___________________

²⁸⁴ BROWN, supra note 281.

²⁸⁵ SFMTA, Bikeshare, www.sfmta.com/getting-around/bike/bike-share; Rachel Vierstra, Adaptive Scooters Coming to a Street Near You, SFMTA, (Sept. 3, 2021), www.sfmta.com/blog/adaptive-scooterscoming-street-near-y.

²⁸⁶ PUB. LAW NO. 117-58.

²⁸⁷ 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

²⁸⁸ FED. TRANSIT ADMIN., FTA C 4702.1B, TITLE VI REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION RECIPIENTS, (Oct. 1, 2012), www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/ftacirculars/title-vi-requirements-and-guidelines-federal-transit.

²⁸⁹ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, (Apr. 26, 2021), https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awareness-enforcement/faqs.

²⁹⁰ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING BIKE SHARING RELATIVE TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Informal_Q_and_As_Final_updated_w_new_contacts_9_30_15.pdf.

Moreover, while the FTA considers “bicycle facilities and improvements to be functionally related to transit when they are located within a three-mile radius of a transit station or bus stop,” the purchase of bikes for bike sharing is not generally an eligible expense.²⁹¹ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA administer various programs that can be used to fund bike sharing systems, amenities, infrastructure, and components.²⁹²

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law in 2021, includes funding for public transit projects and has implications for shared micromobility.²⁹³ The FHWA’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program is a federally funded program for State and local governments to fund transportation projects that are designed to improve air quality and mitigate congestion.²⁹⁴ The IILJ amendments to CMAQ specifically include shared micromobility projects, including bikeshare and scooter share systems, as an eligible expense.²⁹⁵ The IIJA also explicitly allows Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds to be used for construction of pedestrian walkways and bicycle and shared micromobility transportation facilities and for carrying out non-construction projects related to safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians.²⁹⁶ State and local governments that use federal funding for shared micromobility projects, including bikeshare and scooter share systems, must ensure that such projects are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner.

1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal funds on the basis of race, color, and national origin, including the denial of meaningful access for LEP individuals.²⁹⁷ Its purpose is to ensure that public funds are not spent in a way that encourages, subsidizes, or results in discrimination on these bases. Title VI applies to recipients and sub-recipients of federal financial assistance, including States, local governments, and transit providers.

Most funding agencies, including the U.S. DOT, have regulations implementing Title VI that prohibit recipient practices that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. U.S. DOT’s implementation of Title VI requirements as they apply to DOT programs is set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 21. The FTA guidance regarding Title VI compliance includes FTA Circular 4702.1B, “Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients,” (Title IV Circular) issued in 2012,²⁹⁸ and FTA’s “Title VI Frequently Asked Questions.”²⁹⁹

The DOT’s Title VI regulations prohibit recipients of federal funds from engaging in discriminatory actions directly or through contractual or other arrangements, including using “criteria or methods of administering its program which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination based on their race, color, or national origin.”³⁰⁰ As a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, Part 21 mandates that DOT’s modal administrations require assurances of Title VI compliance from grantees.³⁰¹

Appendix C to Part 21 provides guidance on the application of Title VI requirements to various DOT programs. One example from the FTA illustrates the application of the nondiscrimination provisions to routing, scheduling, or quality of transportation service:³⁰²

No person or group of persons shall be discriminated against with regard to the routing, scheduling, or quality of service of transportation service furnished as a part of the project on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Frequency of service, age and quality of vehicles assigned to routes, quality of stations serving different routes, and location of routes may not be determined on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

While the FTA provides no guidance on Title VI requirements for federally funded micromobility services, transit agencies that receive federal funds for shared micromobility projects must be cognizant of the Title VI requirements.³⁰³ Title VI allows persons alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal funds to file administrative complaints with the federal departments and agencies that provide the financial assistance. In cases of alleged intentional discrimination, an individual may file suit in federal court. To enforce Title VI, an agency has two options: (1) the termination of, or refusal to provide, federal financial assistance to an institution or program seeking it; or (2) “any other means authorized by law,” which is understood to be a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General seeking a recipient’s compliance with Title VI.³⁰⁴ According to U.S. Department of Justice guidance, “[i]f a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund ter-

___________________

²⁹¹ Id.

²⁹² Id.

²⁹³ PUB. LAW NO. 117-58.

²⁹⁴ 23 U.S.C. § 149.

²⁹⁵ 23 U.S.C. § 149(b)(7).

²⁹⁶ 23 U.S.C. § 217.

