Definitions

Credit: Bikehub

Micromobility vehicles can look very different depending on their purpose, geography, or community needs. These influencing factors produce a variety of vehicle types. For micromobility systems that are operated by a municipality, users typically pay for the shared service by the minute or can prepay for periods ranging from a single ride to several days, to an annual membership. Listed below are the most common types of shared micromobility vehicle types and their uses. 

Shared Electric Scooters: This mode, also known as electric kick scooter, typically has smaller wheels than an e-bike (usually less than 16 inches). Most often, users stand on the scooter and 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. According to The North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA), 40% of all North American shared micromobility vehicles in 2023 were e-scooters. E-scooters are generally dockless, although some cities have designated parking corrals and geofencing systems in place to ensure that users park vehicles away from roadways and out of the way of pedestrians. 

Bikeshare: Bikeshare bikes typically look the same across the board; where they differ is based on the docking and the amenities of the bike itself. Some operators offer electrified bikes (e-bikes) that use pedal assist to help riders. Typically, pedal-assist e-bikes provide a more comfortable rider experience by helping riders quickly increase their speed, which is especially helpful in a hot or hilly region. 

Adaptive Bikeshare: Some operators provide tricycles, recumbent bicycles, hand-powered bicycles, or other adaptive vehicles to users who have trouble operating standard bicycles. Often, these systems follow the bike library model, however Milwaukee, WI’s Bublr Bikes includes adaptive bikes that can integrate into its docked system. Bublr is a nonprofit-operated system supported by the Cities of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa.

Next Subsection

Background and History

Shared micromobility has its roots in the zeitgeist of the 1960s, with the first generation of bikesharing appearing as free “White Bikes” in Amsterdam, Netherlands in 1965. Various sharing schemes ranging from free bikes to bike libraries were periodically implemented, usually by activist organizations. The bike library model is still used in areas where a sharing network is not practical, either because of a smaller or less dense land use context or for adaptive bikesharing, which requires a variety of bikes for its fleet. Second-generation bikesharing networks began to resemble present-day docked systems, with similar sturdy vehicles in locked stations. They used coin-operated docks, however, so the lack of accountability led to stolen and vandalized vehicles.

In the mid-2000s, a confluence of technology enabled a new era of micromobility options. Large cities such as New York City and Chicago successfully adopted dock-based bikeshare systems. Upgrades included: practical GPS tracking, which enabled user and vendor accountability and balancing; payment systems, including eventual smartphone integration; and affordable solar power and LED lighting enabled the widespread use of the mode and the quick movement to the fourth generation. The breakneck evolution of dockless micromobility from privately and publicly owned operators outpaced regulation in its early stages, and many local codes did not have any clear regulation for, or even definition of, dockless shared vehicles, especially those deployed by private parties. 

Dockless bikes and shared scooters presented an entirely new way for private entities to use (and make money from) the public way that cities were not statutorily prepared to regulate. Thousands of the vehicles appeared, often unannounced overnight, and started operating just a few years after ride-hail companies had used similar tactics to stake out their markets. Some jurisdictions responded with 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. 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, largely for their creation of new obstacles to travel on the public right of way. 

Later, smaller and less dense cities started operating and permitting more flexible station-based and later dockless bikeshare networks. The latter privately owned and operated networks expanded rapidly. Electric pedal-assist bicycles and electric kick scooters would follow a similar model. The proliferation of dockless micromobility prompted a regulatory response in many cities. However, the wave of dockless bikes in 2018 was quickly replaced by a wave of shared scooters, as many dockless vendors turned their attention to the seemingly more profitable scooter operations.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

System Types

Shared micromobility is defined by its short-term usage for riders. One consideration for operators and municipalities is deciding where riders can leave the vehicle when their trip is complete. There is no straightforward answer for which type of program is ideal; different contexts have different needs and challenges. The three types of docking systems – dock, dockless, and hybrid docking – all offer different benefits, and may work better in different contexts. Each program excels in its own manner, and it is up to the community to decide which program best fits their needs. The three most common operational models are as follows:

Docked Systems

Credit: City of Charlotte

Docks ensure that users return micromobility vehicles to a designated area, while also ensuring that users know there is a single location nearby where vehicles will be clustered. The centrality of docked stations makes it easier for operators to make data-informed predictions as to where expansion efforts can be directed based on traffic patterns and vehicle usage. Operators have also used ridership data to determine locations where docks can be taken away or better placed. With dockless bikeshare or scootershare, rebalancing efforts can be more difficult, and it may be more complicated for operators to determine where there is a need for bikeshare. Docks are usually strategically placed, more often than not, near mobility hubs, public transportation stops, or high-traffic areas, which ensures consistent congestion management, and users without vehicles have first and last-mile connections to transportation. Docked bikeshare programs are typically more cost-effective for operators because rebalancing vehicles requires less effort and less staff, and with riders ending their ride at a dock, there is less of a concern of vandalism or theft. 

Docked, or station-based bikeshare, falls under two models.

• Smart Dock: These systems include payment kiosks at stations connected to specialized docks with a locking system to secure the bikes. The kiosk is also connected to a centralized tracking system. This system allows users to unlock bikes with a single-use code or through a subscription service. Bikeshare docks themselves can also come in different forms. Many systems employ stations with 8, 12, or 24 individual docks arranged next to each other on an at-grade platform along with an information kiosk or advertising panel. 
• Smart Bike: While these systems may also have a payment kiosk, Smart Bike systems are defined by the electronic, usually solar-powered bikes with locking systems and GPS tracking. This allows the use of docks that resemble regular bicycle racks. These systems are predecessors to dockless bikeshare, and sometimes users can end rides away from stations like a dockless trip.

As of May of 2024, docked bikeshare programs are more common in the US than dockless programs. 

Dockless Systems

Dockless systems allow riders to leave vehicles anywhere within the service zone. In 2023, dockless scooters accounted for 65 million rides, while dock-based bikes only accounted for 61 million rides. These systems are usually accessed via a mobile app, and the vehicles contain all of the GPS tracking electronics and locking mechanisms so that they can be tracked by the user and operator.

Initial startup costs for dockless programs tend to be lower than those of docked programs, as less infrastructure is needed. Dockless programs don’t need to consider the cost of dock installation, upkeep, and maintenance. Depending on fleet size and geography for a docked program, labor costs may surpass the cost of installing a sufficient amount of docks. Without docks, bikes and scooters can be parked practically anywhere allowed by geofencing. Due to the travel patterns of users, vehicles are often left at points where other riders might want to use them (though this can present problems for low-density neighborhoods). For instance, if someone bikes from near their house to public transportation, a transit rider could then use the same bike to complete their trip to their destination. Depending on where vehicles are parked, more or less labor could be involved—if too many bikes or scooters are parked in residential areas or low-traffic areas, the operator may need to rebalance the system. Built-in GPS technology can provide real-time data on usage and movement patterns, simplifying rebalancing and future planning efforts. Although operators rarely readily share this data, urban and transportation planners have found that the data can be valuable for infrastructure development such as bike lane implementation, new bus route additions, or informed decisions for complete street plans.

