as discounted pricing, low-income programs, cash payment options, service area expansion, and other equity measures that help state or local governments ensure micromobility is accessible and affordable for all users.

Section VIII discusses data privacy concerns related to shared micromobility systems, which generally collect personal information from riders and use GPS to track devices and rides. Governments may ask or demand that micromobility operators share data about their operations and users, such as the origin and destination of trips, trip duration, distance, mode, and frequency. This information can help governments monitor and assess the effects and performance of micromobility services, and plan for future transportation requirements. However, governments must also guarantee that data sharing respects the privacy and security of micromobility users and operators. Similar to the private sector, state and local government agencies are subject to data security laws and other restrictions when they receive, maintain, use, or transmit data containing personally identifiable information (PII) and other sensitive or confidential information. There is no federal privacy regulation that specifically addresses state and local governments’ collection, maintenance, or use of personal data collected from its citizens. In addition, state freedom of information laws protect personal information in state and local government records.

The report concludes in Section IX with a summary. The objective of this report is to identify effective practices for cities and transit agencies to provide and/or support micromobility as a complement to public transit.

This report discusses current legal issues facing cities that implement bikeshare and scooter share programs and guidance that transit agencies should consider to implement micromobility effectively, equitably, and safely, in compliance with applicable laws. The report also provides several examples of cities currently regulating these programs and the ways in which they are doing so. For the purposes of this report, micromobility includes non-motorized bikes and, to the extent they are being used, non-motorized scooters. This report does not cover micromobility share systems designed for freight or commercial goods transport.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Defining Micromobility

In addition to scooters and bikes, micromobility includes powered skateboards, skates, and self-balancing devices (sometimes called hoverboards or balance wheels).³ According to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International, powered micromobility devices share three common characteristics: (i) fully or partially-powered; (ii) low speed, with a top speed of 30 miles per hour (48 km/h); and (iii) small, with a maximum curb weight of 500 lbs., typically weighing less than 100 lbs. and fitting within a standard bike lane.⁴ Many wheeled devices fit this description—e-bikes, e-scooters, electric skateboards, and other self-balancing devices (hoverboards or balance wheels). To regulate these different devices’ operations and equipment standards, states and localities must first differentiate among the types of devices, and then create definitions for the devices.

Building upon the SAE International’s Taxonomy and Classification of Powered Micromobility Vehicles, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) broadly defines micromobility as “any small, low-speed, human- or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances.”⁵

Typically, powered micromobility vehicles are not considered motor vehicles subject to the regulatory requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).⁶ The definition of a “motor vehicle” provided in 49 U.S.C. 30102 is a “vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.” A 2002 federal law, HB 727, amended the Consumer Product Safety Commission to create a special category of vehicles called “low-speed electric bicycles,” defined as a:⁷

[T]wo- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 HP), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.

The federal law permits e-bikes to be powered by motor alone (a “throttle-assist” e-bike), or by a combination of motor and human power (a “pedal-assist” e-bike).

In a draft notice of interpretation addressing low-speed two- and three-wheeled vehicles, NHTSA articulated a method to distinguish those vehicles that fall under the statutory definition of motor vehicle from other vehicles.⁸ In that notice, NHTSA stated:

Consistent with the Congressional definition of low speed electric bicycle, we have tentatively concluded that if a two- or three-wheeled vehicle were to have a maximum speed capability of less than 20 mph

___________________

³ SAE INT’L, SAE J3194™ TAXONOMY & CLASSIFICATION OF POWERED MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES, www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/topics/micromobility/sae-j3194-summary---2019-11.pdf.

⁴ Id.

⁵ Jeff Price et al., Micromobility: A Travel Mode Innovation, 85 No. 1 PUBLIC ROADS, Spring 2021, at 8, https://highways.dot.gov/publicroads/spring-2021/02.

⁶ NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If NHTSA testing or examination reveals an apparent non-compliance, the agency may require the manufacturer to remedy the non-compliance and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

⁷ PUB. LAW NO. 107-319, Dec. 4, 2002 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2085).

