HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2019 Item 09 - Study Session on Shared Bicycle Services
Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: October 1, 2019
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Community Services
Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Interim Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON SHARED BICYCLE SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss information on shared bicycle services and provide feedback regarding next
steps.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City’s Circulation Element, adopted in 2014, calls for an assessment of a bike share
program. At the time the Circulation Element was adopted, the anticipation was that a bike share
program would likely be a private/public partnership or even a program run by the City with Cal
Poly or an independent contractor. Since 2014, the private shared mobility industry has seen
rapid change and expansion with both benefits and impacts. Council has expressed interest in
reviewing potential shared mobility policies and programs specific to bicycles. Electric scooters
are currently prohibited under the municipal code and policy changes relating to electric scooters
are not being considered at this time following Council direction on July 16, 2019.
Staff is seeking Council input and broad policy direction on the following options for bike share:
1. Limited to station-based “docked” systems.
2. Open to both station-based and/or dockless systems.
3. Not pursuing bike share policy or program at this point.
4. Other elements that could expand micromobility and address the “last mile1” challenge of
minimizing care use.
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of the 2014 General Plan Update, the Circulation Element introduced new modal shift
objectives to support the increased use of alternative forms of transportation and decreased
dependence on single-occupant automobiles. Among the policies and programs supporting these
modal shift objectives, the Circulation Element identified a specific recommendation for the City
1 "Last mile" has also been used to describe the difficulty in getting people from a transportation hub, especially
railway stations, bus depots, and ferry berths, to their final destination.
Packet Page 169
Item 9
to evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly. At the time, this was envisioned
as a potential public/private partnership or even a City-operated bike share program. In 2014, the
only prevalent examples of shared mobility device programs were station-based or docked bike
sharing systems, in which a shared pool of bicycles were required to park or dock at a dedicated
station when not in use.
Since 2014, private enterprise has completely transformed the world of shared mobility in a way
that few anticipated. Electric bike (aka eBike) models have entered the market, and in 2017,
companies like Lime began to deploy “dockless” bike share systems, which broadly expanded
the locations where bikes can be parked, providing freedom from confined stations. Dockless
electric scooters were soon to follow; emerging as a new shared mobility device concept with
companies like Bird, Lime, Jump, and others deploying fleets of dockless scooters in cities and
university campuses throughout the country. Other types of so-called “micromobility” devices
are on the horizon as the industry is rapidly changing (e.g. electric skateboards, seated scooters,
One Wheel, electric mopeds, etc.).
Given the limitations and costs relative to a station-based system, dockless systems, primarily
scooters (with new growth in bikes and ebikes), have increased in use throughout the country and
now comprise much of the growth for the shared mobility industry. In 2018, 56% of all shared
micromobility trips were on dockless systems and scooters overtook bikes as the preferred
vehicle for dockless vendors. As of the end of 2018, over 85,000 scooters were available for
public use in about 100 U.S. cities. In contrast, dockless bikes, which once numbered in the tens
of thousands, have largely disappeared from city streets.
In 2018 Bird began a surprise “pop-up tour” targeting deployment of dockless scooters on 150
universities and their surrounding municipalities without consultation, authorization, licenses, or
permits. Many universities and cities responded to the deployments via confiscations, business
license violations, and new policies including outright bans. Bird had planned a “pop-up” scooter
deployment in San Luis Obispo in September 2018. The City, however, worked with Bird to
avoid a stealth launch, and discussed City concerns and potential steps necessary prior to any
scooter deployment. Currently, the City’s Municipal Code prohibits electric scooters but allows
for bike share with an encroachment permit and business license.
On January 4, 2019, in response to inquiries regarding shared bicycle and scooter services, City
staff sent a memorandum (Attachment A) to the Council summarizing the City’s current
ordinances, policies, and safety concerns. At its July 16, 2019 meeting, the Council reiterated its
desire for a study session on the topic of shared bicycle services. At the time, the Council
specifically noted that the item should be focused on bicycles.
For more info on the current state of the shared mobility market, see Attachment B.
Will Bikeshare Make Measurable Progress Towards the City’s Mode Shift Goals?