Credit: Doug Trumm, The Urbanist

Hybrid Systems

In a hybrid system, a station-based system can integrate dockless bikeshare bikes or scooters into existing docked fleets. Often, a system becomes hybrid as a result of pedal-assist e-bikes being added to a docked pedal bike fleet. The new e-bikes often have the GPS and locking technology needed for a dockless fleet, but can still be returned to a docking station.

Credit: Maia McDonald/Block Club Chicago

Hybrid-style docking systems are becoming increasingly popular, and many cities are using their pre-existing station-based systems to integrate free-floating bikes into their existing docked fleet. By combining station-based infrastructure with the flexibility of free-floating bike and scooter models, these systems offer cities a versatile way to meet transportation needs. E-bikes and e-scooters being added to standard docked pedal bike fleets is propelling cities to adopt hybrid programs. The hybrid model gives riders the flexibility to leave micromobility devices at either a docking station or locked to a secure space that is sometimes branded or geocoded to denote an acceptable locking location like a pole or bike rack.

Each system type comes with pros and cons, mostly dependent on the needs of the community, and an agency or city must weigh them to determine which system serves users best in their community context. While a docked or stationed system might work best in one city, a dockless or free-floating system might be a better fit for another city.

Previous Subsection

Community Engagement

A successful micromobility program requires robust community engagement, starting with the planning process and continuing through operation and possible expansion. Engaging community groups and partners helps build trust, helps reach a target audience, grows awareness of the program, and most importantly, helps understand community need. If the community need is not understood, the project may not be as effective or sustainable as intended. Without aligning the project goals with the actual needs and preferences of the community, the initiative risks low adoption rates, missed opportunities to address equity concerns, and potential resistance from stakeholders and community groups. Community engagement ensures a thorough understanding of community needs, tailoring to local contexts, and delivering tangible benefits. The below case studies are examples of systems that have prioritized community engagement.

Indego staff at a community outreach event. Credit: Darren Burton Photography

• Indianapolis, IN: Prior to Indianapolis’s 2019 summer expansion of its docked bikeshare system, the city chose to host several community engagement events to inform residents about upcoming services. In neighborhoods that were in the planned expansion areas, engagement events provided food, free helmets, childcare, learn-to-ride classes, and group rides. The goal was to increase awareness before the new bikeshare docks were installed. Importantly, these events were held within the community areas to interact with the community members who would be impacted by the bikeshare expansion, and better acclimate new riders with safe biking procedures.
• Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis’s Nice Ride bikeshare launched the Nice Ride Neighborhood pilot program as an approach to promote bikeshare in neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty and low bikeshare ridership. The program organized and sponsored events and group rides led by local bicycling clubs offered education on bicycling and traffic rules, and provided unique Nice Ride bicycles to some users to raise interest and promote a sense of community centered on bicycling. This type of community-focused programming is key to fostering equity in bikeshare systems. 
• Basalt, CO: WE-cycle, the bikeshare system in Basalt, Colorado, runs “Movimiento en Bici”, a Spanish-language program intended to increase ridership among Latinx residents. The program helps residents sign up for the system, and overcome language barriers related to use; recently, it has also begun offering classes for adults who want to learn (or relearn) to ride.
• New York City, NY: In an effort to increase ridership in Bedford Stuyvesant – a predominantly black community in New York City – Citi Bikes and NYCDOT partnered with the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation in 2015. Together, they developed ads featuring Stuyvesant residents who used Citi Bike, and they placed the ads in subway stations, on local buses, and in select newspapers. As a result, bikeshare trips increased by 70% in Bedford Stuyvesant in July 2016 as compared to July 2015, and membership increased 56% from March 2015 to December 2016 (Meyer, 2017). Highlighting locals who use bikeshare – as well as their reason for signing up and explanation of how they utilize the system – can help others view the system as more approachable. The Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation is also working with other partners to reach out to SNAP participants and public housing residents to increase awareness of bike programming.
• Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia’s Indego bikeshare system has an ambassador program that manage to create community engagement events and spearhead awareness initiatives. Ambassadors are local residents, and they serve as a trusted resource in their communities. They are also tasked with informing Indego staff when events in their neighborhood are coming up that might benefit from Indego presence, and leading community rides. The Indego Ambassador toolkit is available here. Sometimes Ambassadors are also asked to do a “social media” takeover for the bikeshare system as a whole, making the system feel more personalized and familiar for residents.

Community engagement can also help determine where micromobility can be an effective mode of transportation. In dense urban areas, it serves as a viable mode for shorter trips and can supplement or replace car or public transportation trips. While most micromobility systems operate in dense urban and suburban areas, the worldwide growth of bikeshare as a mode of micromobility has also impacted rural communities. Micromobility options, specifically bikeshare, can serve the same purpose in rural areas as it does in urban areas: providing an alternative to cars while promoting a healthy form of transportation, connecting people to transportation networks or other services, and generally improving the availability of regional mobility options. 

Below are examples of bikeshare programs in small urban communities. While these examples are of bike library systems, rural or small urban bikeshare can operate in many different ways just as with large urban bikeshare.

Below are examples of bikeshare programs in small urban communities. While these examples are of bike library systems, rural or small urban bikeshare can operate in many different ways just as with large urban bikeshare. 

• Allen County Bikeshare (Kansas), with a population of just over 12,000, has a library model bikeshare system. 
• ValloCycle (Montevallo, Alabama), has a bike library system for its 6,000 residents. 

Both of these examples completed extensive community engagement and strategic planning before implementing their bike libraries to determine the most beneficial locations for the community. As both regions are rural and less dense, deciding on strategic bikeshare locations was crucial to the effectiveness of the micromobility program. 

For additional specific examples and suggestions to foster community engagement with mobility projects, see SUMC’s Learning Module on Community Engagement, or view Strategies for Engaging Community: Developing Better Relationships Through Bike Share by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).

Next Subsection

Infrastructure Planning

Source: Montgomery Planning; Montgomery County, MD.

