IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt8mw5j82x.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Local Policies for Better Micromobility

Author

Listed:
  • Fuller, Sam
  • Fitch, Dillon
  • D'Agostino, Mollie C.

Abstract

This report highlights key themes from a series of ten interviews with U.S. cities with micromobility programs in their jurisdictions (Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; District of Columbia; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; Oakland, CA; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA). The research aims to shed light on both the regulatory process and identify best practices for dockless bike and scooter sharing policy. The following themes emerged among the cities interviewed: a) Data-sharing requirements for scooters and dockless bikes are critical for evaluation and monitoring for compliance with policies like equitable distributional requirements; b) Clear parking regulations for dockless bikes and scooters must balance flexibility and preserve community space ; c) Fines are effective tools to reduce bad behavior from users of micromobility devices, e.g., incorrect parking, or reckless riding behavior; and d) Clear classifications of micromobility devices will allow cities to target guidance and update regulations over time to improve clarity and outcomes. Finally, the paper concludes that more research is needed to refine these findings in this new and rapidly growing micromobility marketplace.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuller, Sam & Fitch, Dillon & D'Agostino, Mollie C., 2021. "Local Policies for Better Micromobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8mw5j82x, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt8mw5j82x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8mw5j82x.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2019. "Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt00k897b5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shah, Nitesh R. & Ziedan, Abubakr & Brakewood, Candace & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Shared e-scooter service providers with large fleet size have a competitive advantage: Findings from e-scooter demand and supply analysis of Nashville, Tennessee," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Nikolaos-Fivos Galatoulas & Konstantinos N. Genikomsakis & Christos S. Ioakimidis, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Trends of E-Bike Sharing System Deployment: A Review in Europe, North America and Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Virginie Boutueil & Luc Nemett & Thomas Quillerier, 2021. "Trends in Competition among Digital Platforms for Shared Mobility: Insights from a Worldwide Census and Prospects for Research," Post-Print hal-03388213, HAL.
    4. Ying Ni & Jiaqi Chen, 2020. "Exploring the Effects of the Built Environment on Two Transfer Modes for Metros: Dockless Bike Sharing and Taxis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Álvaro Aguilera-García & Juan Gomez & Natalia Sobrino & Juan José Vinagre Díaz, 2021. "Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Monika Hamerska & Monika Ziółko & Patryk Stawiarski, 2022. "A Sustainable Transport System—The MMQUAL Model of Shared Micromobility Service Quality Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. Arias-Molinares, Daniela & Romanillos, Gustavo & García-Palomares, Juan Carlos & Gutiérrez, Javier, 2021. "Exploring the spatio-temporal dynamics of moped-style scooter sharing services in urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Samadzad, Mahdi & Nosratzadeh, Hossein & Karami, Hossein & Karami, Ali, 2023. "What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 70-82.
    10. Chen, Peng & Yang, Xiankui, 2023. "Revisit employer-based travel demand management: A longitudinal analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 22-31.
    11. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Shah, Nitesh R. & Guo, Jing & Han, Lee D. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Why do people take e-scooter trips? Insights on temporal and spatial usage patterns of detailed trip data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Hu, Songhua & Chen, Mingyang & Jiang, Yuan & Sun, Wei & Xiong, Chenfeng, 2022. "Examining factors associated with bike-and-ride (BnR) activities around metro stations in large-scale dockless bikesharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    14. Abouelela, Mohamed & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    15. Jihun Oh & Jeongseob Kim, 2021. "Where to Ride? An Explorative Study to Investigate Potential Risk Factors of Personal Mobility Accidents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Roig-Costa, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme & Marquet, Oriol, 2024. "Shared bikes vs. private e-scooters. Understanding patterns of use and demand in a policy-constrained micromobility environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 116-125.
    17. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Xavier Bach & Carme Miralles-Guasch & Oriol Marquet, 2023. "Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Hu, Songhua & Xiong, Chenfeng & Liu, Zhanqin & Zhang, Lei, 2021. "Examining spatiotemporal changing patterns of bike-sharing usage during COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Brown, Austin L. & Sperling, Daniel & Austin, Bernadette & DeShazo, JR & Fulton, Lew & Lipman, Timothy & Murphy, Colin W & Saphores, Jean Daniel & Tal, Gil & Abrams, Carolyn & Chakraborty, Debapriya &, 2021. "Driving California’s Transportation Emissions to Zero," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt3np3p2t0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Law; Social and Behavioral Sciences; Bicycles; Cities; Mobility; Scooters; Shared mobility; Urban transportation policy; Vehicle sharing;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt8mw5j82x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.