The Circulation Element to the General Plan specifies a goal of increasing citywide bicycle use
to 20% of all transportation trips by 2035. As a reference point, the current bicycle mode share
rate for commute trips is a little over eight percent (8%)2. As the City continues to make
2 Between 2007 and 2017, bicycle commute mode share for San Luis Obispo residents increased from
approximately 5.7% to 8.3% (+2.6%), while drive-alone auto mode share decreased from 71.2% to 67.7% (-3.5%).
Packet Page 170
Item 9
investments in infrastructure and programs to support these mode share targets, it is important to
consider the effectiveness of each strategy and prioritize investments accordingly. Given the
rapidly changing nature of the shared micromobility market, data on mode share trends is just
emerging and results can vary significantly from city to city. While it is difficult to make an
accurate prediction about how much the addition of a bikeshare system may increase bicycle
mode share in San Luis Obispo, there are some general conclusions that can be drawn from
review of available data from other cities:
1. Popularity is Surging. While scooters and dockless systems have captured a strong
share of the market in the last year or two, popularity of station-based (docked) bikeshare
has surged for the past decade, increasing from 321,000 annual trips in 2010 to 36.5
million trips in 2018. This trend is still evident with the City of Santa Cruz, a community
with similar characteristics to San Luis Obispo, where monthly bikeshare usage has
increased from 11,000 trips to over 40,000 trips between initiation of the bikeshare
program in June of 2018 and May of 2019.
2. Not all Micromobility Trips Are Equal. Data indicates that less than half of new trips
made on shared bicycle or scooter systems (anywhere from 20% to 50% on average,
depending on the city) represent trips that previously would have been made by personal
car, taxi or ride hailing service.
3. Location Matters. In large, dense cities with good walkability and robust transit service,
micromobility systems often cannibalize trips that were already car-free, attracting users
who would normally walk, use public transit, or private bicycle. In suburbs and small-to-
medium-sized cities, with moderate walkability and less robust transit service, shared
bike and scooter systems provide a better complement to transit and walking, serving as
an important first-and last-mile connector. In general, small-to-medium-sized cities have
seen greater shifts to non-auto travel modes with the introduction of shared micromobility
systems than very large cities. Given Cal Poly University’s policy of not allowing 1st year
students to bring cars to campus, San Luis Obispo could see considerable gains in bicycle
mode share although it is unknown to what extent those trips would replace transit or
related non-auto trips.
4. Equitable Access. In general, data shows that shared micromobility users are
disproportionately young, white, college-educated men with higher incomes. Strategic
distribution of bikeshare stations in historically less-advantaged communities and
introduction of income-based membership/pricing options have been found to help
increase ridership in historically under-represented communities.
5. The Greatest Barrier to Bicycling Remains. A 2013 survey by the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments on barriers to bicycling found that the top five barriers to
bicycling in the County are related to safety concerns and lack of access to high-quality
bicycle infrastructure. While bikeshare may increase interest for some users—particularly
visitors and commuters who mostly travel to the city by car—access to a bicycle has not
been identified as major barrier to cycling. Cities that have invested in high-quality,
(Source: American Community Survey).
Packet Page 171
Item 9
protected bicycle infrastructure have seen the greatest gains in increasing ridership,
particularly among traditionally under-represented groups such as women, seniors and
children.
Policy Direction
Regarding any emerging technology or business model it is important that policy be specific
enough to achieve desired outcomes, but broad enough to provide flexibility to adapt as the
technology and business models change and evolve. Staff is seeking general policy direction on
the desired framework for a potential shared mobility program. In developing a list of policy
alternatives, staff has outlined the following three (3) potential policy directions:
OPTION 1 – Bike Share Limited to Station-Based Systems
Pursue development of policy framework and implementation of a shared bicycle system that
requires devices to be locked to a designated dock/rack at dedicated stations when not in use.
Pros:
• Higher degree of local control and compliance
• Less potential to increase demand for emergency service and streets maintenance
resources due to nuisance issues
• Bikes located at consistent locations, potentially increasing dependability for users.
• Less potential for confusion and/or need for public education about where shared bikes
are allowed to park.
