In the last years, a new generation of shared micromobility services has rapidly proliferated in urban areas. The distinctive characteristics of these services in comparison to previous ones are dockless security systems, electric power assistance and a new device different from bicycles, the e-scooter.These technological advances reduce implementation costs and expand potential demand for these services, factors that made their promotion by private companies easy, reinforced by the lack of regulations on e-scooters.
This type of service consists in a floating fleet of e-scooters distributed over a service area wherecompanies conduct several tasks of collection and distribution for device relocation and battery charging. Through the company’s app, users find, unlock and lock the scooters and pay for the service. The spread of these services has opened several questions about their impacts on four main areas:mobility, environment, infrastructure and urban space, and safety. The experience from several cities shows several insights about those issues:
Travel behavior
▪ The average user is a 30-35 years old man who makes an average trip of one mile and ten minutes long, running at speed below 10 km/h. According to this average trip, scooters provide an intermediate solution between walking and cycling.
▪ Temporal distribution shows only one main peak during the afternoon, having more users during weekends, similar behavior as casual bike sharing systems, but different from the global mobility. Spatial distribution shows a similar behavior as the rest of the modes with high concentration in city centers and other attracting zones with high densities and mixed uses.
▪ The main trip purpose is related to free time for social or recreational activities, ranging between 30% and 75% of the total rides. The second most common purpose is related to the job and the third is shopping and errands. Based on the description of the trip purpose, current evaluations do not observe a generalized role as a feeder solution for public transport.
▪ Until now, this mobility service is not enough consolidated as an everyday transport solution since most of riders use the service with a monthly frequency or even less.
▪ These results are coherent: leisure trips are occasional and more frequent during the afternoon/evening and weekends.
▪ The main displaced mode is walking, around 40% of cases. In American cities, car trips also reaches similar substitution degree. However, in European cities, public transport is the second mode more affected by the arrival of scooters.
▪ However, taking into account the proportion of scooter trips in the global mobility, its impact is limited.
Environmental impact
▪ Although scooters are introduced as a sustainable transport solution from an environmental perspective, several studies emphasize the current limitations that these services present today: short lifetimes, low daily usage rates and kilometers traveled by auxiliary vehicles for collection and distribution tasks among others. The first two are associated to a high impact for materials and manufacturing; the last one is connected to the day-to-day operation.
▪ The estimations of their impacts show worse results than the rest of transport modes, only surpassed by cars. For that reason, the current mode substitution does not improve the sustainability of the transport system since the proportion of eco-friendly alliance (walking, public transport and cycling) is greater than the car displacement, for European cities more than for American ones.
▪ To become a mode that improves the sustainability of the transport system, shared e-scooter services should achieve certain goals: lifetimes of 12-24 months, more than 10 kilometers traveled per scooter and day, fuel-efficient auxiliary vehicles, renewable energy sources, strategies to reduce the distance traveled due to operating tasks, and focused on the substitution of car trips.
Infrastructure and urban space
▪ Uncontrolled spread of scooters in cities has increased the pressure on transport infrastructure and urban space, creating conflicts with other vehicles and activities. The main frictions are the obstructions due to inappropriate parked scooters and unsafe riding on sidewalks.
▪ However, the most common infrastructure where users ride is bike lanes, otherwise traffic lanes are the main alternative, being sidewalks the last option. Although riders would like to increase the use of segregated lanes for micromobility showing a lack of this type of infrastructure, or at least calming traffic streets.
▪ In the same line, most of scooter are properly parked on sidewalks (corrals or furniture areas without obstructing other flows). However, the improperly parking takes long times up to some hours, an extra factor that explains the negative perception about these new mobility services. This seems a visual or aesthetic impact more than a real obstruction issue.
Safety
▪ Medical reports evidence a growth in the number of accidents where e-scooters are involved; although most of these incidents cause minor injuries, there are a certain percentage that require hospitalization and operations, even fatalities have been reported.
▪ The most common accident only involves the same scooter (falls, infrastructure in bad conditions, collision with objects, vehicle malfunction). However, crashes with motorized vehicles are the accidents with severe consequences.
▪ Accident rate estimated in different cities ranges from 20 to 70 accidents per 100,000 trips.
▪ Riders using a helmet are a minority, around 10% or less, even in those cities where it is mandatory.
▪ Since e-scooter trips are short, the perception of risk is smaller and users accept more risky behaviors.
Measures and Policies
▪ From a legislative perspective, assimilation of the e-scooter as a pre-existing vehicle either bicycle or motorized vehicle.
▪ Cities order the uncontrolled and chaotic implementation of these services by means of constraints on the number of operators and fleet sizes. The former moves the competition off the road since companies should compete for operating permissions through a selection process. The latter meets the number of devices to the level of demand, introducing dynamic balancing depending on the usage rate of the e-scooters.
▪ Different fees are introduced in order to compensate some of the externalities generated by shared e/scooter services. Additionally, several fines for operators and users try to encourage a better management, safer riding and properly parking.
▪ Definition of non-riding (pedestrian streets, sidewalks), non-parking zones (parks, campus) and speed limits (10-30 km/h) in order to avoid conflicts with other transport modes and urban activities. Implementation of geofencing technology and speed controllers and lock-to technology in the devices to manage these measures.
▪ Campaigns of education and communication promoted by cities and companies.
▪ Equity policies to remove barriers that limit the accessibility to shared e-scooters: pricing discount programs, lack of smart technology for managing subscriptions, location of devices in areas of disadvantaged communities, vehicle design to avoid standing riding, etc.
▪ Development of Mobility platforms to integrated the whole fleet of shared e-scooters in only one app, and extension to other transport modes to promote the role of feeder solution for public transport.
▪ Systematic evaluation for the monitoring of the services, requiring collaboration from companies sharing their mobility data with cities.
Based on the current situation of shared e-scooter services, there are still a need of knowledge at three different levels of analysis: understanding the role of this type of mobility solutions in the global transport system, guidelines and strategies for a competitive service design and operating measures for an efficient management of the day-to-day deployment.