²⁹⁷ 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

²⁹⁸ FED. TRANSIT ADMIN., FTA C 4702.1B.

²⁹⁹ FED. TRANSIT ADMIN., TITLE VI - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (Dec. 2012), www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Title_VI_QA_12.26.12.pdf.

³⁰⁰ 49 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(2).

³⁰¹ 49 C.F.R. § 21.7.

³⁰² 49 C.F.R. Part 21, App. C.

³⁰³ FED. TRANSIT ADMIN., IS BIKE SHARING AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE?, www.transit.dot.gov/bike-sharing-eligible-expense.

³⁰⁴ 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (“Compliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section may be effected (1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement . . . or (2) by any other means authorized by law.”).

mination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action.”³⁰⁵

To help public agencies and the private sector ensure that transportation services are accessible to all users, the FHWA developed the STEPS (Spatial, Temporal, Economic, Physiological, and Social) framework to transportation equity.³⁰⁶ The STEPs framework is intended to aid transit agencies in identifying and mitigating gaps in equitable service delivery to ensure their services are accessible to all. Spatial factors can compromise daily travel needs, including lack of service availability in a particular neighborhood, excessively long distances between destinations, and the lack of public transit within walking distance. Temporal time barriers can inhibit a user from completing time-sensitive trips, such as arriving at work or completing travel due to lack of service availability at a particular time (e.g., public transit reliability issues, limited operating hours, traffic congestion). Economic considerations include direct costs, such as fares, tolls, and vehicle ownership costs as well as indirect costs (e.g., personal mobile devices, Internet, credit card access) that create economic hardship or preclude users from completing basic travel. Physiological factors include physical and cognitive limitations that make using standard transportation modes difficult or impossible for certain individuals, such as children, older adults, and people with disabilities. Social considerations include social, cultural, safety, and language barriers that inhibit a user’s comfort with using transportation modes and services. Examples of social barriers can include neighborhood crime, poorly targeted marketing, and the lack of multilanguage information.

2. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”

Since 1994, all federal agencies, including the U.S. DOT, have been required to incorporate environmental justice into their missions. Issued on February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898 requires every federal executive agency and any entity receiving federal funds to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”³⁰⁷ Distinguished from Title VI, which applies to recipients of federal financial assistance, Executive Order 12898 applies to designated federal agencies, and its purpose is to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities.³⁰⁸

According to the U.S. DOT, environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of transportation services, laws, regulations, and policies.”³⁰⁹ Fair treatment means that “no population, due to policy or economic dis-empowerment, is forced to bear a disproportionate burden of the negative human health and environmental impacts, including social and economic effects, resulting from transportation decisions, programs and policies made, implemented and enforced at the Federal, State, local or tribal level.”³¹⁰

Distinguished from Title VI, Executive Order 12898 extends to protect “populations” of similarly situated individuals with respect to the benefits or burdens of a plan or project, but may live far apart.³¹¹ Executive Order 12898 addresses persons belonging to any of the following groups:³¹²

• Black: a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
• Hispanic: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
• Asian American: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands.
• American Indian and Alaskan Native: person having origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
• Low-Income: person whose household income (or in the case of a community or a group, whose median household income) is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

Executive Order 12898 is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch. The executive order directs each federal agency to develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy to implement its requirements. U.S. DOT issued its original environmental justice strategy in 1995 and has reviewed and updated its 1995 environmental justice strategy as appropriate.³¹³ U.S. DOT’s guiding principles for environmental justice are: (i) ensure full and fair participation

___________________

³⁰⁵ U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI.

³⁰⁶ FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., TRAVEL BEHAVIOR: SHARED MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION EQUITY (Aug. 2017), www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/shared_use_mobility_equity_final.pdf.

³⁰⁷ Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).

³⁰⁸ Id.

³⁰⁹ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGY (Nov. 15, 2016), www.transportation.gov/transportation-policy/environmental-justice/environmental-justice-strategy.

³¹⁰ Id.

³¹¹ See Confronting Inequality in Metropolitan Regions: Realizing the Promise of Civil Rights and Environmental Justice on Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 44 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1017.

³¹² U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., CIVIL RIGHTS AWARENESS AND ENFORCEMENT: FAQs (Jan. 29, 2018), www.transportation.gov/civilrights/civil-rights-awareness-enforcement/faqs.