• Electric bikes may be charged at the designated station/dock, reducing or eliminating
need to collect bikes and charge remotely.
Cons:
• Generally higher cost of implementation (i.e. capital improvements for docking stations,
access, easements, etc.).
• Requires additional resources and public outreach to evaluate station locations and
designs.
• Station locations can have impacts to existing site uses.
• Less potential to increase ridership due to limited locations where shared bikes may be
parked due to either budget constraints or limited or constrained sites for installing
stations in denser built out areas.
• Greater risk due to generally higher initial investment and potential for rapid changes in
private market.
Examples in Other Agencies (Vendors):
• Santa Cruz (JUMP) – limited to station-based bikeshare only but bikes may be locked
to a dedicated bike rack
• Cambria (Zagster) – all stations are sponsored by local hotels and installed on hotel
property. No stations on public right of way. Organized by a local business owner.
• Arcata / Humboldt State University (Zagster) – stations sponsored by the city,
university, and private businesses and installed on their respective rights of way.
Packet Page 172
Item 9
OPTION 2 – Dockless Bike Share Systems Allowed
Pursue development of policy framework and implementation of a shared bicycle system that
allows use of an undocked system, where devices may not be required to be locked to a designate
station/rack when not in use.
Pros:
• Generally lower cost for implementation.
• Higher potential to increase ridership due to flexibility of users to park bikes at a greater
number of destinations.
• Reduced staff resources and public outreach needed for determining location and design
of station/dock infrastructure.
Cons:
• Non-compliance by users when parking devices in appropriate locations which leads to
blocking sidewalks, curb ramps, ADA paths of travel, and entries to businesses and
residences.
• Greater risk for vandalism involving damages to bicycles and potential for abandoned
devices ending up in local waterways, waste bins, private property or other undesired
area (with docked devices the user must return the device to a designated device or
continue to be charged a fee for use).
• Historically, there has been difficulties and/or lack of interest in self-regulation by
operators requiring more city resources to manage.
• Given dockless scooter popularity, there has been a market shift away from dockless
bikes (including eBikes) and finding a vendor may be difficult.
• Greater need for public education about where devices are allowed to parked.
• Bikes may not always be available at consistent locations, potentially reducing
dependability of system for some users.
• Electric bikes must be collected and charged at off-site locations.
• Geofencing technology limiting parking to designated areas is not yet reliable.
Examples in Other Agencies (Vendors):
• Santa Barbara (in development) – launching a single-vendor pilot project to allow
dockless bikes to park in certain designated areas not conflicting with sidewalks or
pedestrian walkways.
• Seattle (multiple vendors) – allows multiple vendors to operate dockless bikeshare and
to park in the furniture zone of public sidewalks not blocking pedestrian access and not
on street corners, curb ramps, or entrances to buildings.
• University of California, Santa Barbara (HOPR) – single vendor allowing dockless
bikes to park in designated areas in the public right of way through a phone app
• Davis / Sacramento (JUMP) – single vendor allowing dockless bikes to park in any bike
rack. Free stand parking not allowed. Organized by the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments.
Packet Page 173
Item 9
OPTION 3 – Do Not Pursue a Bike Share Policy or Program
Do not direct staff to develop policy framework or pursue implementation of a bike share
program of any type at this time.
Pros:
• No new capital and operating cost obligations
• Allows for continued focus of staffing resources on current work program
• Provides additional time to monitor rapid changes in micromobility market before
committing city resources to a specific program
• No increase in emergency services demands related to nuisance or safety issues with new
mobility system
Cons:
• Less potential to increase bicycle mode share, particularly for users that do not currently
have regular access to a private bicycle within the city (i.e. employees who commute into
the city from other areas, visitors/tourists, infrequent bicycle users, etc.)
Examples in Other Agencies:
• Coronado, CA – The city has banned bikeshare and instead emphasized the benefit of
their local businesses which offer traditional bike rentals
Key Takeaways from Research on Various Bikeshare Options:
1. One Vendor is Often Better. Cities such as the City of Santa Cruz have implemented a
bikeshare program through an RFP process. The advantage is that this streamlines
communication to only one vendor on communicating policy or when problems arise such as
bikes improperly parked or needing maintenance. Many vendors have stated a preference for
this approach as it is better for their business model. In cities where multiple vendors operate,
there can be a tendency for vendors to cannibalize each other leading to over supply and
device crowding.