The growth and maturity of micromobility operations has provided enough data for best practices for safety and the infrastructure needed for safe operation with other modes of transportation. A study from the Transportation Research and Education Center at Portland State University reviewed infrastructure in several different U.S. cities and gauged the rider’s perception of safety, ultimately finding that riders’ perceptions were closely associated with the type of bike lane buffer. Physical barriers—like planters, curbs, or flexposts—provided a much greater sense of security and comfort compared to painted barriers, leading to increased ridership in areas with this infrastructure. Similarly, a 2019 study on safety in cities with high bicycling rates also suggests that protected bike infrastructure, when combined with higher intersection density and lower-speed environments, results in safer streets for all. These findings emphasize the importance of safe, well-designed infrastructure for micromobility use, and promote integration with public transit. Cities and transit agencies managing micromobility operations have the opportunity to coordinate infrastructure improvements that drive multimodal transit. 

A key component of transit integration is expanding transit access through micromobility infrastructure. Transit agencies may create a catchment area (or transit access shed), or the area around a bus or a train station from which a person might reasonably travel. This area may vary depending on geography and mode of transportation. Cyclists, for instance, can typically travel further distances to reach a train or bus service than someone who is walking. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds can often be used for bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure that facilitates and improves access to public transportation. While this can include bikeshare docking stations, it is often used to improve bikeway infrastructure leading to and from bus stops or train stations. Investing in such infrastructure improves street safety, making it easier and safer to travel farther to get to a transit facility. These infrastructure improvements serve to increase the catchment areas of the transit facilities and improve the ability of riders to make multimodal connections.

The most visible approach to integrating transit and micromobility is siting bikeshare stations or dockless vehicle corrals near pre-existing transit stops. Colocating micromobility services with transit stops—with docks, stations, or geofenced corrals—ultimately improves the visibility of micromobility services as well as helps public transit users recognize the viability of bikeshare or scootershare as a first and last-mile solution.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Infrastructure and Equity

Infrastructure in vulnerable communities can exacerbate mobility challenges. Many lower-income, minority communities are regularly left behind when it comes to protected bike lanes, off-road paths, and traffic calming measures when compared to wealthier, whiter communities. Not only does this cause disproportionately more traffic injuries and deaths in these communities, but it also leads to overpolicing, as riders will often have to bike on sidewalks to avoid unsafe road conditions. In Chicago, IL, bicycle riders in majority-Black neighborhoods received tickets for riding on the sidewalk eight times more often per capita than riders in white neighborhoods. Organizations like Vision Zero are attempting to address these disparities. Below is an example of an effort to help reduce infrastructural barriers to micromobility:

• Oakland, CA: In Oakland, some residents resent micromobility programs as harbingers of gentrification, or unnecessary in light of pot-holed and neglected streets. As a result, when developing its new bike plan to bring the majority of residents within ¼ mile of a safe bike route. Oakland DOT partnered with five local community groups to help facilitate engagement with disadvantaged communities in East and West Oakland, and held 60 community events to gain feedback and comments on their plan. This type of community engagement not only helps to ensure that underprivileged neighborhoods receive the type of mobility service that best suits their needs, but it also helps to increase community trust in and awareness of the bikeshare programs themselves. These 5 community groups are now well-positioned to serve as up-to-date sources of information on new programming opportunities and regulations for their residents.

Credit: Vision Zero Network

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Transit Connectivity

Micromobility systems can enhance public transit connectivity. Research consistently demonstrates that micromobility can complement fixed-route transit services by extending catchment areas and improving first and last-mile transit connection and access. In Aa 2015 study on bikeshare’s influence on mass transit ridership in Washington, DC, researchers found that as bikeshare trips increased, so did Metrorail ridership, suggesting that bikeshare helps facilitate public transit use in general. Tools like Vianova’s whitepaper on fleet size strategies demonstrate guidance for tailoring micromobility solutions to community needs.

The incorporation of existing public transportation is a key element that city officials should consider when planning for new or expanded micromobility systems. Cities like Portland, Oregon have offered a “transportation wallet” which is a bundled transportation pass that includes transit and bikeshare use at a discount versus purchasing the services separately. In addition, the City of West Palm Beach, FL recently approved a bikeshare program, BrightBike, to be fully integrated with the area’s intercity rail system, Brightline. With BrightBike, the city hopes to expand its transit options and help users connect with other transportation methods.

Colocation is particularly relevant for rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) lines. Since these services generally operate directly through major corridors, first and last-mile connections are integral to making these modes effective and convenient. In Omaha, NE, Omaha Metro formalized a partnership with Heartland Bike Share in 2020 while developing the Omaha Rapid Bus Transit (ORBT) service. This partnership helped both entities collaborate on the locations of bikeshare stations to facilitate first and last-mile connections, particularly for people who had to travel long distances to get to an ORBT bus stop. On an even larger scale, agencies can explore mobility hubs as a way to co-locate transportation services. Mobility hubs integrate different mobility options with wayfinding, placemaking, electric vehicle charging, and other amenities to improve a community’s transportation access. From an evaluation of a mobility hub pilot project in Minneapolis, MN, researchers found that the availability of different transportation options significantly impacted travel patterns: 64% of participants surveyed noted that the presence of the mobility hub increased their likelihood of using the available transportation options. 

For more information on mobility hubs, see SUMC’s report Mobility Hubs: Where People Go To Move.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Regulations

Across the US, cities have taken a variety of different tracks to regulate the deployment and safe use of e-scooters and dockless bikeshare bikes. 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 or per-vehicle costs. One unique challenge of micromobility relates to speed management. Cities running scooter-sharing or e-bikesharing programs must often determine a maximum operating speed to coincide with safety concerns, region geography, and infrastructure. For instance, 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.

States and cities alike are working to ensure that their active transportation legislation stays up-to-date with emerging technologies and transportation needs. Often, this means passing updated zoning ordinances, formally defining the type of mode offered, and establishing permit requirements. The early regulations for docked operations were largely proactive, which is unsurprising, as most of those systems are city-owned. On the other hand, the regulatory response to dockless operations, which are usually operated via a permit granted to vendors, is often reactive. As a result, much of the focus on dockless bikeshare regulation centers around permit requirements. Dockless bikeshare regulations are also generally more extensive than docked bike regulations. This is due to their more recent appearance as well as their potential to block the public right-of-way. Since the jurisdictions cannot mandate the location of docks, they must figure out ways to geofence their parked locations and maintain an accessible right-of-way. These regulations are unsurprisingly quite extensive, largely due to unique safety concerns associated with the speed of electrified options, and where and how the vehicles themselves are parked. As such, many cities with micromobility programs include provisions in their contracts that prohibit vehicles from blocking sidewalks. For example, Chicago, Illinois 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 Americans with Disabilities Act (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.