³¹³ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. ORDER 5610.2(A), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN MINORITY POPULATIONS AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS (May 2, 2012), www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/transportation-policy/environmental-justice/339501/dot56102a.pdf.

by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; (ii) avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low-income populations; and (iii) prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority or low-income populations.³¹⁴

In 2012, DOT issued Order 5610.2(a), “Department of Transportation Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (DOT EJ Order), updating the original order issued in 1997. It sets forth procedures and guidance for DOT to implement Executive Order 12898 and ensures a consistent approach toward achieving environmental justice within U.S. DOT by requiring that all DOT Operating Administrations (OAs) fully consider and incorporate, as appropriate, environmental justice principles into existing programs, policies, and activities. The central objective of the U.S. DOT order is to ensure that all federally funded transportation-related programs, policies, or activities having the potential to adversely affect human health or the environment involve a planning and programming process that explicitly considers the effects on minority populations and low-income populations.

U.S. DOT lists the following as adverse effects for environmental justice purposes:

• Body impairment, infirmity, illness, or death
• Air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination
• Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources
• Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values
• Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or economic vitality
• Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services
• Vibration
• Adverse employment effects
• Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations
• Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community
• The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities.³¹⁵

Currently, U.S. DOT has incorporated transportation equity as part of its plans and programs to identify and mitigate unequal impacts and enhance access and mobility for all federal and federally funded transportation programs. To that end, DOT “actively prevents disproportionately high and adverse effects of transportation projects on minority and low-income communities” by ensuring opportunities for minority and low-income communities to influence the transportation planning and decision-making processes through enhanced engagement and meaningful input.³¹⁶

The FTA has developed policy guidance in the form of a Circular (Circular 4703.1), “Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients,” to provide recipients with a distinct framework to assist them as they integrate principles of environmental justice into their public transportation decision-making processes.³¹⁷

While Executive Order 12898 is a Presidential executive order, not a statute or law, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 V.S.C. § 4321 et seq., is the law underpinning Executive Order 12898. The accompanying Presidential Memorandum issued by President Clinton in 1994 made identifying and analyzing EJ issues formally a part of federal agency NEPA reviews: “Each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA.”³¹⁸

In NEPA reviews, an agency is not required to select the course of action that best serves environmental justice, only to take a “hard look” at environmental justice issues.³¹⁹ Courts have noted that “[t]he purpose of an environmental justice analysis is to determine whether a project will have a disproportionately adverse effect on minority and low income populations.”³²⁰ “To accomplish this, an agency must compare the demographics of an affected population with demographics of a more general character (for instance, those of an entire state).”³²¹ However, detached from NEPA, Executive Order 12898 itself is not enforceable in the courts and it does not create any rights, benefits, or trust responsibilities enforceable against the United States or federal agencies. This is in contrast to Title VI, which establishes a private right of action for allegations of intentional discrimination and an enforcement process in the case of a program or activity that has an alleged discriminatory effect.

3. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”

In Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that conduct that disproportionately affects individuals with LEP constitutes

___________________

³¹⁴ See U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGY. See also FTA C 4703.1, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION RECIPIENTS (Aug. 15, 2012), ch. I, § A (2012), www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-andguidance/environmental-programs/environmental-justice/environmental-justice.

³¹⁵ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. ORDER 5610.2(A), APPENDIX.

³¹⁶ See U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGY.

³¹⁷ FTA C. 4703.1, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION RECIPIENTS.

³¹⁸ Memorandum on Environmental Justice, 1 Pub. Papers 241–242 (Feb. 11, 1994).

³¹⁹ See Latin Ams. for Social & Econ. Dev. v. Fed. Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 447, 475-77 (6th Cir. 2014).

³²⁰ Mid States Coal. For Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 541 (8th Cir. 2003); see also Allen v. Nat’l Institutes of Health, 974 F. Supp. 2d 18, 47 (D. Mass. 2013).

³²¹ Mid States, 345 F.3d at 541.

national origin discrimination prohibited under Title VI.³²² Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” requires federal agencies, including U.S. DOT, to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with LEP, and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.³²³ The Executive Order also requires federal agencies ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to LEP applicants and beneficiaries.

B. Equity Issues with Shared-Use Micromobility Programs

In the context of transportation services, equity concerns commonly center around three areas: (i) narrow range of payment options for adults who are unbanked—meaning they do not have a checking or savings account at a bank or credit union—or underbanked—meaning they have a bank account but rely on alternative financial services to meet their transaction and credit needs, such as money orders, check cashing, or international remittances or non-bank credit including rent-to-own services, payday, pawn shop, tax refund anticipation, or auto title loans; (ii) affordability and cost structure; and (iii) access, including disparate distribution of devices. Micromobility is no different. Not all neighborhoods have equal access to micromobility share stations or devices, creating spatial disparities and limiting mobility options for low-income or marginalized communities. Moreover, some people may face barriers to using bike and scooter share due to physical, cognitive or sensory disabilities, language barriers, or lack of digital literacy or access to smartphones or credit cards.

