e-scooter companies to help fill in transportation gaps caused by the crisis. Many mayors encouraged residents to use micromobilty modes like e-scooters in place of crowded public transit. Some cities temporarily banned cars from select streets to make more space for these modes. Others, like San Francisco, announced they would ease distribution requirements during the crisis for scooter operators to make it easier to keep the vehicles in operation. The way many public agencies and cities approached micromobility services during the outbreak suggests a growing acknowledgement of the important role such services can play within the larger transportation network, and could lead to more public-private partnerships between scooter companies and transit agencies going forward.

Even before the COVID-19 crisis, many cities were taking steps to incorporate e-scooters into the suite of mobility options available to residents by developing mobility hubs around transit stations. These hubs, like the ones launched in Minneapolis, MN in the fall of 2019, feature access to public transit, bike stations and e-scooter parking, and way-finding signage. Launched in July 2019, the Pittsburgh Mobility Collective is another promising example of partnerships involving e-scooters; this voluntary collective includes Spin, Zipcar, Masabi, Waze and Swiftmile, and it aims to find innovative ways to expand and complement access to mass transit services and the public bike share system in Pittsburgh, PA.

Previous Subsection

Conclusion

At this point, most of the reports on scooter sharing have existed as broad, synthetic examinations of the mode. While shared moped-style scooters are an older mode, they are not widely adopted in North America. Case studies of shared electric kick scooters have just started appearing.

The Micro-Mobility Revolution: The Introduction and Adoption of Electric Scooters in the United States offers a detailed overview of the rise of electric scooter sharing that expands on many of the themes discussed here.

Next Subsection

Case Studies

The NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation is an extensive case study of, as they define it, both Shared Active Transportation – a network or system of small vehicles, placed in the public right-of-way and for rent in short time increments, that provides increased mobility options over short distances in urban areas; and Small Vehicles – bikes, scooters, e-bikes, e-scooters, and other small, wheeled vehicles designed specifically for shared- use and deployed by shared active transportation companies. Included are model policies and other tools.

Charlotte, North Carolina is less of a complete case study than the NACTO report shown above, but it shows how local governments with operational shared mobility systems can use data provided by the operators in the pilot program and from a local user survey.

Portland, Oregon is an example of a community that created a pilot program in anticipation of the scooters’ arrival, after the major scooter sharing companies contacted the city. The 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report both outlines every step of the process towards implementing the regulations, including public education and outreach, and shares the findings from the gathered data. The report then draws on the findings to recommend another pilot to improve service and better achieve public goals.

TCRP Research Report 230: Transit and Micromobility analyzes the benefits and impacts of micromobility, including scooter sharing, on public transportation systems in many different contexts.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Reading

• Evaluation of Baltimore, MD’s dockless vehicle pilot. This case study discusses the city’s pilot program from August 2018 to January 2019.
• Information on scooter sharing in Chicago, IL. This page provides evaluations, data sets, licensing information, and other resources. 
• Milwaukee, WI’s dockless scooter pilot terms and conditions, which lists policies and rules for scooter vendors in the city.  
• Portland, OR’s 2018 E-Scooter findings report, which evaluates and discusses the impact of the city’s e-scooter pilot program.
• Santa Monica, CA’s 2019 summary report, which reviews the city’s bikeshare and scooter share program
• San Francisco, CA’s 2019 mid-pilot evaluation.

Previous Subsection