⁸ 70 FR 34810.

(32 km/h), regardless of on-road capabilities, it would not be a motor vehicle, except in very limited circumstances.⁹

E-bikes that meet this definition are regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and must meet bicycle product standards and safety.¹⁰ The federal law only covers product and safety standards. State traffic laws and vehicle codes govern the operation of e-bikes and other micromobility devices on streets, trails, and bikeways within the respective state. To regulate these different devices’ operation and equipment standards, states and localities must first differentiate among the types of available devices, and then create definitions for the devices. Of the 43 states and D.C. that define e-bikes, 26 states have a three-tiered e-bike classification system that uses nearly identical defining language to differentiate between models based on speed capabilities.¹¹

Washington, D.C. and 44 states define an electric bicycle in some manner.¹² In the other states, e-bikes lack a specific definition and may be included within another vehicle class such as “moped” or “motorized bicycle.” Thirty-eight states have established a three-tiered classification system for e-bikes, effectively distinguishing between different models based on their speed capabilities. These states share similar criteria for defining e-bikes, along with comparable safety and operational prerequisites:

• Class 1 e-bikes operate by assisting the rider only when they engage the pedals, and this pedal-assist feature automatically disengages once the bike reaches 20 miles per hour. Typically, municipalities treat Class 1 e-bikes like regular street and mountain bikes, making them well-suited for bike paths, lanes, roads, and other areas frequented by traditional bicycles. Local regulations can differ, and perhaps impose greater restrictions on e-bikes than state laws.¹³
• Class 2 e-bikes offer pedal assistance up to 20 miles per hour. Additionally, Class 2 e-bikes come equipped with throttle-only capabilities, allowing a rider to operate without pedals. Throttle-only modes can be beneficial in situations where a rider’s pedaling ability is limited due to mobility issues, injuries, or for leisure purposes.¹⁴
• Class 3 e-bikes are equipped with speedometers and assist the rider up to 28 miles per hour, enabling riders to travel at faster speeds compared to Class 2 and Class 2 e-bikes.¹⁵

Washington, D.C. and other states do not use the three-tiered system but do identify and enforce e-bikes. Washington, D.C. considers e-bikes “motorized bicycles,” given they have operable pedals, a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour, and combined human and motor power abilities. E-bikes do not require insurance, licensing, or registration. The same road rules apply to both electric and human-powered bikes. Similarly, Massachusetts defines e-bikes as “motorized bicycles,” if the maximum speed is 25 miles per hour or less.¹⁶ While the rider must have a license and registration, they are not required to insure the bike.¹⁷

Motorized scooters, or e-scooters, which tend to have less variation than e-bikes, are generally defined as a type of device with two wheels, handlebars, a floorboard or a seat, and an electric motor. Most states restrict weight at about 100 pounds, and speeds at about twenty miles per hour. For example, New Mexico includes these devices under the category of “electric personal assistive mobility device,” which are defined as:¹⁸

[A] self-balancing device having two nontandem wheels designed to transport a single person by means of an electric propulsion system with an average power of one horsepower and with a maximum speed on a paved level surface of less than twenty miles per hour when powered solely by its propulsion system and while being ridden by an operator who weighs one hundred seventy pounds.

While the idea of an e-scooter is relatively uniform, states take different approaches to how scooters are legally defined, and therefore how they are regulated. Most states have regulations around e-scooters, and regulation is otherwise left to localities.

A powered non-self-balancing board (also known as an electric skateboard) usually consists of a deck or riding surface with two or more sets of wheels, and is propelled by an attached motor. In the same way that e-scooters have dissimilar legal definitions in different states, powered skateboards will also have dissimilar legal definitions in different places. Some states define and regulate them specifically, and some will add them to other types of vehicle categories, and regulate them as such. For example, California has a specific legal definition for electric skateboards that includes an electric propulsion system averaging under 1,000 watts, and a speed limit of twenty miles per hour.¹⁹ Michigan also specifically defines electric skateboards as:²⁰

[A] wheeled device that has a floorboard designed to be stood upon when riding that is no more than 60 inches long and 18 inches wide, is designed to transport only 1 person at a time, has an electrical propulsion system with power of no more than 2,500 watts, and has a

___________________

⁹ Those circumstances include instances in which the maximum speed has been lowered through use of a speed-governing device.