Credit: David Powe

For more information about specific city regulations, visit SUMC’s 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

Procurement

When developing and launching a micromobility program, it is important to identify a partner whose goals and vision align with those of both the community and the transit agency. Having an aligned vision ensures that the partnership supports the microtransit objectives, and fosters long-term sustainability. The following checklist can help.

Before procuring services or equipment, agencies should:

1. Work with the community to identify transportation needs and priorities (see Community Engagement Learning Module for community engagement strategies).
2. Map out the current transportation services and identify underserved communities. Meaningful community engagement should uncover unmet transportation needs.
3. Identify opportunities for micromobility to determine if it is a good fit. Some helpful questions that agencies can ask to guide this process include:
   • Are there lower to moderate-density communities that have limited transportation options where fixed-route service is not appropriate?
   • Are there communities or neighborhoods that have limited transportation options that micromobility can be used to support access to fixed-route service or key destinations?
4. Speak with other cities, transit agencies, and technology vendors to learn how different micromobility solutions have been used. Agencies can ask questions to learn more about service operations, including:
   • How has the partnership worked?
   •  What services does the private partner provide?
   • Is there anything that should be changed in the partnership configuration or service model?
   • How have they addressed accessibility requirements? What barriers have they encountered along the way?
   • Ask questions about the cost of the service and how it is funded, if they are able to discuss.

When ready to procure services or equipment, agencies should:

1. Define your Request for Proposal (RFP) and contracting process, identifying who will be involved in developing the RFP and who will be the proposal reviewers.
2. Outline the priorities in the RFP and subsequent contract. Some of these priorities could include:
   • Data sharing details
   • Vehicle fleet and rebalancing details
   • Community engagement plans
   • Evaluation plans
   • Equity plans
3. Outline the data needs for the project to adhere to the project goals and performance metrics.
4. Consider adaptive vehicles so persons with physical or cognitive disabilities can access the service. Consider how these adaptive micromobility vehicles will fit into the larger fleet.
5. Interview vendors during the RFP process and ask for and meet with references to demonstrate they can meet the goals of the project.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Funding

Micromobility programs are eligible for various capital and operating costs, most bikeshare programs are funded through a combination of membership fees, tax revenue, and corporate sponsorships. For a program to be successful and financially sustainable, planners should ensure that reliable, long-term funding from corporate sponsorships, or third-party advertising is available. The first step in securing funding is understanding the costs of a micromobility program. There are two types of costs that operators and municipalities encounter – capital and operational.

• Capital costs include the vehicles themselves, alongside docking stations, maintenance equipment, and software. The vehicles can vary in cost depending on the technology included, but are typically relatively low-cost in comparison to bikeshare docks, which can cost $40,000 – $50,000 per station; for example, Portland’s BIKETOWN bikes include a solar-powered LCD screens and chainless shaft drives and cost around $1,500 per bike. Dockless bikeshare systems naturally circumvent the docking station cost, but the bikes themselves require more technology, like on-board GPS and built-in locks, driving up the price. Other capital costs for both docked and dockless vehicles can include the facilities where vehicles are stored and maintained and facilities for operations and support staff. 
• Operationally, the largest cost for micromobility systems comes from rebalancing. Rebalancing involves redistributing vehicles among docking stations or dockless vehicles, usually using trucks or vans, so that stations and areas are neither close to capacity nor empty. In addition to presenting large logistical and data challenges, rebalancing accounts for 30%-50% of operating costs. Other significant operating costs include staffing (management, maintenance, customer service, and IT), vehicle maintenance, insurance, and other administrative costs. Docked bikeshare systems must also factor in rebalancing costs, but are generally easier to manage as the bikes are located at stations throughout a city.

While public agencies may face limitations on how they can fund micromobility programs. However, there are a variety of state, local, and federal funding opportunities available for both bikeshare and bike-related infrastructure. Be aware that public funding opportunities are not always guaranteed. Often, micromobility program funding comes from discretionary grants, which are given through a competitive selection process. However, there are also opportunities that agencies can leverage formula grants, which are distributed based on parameters set by Congress. Additionally, agencies have leveraged other public funds to support micromobility programs through intergovernmental partnerships – for instance, partnering with a city, county, or state Parks Department, or through a city’s general budget. Funding for micromobility initiatives typically comes from a mix of public and private sources, depending on the scale and scope of the program, as well as the region’s specific transportation goals. 

Public Funding

• The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) is administered by the Federal Highway Administration to support transportation projects and related efforts that contribute to air-quality improvements and congestion reduction. Many CMAQ grants have gone to bikeshare projects around the country. 
• The Bikeshare Transit Act, which was first introduced in 2019, aims to make some federal transit funds available to bikeshare programs, which would be a huge step in recognizing bikeshare as an important and valid component of a transportation network. 
• The Complete Streets Act requires 5% of each state’s federal highway funds to be allocated to complete streets programs to build necessary infrastructure for streets to feel – and be – safer for bicyclists.

Private Funding

• Venture capitalists played a vital role in the development and growth of the micromobility industry. Some of the most recognizable private operators – Bird, Lime, and Spin – disrupted traditional urban transportation by offering convenient and low-cost alternatives to a single occupancy vehicle. Working with local governments and transit agencies helped bridge initial gaps in transportation infrastructure. 
• Institutional Investments offer more late-stage funding, especially when compared to venture capitalism. Institutional investors, including pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, private equity firms, and strategic corporate investors, are increasingly participating in the sector, driven by its alignment with global trends like urbanization, sustainability, and technological innovation.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Partnership Considerations

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several transit agencies turned to micromobility companies to help fill in transportation gaps caused by the crisis. Many city governments encouraged residents to use micromobility modes like e-scooters in place of crowded public transit, with some cities temporarily banning cars from select streets to make more space for these modes. Other cities, 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 acknowledgment of the important role such services can play within the larger transportation network and could lead to more public-private partnerships between micromobility companies and transit agencies going forward. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, many cities were taking steps to incorporate micromobility 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, San Diego, CA, Columbus, OH, and other large US Cities, feature access to public transit, bike stations, e-scooter parking, and way-finding signage. Specifically, 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 micromobility in Pittsburgh, PA.

Micromobility programs are contracted in various ways. They can be fully owned and operated by either a government or private entity, or handled through a public-private partnership. In publicly owned, publicly operated programs, the city or transit agency plans and implements all aspects of the program, and owns all of the assets. Since this system is fully run by the public sector, it can more easily prioritize many of the programs’ goals, like equity or integration into the existing transportation network. 

Publicly owned and operated: In publicly owned, publicly operated programs, the transit agency or city plans and implements all aspects of the program, and owns all of the assets. Since this system is fully run by the public agency, it can more easily prioritize many of the programs’ goals, like equity or integration into the existing transportation network. For instance, Los Angeles, CA’s Metro Bike Share is both owned and operated by LA Metro.  