2. There are Strategies to Minimize Dockless Bike Problems. Dockless bikeshare systems
have proven to be more difficult to regulate given the difficulty to communicate where bikes
may be parked free-standing as well as reporting to vendors where bikes need to be removed,
requiring more city resources to manage. However, cities such as Santa Cruz have
implemented a hybrid dockless/station-based system that also allows dockless bikes to be
secured to any regular bike rack using a built-in lock on the rear wheel. Such a parking policy
may be easier to communicate to the public and reduce the reports of improperly parked
bikes. Testing would need to be done to confirm whether an auxiliary lock feature would be
feasible with the specific types of bike racks most prominent in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Other strategies include requiring that bikes be secured to designated dockless parking areas
or geofencing areas that where bikes are prohibited from parking.
3. The Market is Changing Rapidly. Given the start-up nature of the industry, vendors come
into and out of existence quickly or tend to change their device focus from bikes (most
notably dockless bikes) to scooters. This is a potential risk to public agencies which act more
deliberately and must consider the concerns of a larger, more diverse group of stakeholders,
Packet Page 174
Item 9
often requiring longer time periods to arrive at policy decisions.
4. Stakeholder Identification. Identifying stakeholders and the extent of public engagement is
a crucial component of bikeshare policy because it results in less conflict during the process.
Stakeholders should be carefully considered, and potentially impacted groups should be
incorporated into the process as stakeholders.
Prioritization Direction
In addition to general policy direction, staff is asking for direction on timing and prioritization
relative to the policy/option selected. At this time, Transportation Division staff is focused on
delivering a substantial work program, including several major capital projects, development of
the City’s first Active Transportation Plan, and maintaining the ongoing traffic operations and
safety programs. Depending on the specific direction provided by Council, work efforts currently
in progress may need to be deferred or additional resources added in order to progress with
bikeshare policy and program development in the short-term. Bikeshare services offered as
“turn-key” products where a single vendor is responsible for operating and maintaining the
system typically require less resources to develop than City-run programs or systems with
multiple vendors. Depending on the urgency and type of program favored by Council, the
amount of resources needed may vary. It should be noted that additional funding for project
development beyond existing staffing costs has not been identified in the 2019-21 Budget. If the
Council provides direction to proceed with development of a shared mobility program, staff
recommends identifying one of the following timing/prioritization strategies:
A. Immediate. Initiate development of policy framework as soon as possible (before end of
2019). Additional funding to procure consultant services to assist with program
development and a request for proposals will be required given existing staff workload
and priorities. Estimated consultant costs could range as high as $50,000-$100,000.
B. Mid-2020. Proceed with bikeshare policy development as Active Transportation Plan
activities wind down (begin first half of 2020) with combination of as-needed consultant
support and assistance from other internal resources (administration assistance).
Estimated consultant costs could range as high as $15,000-$25,000.
C. Late 2020. Proceed after adoption of the Active Transportation Plan with existing staff
resources – anticipated Start Summer 2020. No additional consultant services would be
required at this time.
POLICY CONTEXT
Since at least 1982, the City’s Circulation Element to the General Plan has mandated programs to
reduce traffic congestion and encourage use of other modes of transportation to the single
occupant vehicle including transit, bicycling and walking. As mentioned previously, the City’s
current Circulation Element sets ambitious goals such that by 2035 the City should increase
mode share of bicycles to 20% and 18% for walking, carpools and other forms of transportation
(policy 1.7.1). The Circulation Element also states that “the City shall evaluate a bike share
program in coordination with Cal Poly and other education institutions” (policy 4.2.1). In terms
of current policy regarding micromobility, the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code currently
prohibits electric scooters and motorized skateboards, but potentially allows for bike share with
Packet Page 175
Item 9
an encroachment permit and business license.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
At the direction of Council, this study session is based on analysis and informational researc h
from other municipalities. Due to the focus on research for the study session, the public outreach
conducted has been focused on alerting the public about the study session. In preparation for the
Council meeting on October 1, 2019, email correspondence on this study session has been sent to
individuals and groups who have expressed interest in shared bicycle services in the past.