¹⁰ See U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMM’N, POWERED SCOOTERS (Apr. 4, 2007), www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Topics/Powered-Scooters.

¹¹ See NAT’L CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, STATE ELECTRIC BICYCLE LAWS: A LEGISLATIVE PRIMER (Feb. 24, 2021), www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-electric-bicycle-laws-a-legislative-primer.aspx. The states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

¹² Id.

¹³ Juiced Bikes, 2023 E-Bike State Laws and Regulations, JUICED-BIKES.COM, Mar 8, 2023, www.juicedbikes.com/blogs/news/electricbike-state-laws-and-regulations.

¹⁴ Id.

¹⁵ Id.

¹⁶ MASS. ANN. LAWS CH. 90, § 1.

¹⁷ Id.

¹⁸ N.M. STAT. ANN. § 66-1-4.5.

¹⁹ California AB 604, Electrically motorized boards, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB604.

²⁰ MICH. COMP. LAWS SERV. § 257.13f.

maximum speed on a paved level surface of not more than 25 miles per hour. An electric skateboard may have handlebars and, in addition to having an electrical propulsion system with power of no more than 2,500 watts, may be designed to also be powered by human propulsion.

Often, states do not have specific definitions or legislation for all types of micromobility devices, leaving them to be lumped in with other micromobility vehicles. For example, Texas has no specific legal definition of electric skateboards, but an electric skateboard does fall into its definition for “motor-assisted scooter,” which is defined as a self-propelled device with:²¹

1. at least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation;
2. a braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions;
3. a gas or electric motor not exceeding 40 cubic centimeters;
4. a deck designed to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; and
5. the ability to be propelled by human power alone; and

2. does not include a pocket bike or a minimotorbike.

In this case, electric skateboards would be subject to e-scooter laws.

B. A Brief History of Shared Micromobility Systems

Shared micromobility systems allow individuals to rent a device (typically an e-bike or e-scooter) on a short-term basis by using a mobile application (“app”). Through the mobile app, a user can locate a device, unlock it, and pay for the trip. At the end of the ride, devices are either left in a designated docking station or, if the device is “dockless,” in a designated area.

Shared micromobility as an idea came well before the twenty-first century. In 1965, a group of anarchists in Amsterdam bought fifty bikes, painted them white, and left them around the city for anyone to use.²² The project proved unsuccessful after the bikes were stolen, damaged, and impounded. In the 1990’s, Copenhagen tried a coin-based lock and unlock mechanism for a pay-to-ride bike system.²³ This project also resulted in thefts and vandalism. Portsmouth University in England used a personal magnetic stripe card to tie users to trips, creating greater accountability in a shared system.²⁴

Technological improvements including electronic locks, telecommunications, and onboard computers improved these types of services. Small cities in France and Germany piloted small-scale operations in the late 1990’s, but faced minimal adoption.²⁵ In 2005, Lyon, France, launched a 1,500 bike operation called Velo’v.²⁶ By late 2005 the program reported 15,000 members and 6.5 rides per day on each bike. Velo’v’s success inspired Paris to launch Velib, with 7,000 bikes in 2007.²⁷ Velib’s success inspired about sixty similar programs around the world by the end of 2007.²⁸

Washington, D.C. launched the United States’ first bikeshare program in 2008 called SmartBike DC, with 120 bikes at ten locations around the city. D.C.’s program sparked programs across the country.²⁹ In 2013, New York City launched Citi Bike with 332 stations in Manhattan.³⁰ While some shared mobility systems are supported and operated by cities, many are operated by private companies.