Privately owned and operated: A city will grant access to public space, but the private companies will handle all implementation and operations, and will also bear the costs. While this setup can be beneficial to the city from a financial perspective, it also makes it more difficult to manage program goals, as there is less direct oversight and the private operators can also be incentivized by profit (although some private bikeshare operators, like Pittsburgh, PA’s POGOH, are non-profit organizations).

Publicly owned and privately operated: These systems have the private bikeshare provider in charge of managing the service, with the city government owning the programs’ assets. In these systems, the city maintains some control, but is less involved in day-to-day operations, and assumes less financial risk. For example, Chicago, IL’s Divvy Bikeshare is owned by the Chicago Department of Transportation, but operated by Lyft.

Previous Subsection

Background

Ensuring equitable access to micromobility services systems is necessary for addressing transportation barriers and improving access to transportation options for disadvantaged communities.  Unfortunately, due to a number of geographic, cultural and physical factors, many bikeshare and scootershare systems do not equitably serve different populations. This section discusses the background and current state of equity in micromobility programs, and discusses some efforts to address disparities.

Credit: Credit: Better Bikeshare Partnership

Thoughtful planning for micromobility programs prioritizes the needs of vulnerable communities, including low-income or underserved households; 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. However, many micromobility projects struggle to serve all regions adequately. To address these challenges, pilot projects and permanent programs have begun implementing policies that prioritize underserved regions. For instance, the scooter pilot in Chicago adopted principles that 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.

Despite these initiatives, equity advocates emphasize that distribution requirements alone are insufficient to creating and furthering an equitable transportation network. For long-term success, these efforts should be paired with clear goals, marketing materials, and community engagement efforts to best understand what gaps are missing from the current mobility options offered and how the micromobility service can help address them.

Some examples of cities working to ensure equitable access to micromobility 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

Financial Barriers

Placing docking stations equitably certainly improves accessibility for these communities, but is not comprehensive in addressing all barriers. Possibly the most significant barrier for low-income earners is the costs associated with bikeshare. Most large bikeshare operators are addressing this by offering reduced fares for eligible users, flexible payment plans for long-term passes, and cash payment options to accommodate users without credit cards. Below are a few examples of efforts to eliminate financial barriers in US cities: 

• Chicago, IL offers a $5 annual pass to its Divvy bikeshare for low-income residents, as well as those receiving SNAP, WIC, or public house assistance. The enrollment costs are tiered annually, with the fourth year membership costing $79. Furthermore, Chicago’s “Divvy for Everyone” program also allows people to sign up in person and pay with cash at locations around the city. Initiatives like this can help address a major barrier for low-income bikeshare users. 
• Philadelphia, PA: Through a partnership with PayNearMe that enables consumers to make online purchases using cash at select retail chains, Indego bikeshare riders in Philadelphia can sign up for cash memberships online. They then receive a barcode that they can either print out or load onto their mobile phone, and a cashier at a participating 7-Eleven or Family Dollar scans the barcode and accepts the cash payment.
• New York City, NY: In conjunction with Vision Zero, NYCDOT has held events where they distribute helmets for free to attendees of all ages. For both those who (mistakenly) believe that a helmet is required to use bikeshare, and for those who cannot easily purchase one, free helmet distribution events can help address those concerns. They can also serve as opportunities to answer other bikeshare related questions, and to promote awareness of programs designed to support ridership among disadvantaged populations.
• Portland, OR: Called the “Transportation Wallet”, Portland allows individuals to purchase memberships that include transit options and bikeshare, and provides a discount over purchasing the two separately.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Station and Vehicle Placement

Station and vehicle placement are among the most important considerations for accessibility in underserved areas. Researchers and micromobility advocates argue that ridership among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups can increase with dense and convenient docking station placement. Below are a couple of prominent examples of efforts to help reduce geographic barriers to micromobility: 

• San Francisco, CA: 20% of bike docks required to be in low-income communities | To improve coverage, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) requires that at least 20% of the docking stations in its bikeshare system – Bay Wheels, operated by Lyft – be located in low-income communities. This course of action places the burden on the operator to ensure that any future expansions are not confined exclusively to wealthy areas that may already have plentiful mobility options.
• Chicago, IL: Scootershare companies operating in the city must deploy half of their fleets to designated equity priority areas. This requirement is coupled with requirements for regular educational outreach and discounted fares for qualifying riders.
• New York, NY: New York City established a pilot program in the summer of 2018 allowing several dockless providers to operate in select New York boroughs. This pilot program provides bikeshare access to several communities that previously did not have access, but it did not require the heavy up-front capital investment needed to bring the more expensive docked system to those areas.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Additional Equity Resources

• Equity program offering discounted memberships for low-income users: “Divvy For Everyone” Bikeshare Discount Membership Program, Chicago, Illinois, 2015
• Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights on Equity, Transportation Research and Education Center at Portland State University, 2017
• Oakland Bike Equity Plan, City of Oakland, May 2019
• Equity in Motion: Bikeshare in Low-Income Communities, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, May 2016

Previous Subsection

Rider Safety

Credit: Superpedestrian

Safety should be a priority when planning for micromobility operations, especially in rural or car-centric environments. A study on scooter share safety, conducted by the Austin Public Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that 33% of scooter crashes involved first-time scooter operators, and stated that a landscape that is safe for micromobility users involves effort on the part of the rider, the operator, as well as the community’s government, which should consider safe streets, access to helmets, and equitable enforcement of traffic laws before implementing a micromobility program. Infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and user safety education can help prevent crashes. Below are ways that local and state governments have been working to improve safety. 

• Currently, most US Cities and states do not require helmet use for micromobility users over the age of 18. To promote helmet usage, some cities have started free helmet distribution programs. During The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (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 SFMTA as a safety performance indicator, and permittees were encouraged to investigate the feasibility of including a helmet with each scooter rental.
• Infrastructure issues such as potholes and limited protected lanes also contribute to increased risk for accidents. These issues require a more comprehensive approach by cities to build out micromobility infrastructure. Such investments benefit all users and are important to ensure a safe operating environment and to promote the use of both shared and owned micromobility.
• Some US cities have been banning micromobility vehicles altogether. In 2018, Seattle, WA, 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.
• 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 micromobility regulations. Another major operator, Bird, launched a 100-city tour to increase safety through virtual and in-person rider training.