Shared micromobility services have proliferated in the U.S., with programs in nearly every state. While these services have expanded mobility for some travelers, significant barriers to use limit their uptake among certain groups. Without thoughtful planning, services may not be deployed in underserved communities and communities historically excluded from transportation services, or deployed in ways that allow differently abled riders to use them.

While many cities now integrate equity planning into their micromobility networks, these requirements (and sometimes only recommendations) are far from uniform across municipalities. A report by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) found that equity-related provisions were not universal among the 239 programs examined by the researchers.³²⁴ NITC found that 149 programs (around 62 percent) had mandatory provisions for equity.³²⁵ Some cities and agencies used language that suggested, urged, or indicated that they preferred equity-oriented program elements, but they did not make them obligatory for the operators.

NITC found that the most common equity provisions, for both bikeshare and e-scooter programs, were targeted implementation equity, and equity provisions addressing process and evaluation were less frequent.³²⁶ Regarding implementation equity, the most frequent provisions were those that addressed technology access, such as offering alternative access without smartphones (present in 35 percent of programs), cash payment options (33 percent), and a discounted fare option (32 percent).³²⁷ The rarest provision, present in only five percent of programs, was the obligation to provide adaptive vehicles for people with disabilities.³²⁸

E-scooter programs had more equity provisions than bikeshare programs, but micromobility programs that combined both modes had the most equity provisions.³²⁹ Most cities and agencies that enacted equity provisions concentrated on increasing access to shared micromobility services; fewer assessed the outcomes of shared micromobility. Outreach and marketing efforts targeted toward historically marginalized communities and groups are seen in about one quarter of programs.³³⁰

C. Equity Plans for Shared-Use Micromobility Programs

Equity plans for micromobility generally include a combination of an operator’s plans for equitable distribution, discounted pricing, alternative payment options, alternative methods of activation requirements, and engaging the community. For example, as part of the permit application, the City of Atlanta, Georgia requires permitted operators to submit an equity plan that includes discounted price options and may include such elements as cash-based payment systems and non-smartphone reservation systems.³³¹ Los Angeles requires operators seeking a dockless mobility permit to submit an equity plan, which includes at a minimum: detailed criteria of plans offered, including a cash option, non-smartphone option, and a low-income plan; waiving any hold deposits and unlimited free trips under 30 minutes for low-income customers; and a plan to verify low-income status.³³² LADOT has the right to review and ensure

___________________

³²² Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S. Ct. 786, 39 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1974) (holding failure of San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who did not speak English or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures denied them meaningful opportunity to participate in public educational program and thus violated § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

³²³ A more thorough analysis of LEP requirements than is appropriate in this report was addressed in a 2011 TCRP Research Results Digest. See Jocelyn K. Waite, TCRP Research Results Digest 97: Transit Agency Compliance with Title VI: Limited English Proficiency Requirements. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, https://doi.org/10.17226/14476.

³²⁴ BROWN, supra note 281.

³²⁵ Id.

³²⁶ Id.

³²⁷ Id.

³²⁸ Id.

³²⁹ Id.

³³⁰ Id.

³³¹ ATLANTA, GA. CODE OF ORDINANCES § 150-407.

³³² Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., Dockless Mobility Annual Permit, https://ladot.lacity.org/businesses/permits.

compliance with the submitted Equity Plan and to decrease fleet size or revoke the permit if it finds non-compliance with the approved plan.³³³

1. Payment Options

Micromobility systems typically require credit/debit cards for payment and a deposit hold on a bank account or credit card for the equipment. This can be a barrier for those who are underbanked or unbanked, raising equity challenges as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reports that a disproportionate share of underbanked and unbanked households are lower-income, less-educated, younger, black and Hispanic, working-age disabled, and with volatile income.³³⁴ The FDIC describes unbanked as “no one in the household had a checking or savings account at a bank or credit union.”³³⁵ The Federal Reserve estimated that six percent of adult Americans in 2022 were unbanked but “notable gaps remain by income, age, race, ethnicity, and disability status.”³³⁶