In 2014, Ofo, in China, was the first company to make use of GPS on a large scale to establish an effective dockless system, meaning bikes could be left wherever users ended their trips without having to return them to bike parking docks. By 2017, 70 different bikeshare companies were operating in China, maintaining over 16 million bikes.³¹

More recently, bikeshare programs have incorporated electric bikes into their fleets, allowing lower effort and quicker trips for users. In New York City, for example, Citi Bike added electric bike options that cost more for riders, as they are more expensive to operate and maintain. The city also capped e-bikes at 20 percent of Citi Bike’s fleet to ensure affordability for all riders.³²

Electric scooters emerged as a shared micromobility option around the early and mid-2010s. Bird first launched its scooter share program in Santa Monica, California, in 2017, facilitating over 10 million rides in its first year.³³ Lime, also having launched in 2017 in San Francisco, facilitated over 6 million rides in its first year.³⁴ Rideshare companies Uber and Lyft soon followed suit with their own scooter share programs by 2018.³⁵ Many companies implemented these early scooter share programs without the knowledge of local governments. Bird first deployed hundreds of scooters overnight in Santa Monica,

___________________

²¹ TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 551.351.

²² Paul Gallagher, The Whimsical Anarchism of the White Bicycle Revolution, DANGEROUS MINDS, Mar. 19, 2015, https://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_white_bicycle_revolution.

²³ Paul DeMaio, Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future, 12.4 J. PUB. TRANSP. (2009), https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=jpt.

²⁴ Nicole DuPuis, et al., Micromobility in Cities: A History and Policy Overview, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, 2018.

²⁵ Bradley Walker, A Brief History of Bike Sharing, HERE, April 30, 2018, www.here.com/learn/blog/a-brief-history-of-bikesharing.

²⁶ DeMaio, supra note 23.

²⁷ Id.

²⁸ DuPuis, supra note 24.

²⁹ Id.

³⁰ M. Flegenheimer, Out for a First Spin: City’s Bike Share Program Begins, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 28, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/nyregion/bike-share-program-opens-in-new-york-city-after-long-delay.html.

³¹ DuPuis, supra note 24.

³² Aaron Gordon, Lyft, the Largest Bikeshare Operator in North America, Wants Out of the Business, VICE, July 24, 2023, www.vice.com/en/article/pka3kn/lyft-the-largest-bikeshare-operator-in-north-america-wants-out-of-the-business.

³³ Andrew Hawkins, The Electric Scooter Craze Is Officially One Year Old — What’s Next?, THE VERGE, Sep. 20, 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/9/20/17878676/electric-scooter-bird-lime-uber-lyft.

³⁴ Id.

³⁵ Id.

California.³⁶ Companies with existing bikeshare infrastructure and apps easily incorporated scooters as an option and quickly deployed them as well. Some cities responded by forming agreements and pilot programs with scooter share companies, while others like New York City initially banned any scooter deployment. Milwaukee even took legal action.³⁷

Most scooter share programs are dockless (as opposed to the majority of bikeshare programs that are docked), and create frustration with residents around crowding the right of way.³⁸ However, most cities recognize the potential for scooters to increase mobility for residents along with shared bikes, and have looked for paths toward regulation.³⁹ New York City, initially wary of e-scooters, established a scooter share pilot in the Bronx in 2021 with Bird, Lime, and Veo.⁴⁰ The pilot program has tested dedicated parking areas, which many other cities use as well, to avoid crowding the right of way. The program doubled its operation area after one year, and announced another expansion for 2024.⁴¹

The COVID-19 pandemic also had a large impact on shared micromobility around the world. While micromobility use dropped substantially during the first few months of the pandemic, as cities and states issued stay-at-home orders, usage in some cities quickly returned to—and surpassed—pre-pandemic levels by September 2020.⁴² Shared micromobility emerged as a safe way to travel around cities as people looked to avoid crowded trains and buses. Cities around the world reacted by making more space for micromobility, helping to induce even greater ridership as well. As the pandemic pushed many to use micromobility, people are choosing to bike, ride, and roll even after the danger on public transit has mostly dissipated.