Next Subsection

Mode and Payment Integration

RABA First Last Mile Bikeshare Pass. Credit: Shasta Living Streets

Trip planning and payment integration are critical considerations in the procurement process for micromobility – they directly influence the system’s usability. Many trip planning apps are limited to one transportation mode, offering guidance only one mode at a time like bus routes, bike paths, or train schedules. Even complex and widely used apps like Google Maps – which can show multiple modes – assume users are only using one mode at a time for each trip. To create a seamless experience, micromobility systems must be designed to integrate apps that support a multimodal trip. For example, an integrated trip planning app considers how passengers can make informed decisions on which fixed-route transit service to take, where to unlock a bike or scooter, and how best to get to their destination using a variety of modes. The procurement process for applications should consider full trip planning apps, such as the Transit App, Moovit, and Citymapper, which display transportation options among multiple modes. Further, some mobility-as-a-service apps have incorporated bikeshare in some partner cities and are continuously working on improving trip planning to facilitate multimodal transportation.

Payment integration is equally as essential in ensuring micromobility systems support multimodal travel by allowing travelers to use multiple modes of transportation using a single payment system. A unified payment system makes it easier and more convenient to transfer between fixed-route transit and bikeshare or scootershare and ultimately makes micromobility more appealing for first and last-mile connections. Additionally, fare integration can set the foundation for agencies to pursue free or reduced-cost transfers between micromobility and public transit. Payment integration between micromobility systems and public transit is rare in the US, but agencies and mobility operators recognize its benefits and are exploring it in various ways as they recognize its appeal and user benefits. By addressing these factors during procurement, agencies lay the foundation for a system that encourages multimodal travel. Below are some of the ways that micromobility operators have been supporting payment integration:

Mobile Payment Apps: Most of the time, when riders transfer between public transit and bikeshare or scootershare, they must download separate mobile apps to purchase passes for each service. Some third-party technology providers have merged services within one mobile app, allowing users to pay for multiple modes without downloading multiple platforms. This is dependent on the mobility service providers agreeing to allow users to access their services from a third-party app. San Antonio, TX’s Transit App, VIA goMobile+ App,  allows users to purchase passes for both San Antonio’s VIA Metropolitan Transit and BCycle bikeshare passes. In this example, the transit agency does not manage or operate the bikeshare system, but the services are still somewhat integrated through a payment app.

RFID Cards: Transit agencies who operate micromobility systems can have both systems accessible through an RFID card. An RFID (radio frequency identification) card is embedded with a computer chip and antenna and can transmit information from an account to a wireless reader. In practice, a user can tap a card at a farebox to automatically deduct a fare or activate a transit pass from their account. LA Metro’s TAP Card is usable on buses and trains as well as Metro Bike Share, so riders can unlock a bike the same way they pay fares for fixed-route transit.

Vouchers: A low-tech way to facilitate transfer between modes is with a physical voucher or coupon. In Redding, CA, Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) partnered with Redding Bikeshare to support intermodal transfers through a voucher system, the RABA First Last Mile Bikeshare Pass. RABA riders can request a voucher from their bus drivers which allows them to rent a Redding Bikeshare bike for free for a 24-hour period. The voucher is a physical slip of paper that features a QR code that prompts users to download the BCycle App, as well as a unique code that users can enter to apply the free pass to their account.

Mobility Wallets: A mobility wallet is a prepaid debit card that can be used for multiple modes of transportation, including shared micromobility, fixed-route transit, carshare, microtransit, or other forms of transportation. LA Metro and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) introduced a Universal Basic Mobility pilot program in 2023 for low-income residents of South Los Angeles, CA, funded through the California Air Resources Board. Through the pilot, eligible participants receive a Mobility Wallet card with $150 automatically loaded onto it each month for 12 months. Participants can use the Mobility Wallet card on a variety of transportation options including public transit, scootershare, Metro Bike Share, and LA Metro’s MetroMicro microtransit service.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Fleet Size

The CaBi station at the Pentagon City Metro. Credit: mariordo59 on Flickr.

To develop an effective micromobility system, planners must carefully consider fleet size for the program. While there is no universal standard for an appropriate fleet size, the ideal fleet size will weigh considerations such as coverage area, program goals, staff capacity, and cost to determine the number of vehicles and stations and overall budget—too few vehicles can limit accessibility and service quality, while too many vehicles can lead to cluttered streets and sidewalks. To avoid congestion, planners should also consider fleet size caps tailored to the community’s needs.

Micromobility coverage should focus on providing accessible, visible, and convenient options throughout the service area, which will influence the demand for the other stations in a system. Systems with docking infrastructure typically have stations placed densely in high-demand areas—however, this may also raise capital or operating costs, necessitating careful resource allocation. On the other hand, dockless systems introduce additional considerations for fleet distribution and rebalancing efforts. These systems often rely on a geofence to designate parking zones, and manage clutter. The flexibility of dockless vehicles allows for more dynamic coverage but relies on rebalancing based on demand patterns to maintain accessibility. While every city has its own conditions and challenges to consider with station placement, stations should be accessible, convenient, visible, and not obstructing. Vianova published a whitepaper discussing some strategies and recommendations for planning fleet sizes for micromobility projects.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Adaptive Vehicles

Credit: Graham Kilmer, Urban Milwaukee

In order to accommodate users with physical disabilities, adaptive bikeshare programs provide tricycles, recumbent bicycles, hand-powered bicycles, or other adaptive vehicles. However, in many cities, adaptive vehicles that meet the needs of people with disabilities have yet to be included on a large scale. Because successful adaptive bikeshare must address a wide range of user needs, it becomes more difficult to reach a large network effect. Currently, most adaptive bikeshare systems operate as bike libraries in partnership with bicycle shops or non-profits near recreational facilities like off-street trail networks. Other programs use a similar formula, but are piloting efforts to include the reservation and marketing in wider bikeshare programs. Examples of this include Detroit, MI’s Adaptive MoGo bikeshare, San Francisco, CA’s Bay Wheels, and Portland, OR’s Adaptive BIKETOWN. These programs are limited in many ways and still require advance reservation, but as part of the wider bikeshare programs in these cities, they are branded and discoverable on the app and website, and are a step in the right direction for more equitable bikeshare.

Other adaptive programs allow for users to get the vehicles delivered to them. Fort Collins, CO recently launched an adaptive bikeshare program, Spin, where users can request an adaptive bicycle online or through the phone, and staff will bring the vehicle to the requested location.

Milwaukee, WI’s Bublr bikeshare is the first system in the United States to fully integrate adaptive vehicles into its fleet. In this program, tricycles, side-by-side vehicles, and handcycles can be checked into and out of any docking station in the city.