Additionally, staff has communicated with Cal Poly University, Caltrans, the Chamber of
Commerce, Downtown SLO, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC), and on the City
website and social media channels to notice the meeting and provide links to the Agenda Report.
Staff has also been in touch with several companies who have expressed interest in operating
shared mobility services (both bicycle and scooter) in the City. They include Bird, Lime, Zagster,
Gotcha, Skip, and Spin.
CONCURRENCE
Public Works staff have been in communication with the City Police and Fire Departments in the
drafting of this report. They have expressed concern for any dockless mobility services (bicycle
or scooter) due to the potential for increased incident response stemming from improper parking
of devices, blocking the sidewalk, as well as responses due to vandalism, theft, abandonment,
and traffic collisions. When a bicyclist is involved in a traffic collision, the Fire Department will
do what is possible to secure a privately-owned bike given the assumption that privately-owned
bikes are expensive property. With a shared bike, the Fire Department would not be able to
provide the same level of bike security following a traffic collision. Given the valuable input
and experience of first responders, the development of bike share program and policy would be a
joint work effort with Public Works, Police and Fire Departments.
The ATC has had general discussions on the topic of shared micromobility and members have
expressed interest in participating in this study session, but the ATC has not provided any formal
recommendations on this topic at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in
this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec.
15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-20
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Packet Page 176
Item 9
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $0 $0 $0
This study session in itself has no fiscal impact. However, there could be fiscal ramifications
depending on the desired direction Council chooses for the program. Additional resources and/or
tradeoffs on workload may be required dependent on Council direction. If Council direction is to
add additional resources in order to proceed at this time and not defer any other projects, staff
will advertise for consultant service and return to Council with more detailed cost estimates.
Should Council authorize Staff to move forward and a RFP be issued, at a minimum, the City
should seek to recover projected direct and overhead costs for operating a private enterprise on
City Streets and some companies have offered annual financial support to further bike
infrastructure projects.
STUDY SESSION FRAMEWORK FOR FEEDBACK TO STAFF
At this study session, Council will receive a summary presentation of this report, hear input from
the public, and provide feedback to staff regarding next steps if any. If Council directs staff to
develop policy, staff will return at a future date with draft specific program and policy
framework for council consideration. This will involve coordination with community and agency
partners, public engagement, soliciting feedback from other implementing agencies, and working
with bike share vendors.
In providing feedback to staff, below are series of questions that Council may want to use to
guide that discussion.
Question #1. Does Council believe it has sufficient information on bikeshare programs,
including pros, cons, and lessons learned from other agencies? If not, what further research
would Council like to receive and how would it like to receive it (in memo form or another
public meeting for example).
Question #2. Does Council want to proceed with drafting a bikeshare policy at this time? If so,
the following topics would helpful to have Council comments on:
a) What would the Council want included in development of a bikeshare policy?
b) Does Council have a preference for station-based or dockless systems?
c) Does Council want certain devices allowed or, said differently, disallowed?
d) Does Council want a pilot program to assess? And, if so, what would be a timeframe
for evaluation?
e) Are there performance measures Council would want to include in a program?
f) Are there desired goals and/or outcomes of a potential bikeshare system and how should
Packet Page 177
Item 9
policy framework articulate those objectives?
Question #3. If the Council does choose to create a bikeshare policy, how does the Council want
the Vision for Inclusivity and Diversity analyzed and applied to the bikeshare policy?
Question #4. Given the staff constraints, timing, noted in this report, what is the preferred timing
for this work effort if a policy is desired?
ALTERNATIVES
Council could identify other options than those listed above.
Attachments:
a - Council Memorandum January 4, 2019
b - READING FILE - Shared Micromobility in the US: 2018
Packet Page 178
Item 9
DATE: January 4, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation
(Version 1: July 2018)
PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared
active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background
information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential
next steps for City Council consideration .