C. Ridership Statistics and Trends: Micromobility Is Changing How People Travel

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, as of June 2023, there were 56 docked bikeshare systems open to the general public, operating 8,796 docking stations, 63 dockless bikeshare systems, and 252 e-scooter systems.⁴³ These counts are for publicly accessible systems only, and they do not include private systems like those on college or employer campuses.⁴⁴ On average, a bikeshare system operates about 154 docking stations.⁴⁵

Between 2015 and 2018, U.S. cities added 83 new docked bikeshare systems, while only 19 new systems were added between 2019 to July 2023.⁴⁶ Most cities, therefore, seem to have implemented their bikeshare systems by 2018. This is also shown by the number of stations installed each year; the vast majority of stations installed between 2016 and July 2023 have been stations belonging to existing systems. There are large amounts of growth in bikeshare, just not in the form of new systems, but in the form of those existing systems growing.⁴⁷

Many systems in the U.S. serve the same cities. As of June 2023, dockless bikeshare systems served 51 cities, and e-scooters serve 156 cities.⁴⁸ The total number of bikeshare and scooter share systems, and the number of cities served declined from 2019 to 2020 because many systems temporarily suspended operations or closed permanently due to COVID-19.⁴⁹

Shared micromobility ridership in the United States has grown significantly since 2010, which saw only 321,000 rides.⁵⁰ Ridership grew steadily over the years as new systems appeared in U.S. cities. In 2017, 35 million rides occurred, but after scooter share programs were implemented, 136 million rides took place in 2019.⁵¹ The number of bikeshare rides between 2018 and 2019 did grow, but 86 million of those new rides in 2019 came from scooters.⁵² Despite a 70 percent decrease in travel across all modes in 2020 due to COVID-19, shared micromobility ridership in the United States nearly rebounded to pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2021, with 112 million total trips that year across dockless and docked bikeshare systems, and scooter share systems.⁵³ During 2021, U.S. riders took 47 million trips on docked bikeshare systems, 62.5 million trips on dockless e-scooters, and 2.5 million trips on dockless bikes. Riders took only 65 million rides in 2020.⁵⁴

Shared e-bike trips almost doubled from 9.5 million in 2018 to 17 million in 2021.⁵⁵ By the end of 2021, two thirds of docked bikeshare systems had e-bikes, and a quarter of all docked system bikes were electric.⁵⁶

Before the pandemic, ridership patterns mainly followed the commuting patterns of workers, with pronounced ridership

___________________

³⁶ Tracey Lien and Melissa Etehad, Santa Monica Proposes Tougher Rules for Bird and Other Scooter Rental Companies, L.A. TIMES, June 7, 2018, www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-santa-monicascooter-pilot-20180607-story.html.

³⁷ DuPuis, supra note 24.

³⁸ Id.

³⁹ Id.

⁴⁰ CITY OF NEW YORK, SHARED E-SCOOTER PILOT, https://nycdotscootershare.info/.

⁴¹ Id.

⁴² H. Wang & R. Noland, Changes in the Pattern of Bikeshare Usage due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, FINDINGS, 2021, https://findingspress.org/article/18728-changes-in-the-pattern-of-bikeshare-usage-due-to-the-covid-19-pandemic.

⁴³ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., BUREAU OF TRANSP. STATISTICS, BIKESHARE AND E-SCOOTER SYSTEMS IN THE U.S., https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Bikeshare-and-e-scooters-in-the-U-S-/fwcs-jprj/.

⁴⁴ Id.

⁴⁵ Id.

⁴⁶ Id.

⁴⁷ Id.

⁴⁸ Id.

⁴⁹ Id.

⁵⁰ NACTO, SHARED MICROMOBILITY IN THE U.S. 2020-2021 (2022), https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2020-2021_shared_micro_snapshot_Dec7_2022.pdf.

⁵¹ Id.

⁵² Id.

⁵³ Id.

⁵⁴ Id.

⁵⁵ Id.

⁵⁶ Id.