Some scootersharing 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, 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. For more information on adaptive micromobility or other ways shared mobility can help people with disabilities, please see SUMC’s Learning Module on Persons with Disabilities

Effort to Address Barriers Related to Physical Limitations:

• Detroit, MI: In 2018, Detroit’s MOGO bikeshare system incorporated 16 different types of adaptive bikes – including recumbent bikes, hand tricycles, and tandem bikes – into its bikeshare fleet. In conjunction with Programs to Educate All Cyclists (PEAC), MoGo hosts demonstration days throughout the summer to allow prospective riders to try out the various types of bicycles available for use. Bikes can be reserved through the online MoGo platform.
• Portland, OR:  Unlike Detroit where adaptive bikes are incorporated into the larger bikeshare fleet, Portland chose to partner with local bike shops for its adaptive bike program. Bike shops help make sure that the shared-use bikes and equipment are available, properly fitted and well maintained.
• Oakland, CA: Oakland, CA launched California’s first adaptive bikeshare program with a six-month pilot from May to November of 2019. Its partner for the pilot is the Bay Area Outreach & Recreation Program (BORP), which is a 501(c)3 non-profit that supports people with disabilities through sports and recreation programs. Bikes are available from a single location in Oakland.
• Washington D.C.: In winter of 2018, Washington D.C.’s DOT released a request for input to the community regarding an adaptive bikeshare program.

Previous Subsection

Goals and Performance Metrics

shared micromobility programs. Goals are often set to assist with first and last-mile connectivity while offering a more environmentally friendly alternative to driving, or to make transportation options in a city more mobile and accessible generally. When planning for micromobility, it is important to identify specific objectives and to develop metrics to evaluate the progress of the program towards those goals. Common goals for micromobility systems include reducing pollution, developing tourism, improving transit access, or generally improving mobility. 

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) developed several performance metrics for their scooter-sharing pilot program in 2019 to increase ridership and demand. SFMTA’s performance measures included: the number of unique users, number of trips taken, and trip duration. Furthermore, SFMTA promoted inclusive and equitable service and examined the 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 a program’s performance towards those objectives.

Overall, setting goals and performance metrics helps gauge the scope of a micromobility project, and determines how much equipment will need to be procured. Thus, it is important to collect relevant data throughout the pilot, and later, the entirety of the project to ensure that planners can make informed decisions about scaling or modifying the project. Analyzing usage trends, geographic coverage, and demographic data, cities can determine where additional equipment can be installed or rebalanced to best meet demand or gaps in service. A data-informed approach can also help build a foundation for transparency or accountability to stakeholders and the public. This iterative process of evaluation and adjustment ensures that micromobility systems remain effective post-pilot, and are financially sustainable over time.

For more detailed information on goals and measuring performance for various types of transit projects, see the Learning Module on Setting Project Goals and Performance Metrics.

Next Subsection

Data Specifications

Map of Redding Bikeshare docking stations. Credit: Shasta Living Streets

One of the main challenges in implementing a new micromobility system, especially with a public-private partnership, is data sharing. Data specifications can facilitate easy transfer and analysis of transportation information to users, vendors, and other stakeholders. There are two main data specifications used by bikeshare and or scootershare providers and operators to compile and exchange transportation data. The current industry standards for micromobility data collection are the General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) and the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) for micromobility operations. 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 the availability of vehicles or docks. GBFS is intended to be open to the public and does not include data on routes, users, or locations during trips to ensure the user’s privacy. MDS is another data specification available for use by micromobility providers, but is mainly intended to inform policymakers, planners, and regulators by providing information on what vehicles are in operation, vehicle battery charge, trip data, vehicle locations, cost, and vehicle condition. 

Most micromobility programs collect ridership data through a required smartphone app required to access the service. Specific to each operator, the app requires users to register for the service and then offers the capability to locate and unlock or lock vehicles, and pay for rides. Many micromobility devices contain GPS and mobile telemetry units to communicate their status to the operator allowing for a constant communication of data “breadcrumbs.” This data allows operators 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.   

For more information on data standards, see SUMC’s Case Study on using data specifications and standards in an integrated transportation system, or visit the resources below.

More information on GBFS:

1. MobilityData GBFS Resource Center – a hub for resources and guidance on GBFS. The Resource Center provides tools, documentation, and practices to help municipalities, operators, and developers implement GBFS effectively. 
2. GitHub Repository for GBFS – a platform for developers and mobility operators can access, contribute to, and maintain the open data standard. This repository contains the official specification, and change logs which allow users to review the current structure of GBFS and propose updates. 
3. GBFS Slack Channel  – This chat allows users to ask and answer questions, post general comments, and follow industry trends using the Slack platform. Follow the link to request to join. 

More information on MDS:

1. Open Mobility Foundation’s GitHub Repository for MDS – this platform serves as the central hub for the development, maintenance, and distribution of the MDS standard, and contains the official specifications and tools necessary for developers and planners to implement and customize MDS to meet local needs. 
2. Shared-Use Mobility Center: “Mobility Data Specification: A Data Standard for Shared Mobility Providers, Los Angeles, California, 2018” – this resource offers an example of how MDS was used in Los Angeles, and gives insight to its effectiveness when planning for a new project. 

Previous Subsection

Climate Impacts

As micromobility operations have expanded across the US, their impacts have become increasingly apparent. In areas where micromobility replaces short car trips or serves as a first and last-mile solution, communities have seen improvements in air quality, a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and generally more sustainable urban design practices. While mass public transit remains the most effective and efficient means of transportation to work towards climate goals, micromobility plays a crucial supporting role; it bridges the mobility gap in the transportation network enabling first and last-mile connections to transportation, as well as completing other short trips that would have otherwise utilized a personal vehicle. ANorth American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) 2022 report reveals that around two-thirds of shared mobility riders reported that they used shared micromobility to connect to transit. This growing relationship between micromobility and public transit highlights its potential in not only reaching immediate climate goals but also reshaping urban design systems long term; reducing reliance on vehicles cuts emissions and alleviates congestion, making cities more livable and efficient overall. Moreover, the growing interest in micromobility has prompted urban planners to prioritize infrastructural investments that support sustainable modes of transportation, further embedding mobility options like micromobility into design elements. As the adoption of micromobility services continues to grow, understanding its effect on the environment will be crucial for setting and achieving climate goals. The below sections delve further into some of the benefits discussed in this section.

Credit: NABSA

Improved air quality is one of the most immediate and tangible benefits of micromobility, cities that promote micromobility solutions often see a reduction in smog and other pollutants leading to healthier conditions for residents. Cleaner air can assist with improving respiratory and cardiovascular health, particularly for vulnerable populations. 