Making payment options available that do not require a credit card can help include those without credit cards and bank accounts. Atlanta and Los Angeles require micromobility operators to have payment options besides credit cards, along with adhering to equitable distribution requirements and submitting an equity plan.³³⁷ Data reporting goes hand-in-hand with ensuring compliance with equitable distribution requirements. To measure use among low-income people and determine whether the program is achieving its desired equity outcomes, municipalities, including Los Angeles, require operators provide use-based data.³³⁸ Denver requires that bikeshare and e-scooter vendors provide a cash payment option.³³⁹

2. Affordability

The cost of using bikeshare and scooter share may be prohibitive for some people, especially those who rely on public transportation or have low incomes. While some programs offer subsidized memberships or discounts for low-income users, others may charge fees for unlocking, parking, or exceeding time limits, which can add up quickly and deter frequent use. Findings in New York City “show that current shared e-scooter pricing models may limit the mode’s potential ability to solve the first/last mile problem” because only 32 percent of survey respondents said “shared e-scooters were affordable for daily or regular use without a discounted price in addition to having to pay for another mode of transportation to complete their journeys.”³⁴⁰

New Yorkers who receive or qualify for any local, state, or federal assistance program are eligible for discounted e-scooter share rates in New York City.³⁴¹ In the first twelve months the East Bronx program was active, participating low-income riders completed an average of 25 trips versus the system-wide average of 11 trips.³⁴² As of June 1, 2023, over 1,200 discounted pricing participants made nearly 140,000 rides.³⁴³ According to New York City, “[k]nowledge of and participation in the discounted program, however, was low.” Between August 2021 and August 2022, discounted pricing participants accounted for almost two percent of all unique user accounts but took less than four percent of all e-scooter trips.³⁴⁴ In efforts to boost use, the city requires companies to host monthly community engagement events to promote discounted pricing and accessible vehicles and to provide promotional materials in multiple languages.³⁴⁵

The Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DOTI) requires that bikeshare and e-scooter vendors provide “significantly reduced pricing for need-based groups who qualify for local, state, or federal assistance programs.”³⁴⁶ Under the current contracts with bike and scooter share operators Lyft and Lime, the companies are required to provide reduced rates on trips that originate in parts of the city with low-vehicle ownership and high transit ridership, referred to as “opportunity areas.”

There are other costs associated with using micromobility besides the cost of the ride itself. Bikeshare and scooter share users may face safety risks on the road, such as collisions with cars or pedestrians and injuries from falls or malfunctions. These risks may be higher for riders who do not have access to helmets or protective gear.

3. Equitable Distribution Requirements

E-scooter and bikeshare regulations or contracts often require operators to deploy in underserved communities. However, the dockless nature of micromobility can lead to unequal

___________________

³³³ Id.

³³⁴ FED. DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. (FDIC), 2021 FDIC NATIONAL SURVEY OF UNBANKED AND UNDERBANKED HOUSEHOLDS (2021), www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html.

³³⁵ Id.

³³⁶ U.S. FED. RESERVE SYSTEM, REPORT ON THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS IN 2022 - MAY 2023, www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2022-executive-summary.htm.

³³⁷ ATLANTA, GA. CODE OF ORDINANCES § 150-407; Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., Dockless Mobility Annual Permit, https://ladot.lacity.org/businesses/permits.

³³⁸ LOS ANGELES DEP’T OF TRANSP., DOCKLESS MOBILITY ANNUAL PERMIT, https://ladot.lacity.org/businesses/permits.

³³⁹ CITY OF DENVER DEP’T OF TRANSP., DENVER’S SCOOTER AND BIKE SHARE PROGRAM, https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Department-of-Transportation-and-Infrastructure/Programs-Services/Transit/Micromobility-Program.

³⁴⁰ N.Y.C. DEP’T OF TRANSP., EAST BRONX SHARED E-SCOOTER PILOT REPORT 2022 (2022), www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/east-bronx-shared-e-scooter-pilot-report.pdf.

³⁴¹ N.Y.C. DEP’T OF TRANSP., SHARED E-SCOOTER PILOT, https://nycdotscootershare.info/.

³⁴² Supra note 340.

³⁴³ Supra note 341.

³⁴⁴ Id.

³⁴⁵ Id.

³⁴⁶ CITY OF DENVER DEP’T OF TRANSP., DENVER’S SCOOTER AND BIKE SHARE PROGRAM, https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Department-of-Transportation-and-Infrastructure/Programs-Services/Transit/Micromobility-Program.