Micromobility can help reduce internal combustion engines’ GHG emissions by reducing personal automobile use for short trips, one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide (CO2). A significant portion of car trips are less than five miles, a range where micromobility options are effective alternatives. Replacing these trips with electrified micromobility options allows cities to substantially decrease their carbon footprint from daily commuters and short trips. For instance, Portland, Oregon, launched its Biketown e-bikeshare program in 2016 and later upgraded to 2020 to a fully electric fleet. Biketown has become a quick solution to replace short car trips, with many riders taking trips less than three miles. Portland’s Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) found that Biketown Trips resulted in an estimated annual reduction of over 100,000 vehicle miles, eliminating approximately 50 metric tons of CO2 emissions each year. Further, bikeshare usage encouraged PBOT to upgrade existing bike infrastructure and car-restricted zones, leading to an even greater micromobility usage while working towards climate goals. Below are examples and summaries of some of the recent research on air quality and GHG implications of bikeshare programs:

• A 2021 analysis of the environmental benefits of bikesharing in New York City, researchers found that Citi Bike travelers reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 30,070 tons between 2014-2017, and saved the equivalent of 13,370 tons of oil.
• A 2020 study found that bikesharing has shown to have significant positive impacts on the environment, reducing fuel consumption and air pollutant emissions. 

Note that while micromobility can play a major role in transportation decarbonization, the benefits vary depending on geographic context, infrastructure, and existing transit services. SUMC and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs produced the report Bikes and Scooters on the Road to Net Zero? Yes, with Some ‘Ifs’ to explore how cities can maximize the benefits of micromobility programs.

Next Subsection

Integration and Mode Shift

Micromobility integration with public transportation services offers a seamless multimodal network that contributes to reducing GHG emissions. This integration can address the persistent first and last-mile challenge that many regular riders face, and make it more convenient for users who would not have otherwise used public transportation to commute. As transit agencies and micromobility operators make technological advances towards more comprehensive software, micromobility and public transit integration will only become easier on the passenger’s end. So far, cities and transit agencies are making the shift to mobile apps that integrate micromobility and public transit fares or passes into a single app, alongside showing real-time public transit arrival and departure times and offering trip planning services. Making these services convenient for users only makes public transit more appealing, accessible, and convenient for regular riders, as well as potential passengers. Further, cities with micromobility services also tend to prioritize infrastructural investments that work to keep riders safe and promote long-term climate impacts. Many cities and regions have been implementing “Complete Streets” (sometimes referred to as ‘Complete and Green Streets’) Plans that improve pedestrian infrastructure while improving streetscape aesthetics. Below is an additional example of some of the recent research on the mode-shift implications of micromobility programs:

• In a 2014 UC Berkeley survey, researchers found that bikesharing reduced respondents’ car use by large margins. Specifically, in Montreal and Toronto, 29% and 35% reported driving less, and in Minneapolis and Salt Lake City, 53% and 55% reported driving less, respectively. Furthermore, a survey of Washington DC’s Capital Bikeshare users found that 4-5% of members sold a household vehicle and cited bikeshare as a factor.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Equipment Lifecycle Impacts

The study of the possible environmental benefits of micromobility is in its early stages. Any mode that encourages an overall mode shift from single occupancy vehicle car trips might positively impact the environment. A 2022 review found evidence suggesting that e-scooter trips fostered mode-shift – Portland, OR’s 2018 e-scooter pilot program replaced many trips (an estimated 723,000 miles) typically completed through other means of transportation including walking, or public transportation, with e-scooter services. Based on self-reported mode shift data and the total number of e-scooter miles traveled during the pilot period, Portland estimates that e-scooters replaced approximately 423,000 miles of walking, biking, and transit, and more than 300,000 vehicle miles that would have been traveled in single-occupancy vehicles and other shared vehicle trips. The review goes on to analyze the average CO2 emissions per vehicle mile that e-scooter trips may have avoided and concludes that 120 metric tons of CO2 emissions were avoided during the 6-month pilot. 

While e-scooters specifically have proven some of their benefits, questions remain about the environmental impact of micromobility vehicles when their overall lifecycle is taken into consideration. For example, a 2022 study from Cyclecure suggests that the pollution from scooter production and shipping to the US, on top of 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. 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.

Credit: ITF 2020, HSBO 2021

E-bike production has similar implications; manufacturing the bikes, stations, on-board technology, rebalancing, and decommissioning are necessary considerations for measuring how environmentally friendly bikeshare can be. One study which compared the lifecycle environmental impacts of hypothetical dockless bikeshare and bus systems in a college campus setting determined that the vast majority of CO2 emissions and energy consumption comes from the extraction and production of raw materials to manufacture and maintain the bikes. Furthermore, researchers suggest that as ridership increases, GHG emissions and energy consumption steadily increase for bikeshare. Even so, the bikeshare system was determined to be the most environmentally friendly proposal. Another study based in the United Kingdom confirms that bikesharing saves carbon emissions compared to other modes of transportation, but those savings are critically dependent on how fixed-route transit providers respond to shifts in mode use. 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 sidewalk clutter. These docks are available in several cities in the US, including Austin, TX; Miami, FL; Pittsburgh, PA; and Chicago, IL

Bikesharing and scootersharing have the potential to reduce car use by large margins, and thus significantly reduce GHG emissions. The overall benefit of these modes can be enhanced by improving infrastructure and accessibility, thereby increasing utilization. The exact environmental impact of bikeshare or scootershare is difficult to accurately measure. However, micromobility can contribute to an entire suite of mobility options, which when taken together can influence decisions on purchasing personal vehicles. SUMC has an Emissions Calculator Tool which helps calculate the potential environmental benefits that various forms of shared mobility can have on a city, working in conjunction with each other. 

• In general, dockless bikeshare systems emit more GHG emissions than docked systems. A 2019 study found that dockless bikeshare emitted 82% more GHGs than docked. The main source of the GHG emissions in dockless systems comes from bike rebalancing work.
• The overall environmental benefit of bikeshare is debatable. As made evident by a 2014 article, even if each bikeshare trip is a direct alternative to driving, reduction in carbon dioxide would only be a fraction of total emissions from major cities, and some systems are so small that carbon dioxide reduction is nearly negligible. Increasing bike utilization levels by improving infrastructure and accessibility is key to increasing the environmental benefits. Furthermore, the impact of bikeshare as an available mobility option can help discourage people from buying second cars, or can encourage people to shed their cars altogether.

Previous Subsection

Conclusion

The future of micromobility will depend on its ability to balance rapid innovation with the need for equitable and well-regulated operations. By embracing these modes as integral parts of a comprehensive mobility ecosystem, cities can move closer to creating sustainable, accessible, and connected communities.

Credit: SDOT