Background
In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had
unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff
reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a
“rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to
San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow
City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies
have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has
been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to
the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time
as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on
outreach, vendor selection, etc.
Policy Context
The City of San Luis Obispo has had a bicycle transportation program since at least the early 1980s . Ever
since that time, the program and transportation plans have included various policies which promote
bicycling. Through these policies, the City has encouraged bicycle use and has heavily invested in bicycle
facilities on every arterial and major collector street as well as numerous bike paths across the City.
In addition, since at least 1982, the City’s Circulation Element to the General Plan has man dated
programs to reduce traffic congestion and encourage use of other modes of transportation to the single
occupant vehicle (SOV) including transit, bicycling and walking. The City’s current Circulation Element
sets ambitious goals such that by 2030 the City should increase mode share of bicycles to 20% and 18%
for walking, car pools and other forms of transportation (policy 1.7.1). The Circulation Element also
states that “the City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and oth er
education institutions” (policy 4.2.1).
Packet Page 179
Item 9
Shared Active Transportation Devices Page 2
When the Circulation Element was adopted in 2014, the only shared active transportation device
program was bike sharing, which had a system in which the devices would be required to dock to a
dedicated station. Since then, so called “dockless” bike sharing systems have emerged, which broadly
expand the locations where bikes can be parked and freedom from confined locations. Like bike sharing,
scooter sharing has emerged as a new shared mobility device concept, which can be dockless devices.
Dockless systems have increased in use throughout the country in many cities, universities and college
towns. They now comprise most of the growth for the bikeshare and scooter share industry and have
helped meet first and last mile connections to transit for some systems.
However, these devices have not been without controversy. The growth of dockless systems and
inability and/or difficulties for self-regulation has resulted in a number of negative consequences as
usage increases. Failures of users to safely store and park used equipment often result in the parking of
the devices in the public right of way. This includes blocking pedestrian sidewalks and ADA paths of
travel, curb ramps, and walkways to businesses and residences. Many cities have reported the need for
significant increases in enforcement and emergency response resources to address issues including
device retrieval and storage, collisions and injury abatement/response all resulting in a general dilution
of existing resources due to new service requirements.
Along with the safety and nuisance issues is the question of the use of the public right of way for
commercial purposes. In addition, while the City has included bicycle collision data for at least the last
ten years in its annual Traffic Safety Report, it is unknown what the impacts may be of in creased scooter
use, a device with smaller wheels and the ability to tra vel at higher speeds with electric motor
propulsion.
Municipal Code and State Vehicle Code Regulations
Non-bicycle varieties of Shared Active Transportation Devices do pose conflicts with the Municipal Code
that would require reevaluation should they be permitted. Current Municipal Code prohibits the devices
upon any roadway in the city or upon any sidewalk in the downtown area . In addition, the California
Vehicle Code prohibits the use of a motorized scooter upon a sidewalk, except as may be necessary to
enter or leave adjacent property. This severely limits where scooters can be legally ridden in the City.
Municipal Code 10.76.010 Use of prohibited on streets and sidewalks in downtown area.
A. No person upon roller skates, including skateboards, or riding in or by means of any coaster,
toy vehicle, or similar device shall go (1) upon any roadway in the city, or (2) upon any sidewalk
in the downtown area, the outer boundaries of which area are described as follows:
From Santa Rosa Street along Palm Street to Broad Street, Broad to Monterey, Monterey to
Nipomo, Nipomo to San Luis Creek, San Luis Creek to a point where Beach Street would intersect,
from this intersection point to Beach and Marsh, Marsh to Nipomo, Nipomo to Pacific, Pacific to
Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa to Palm.
B. The area shall include both sides of the boundary streets listed in subsection A of this section,
and all four corners of the intersections of the boundary streets listed in subsection A of this
section. (Prior code § 3220.14)
California Vehicle Code Article 5. Operation of Motorized Scooters 21235
Packet Page 180
Item 9
Shared Active Transportation Devices Page 3
The operator of a motorized scooter shall not do any of the following:
(g) Operate a motorized scooter upon a sidewalk, except as may be necessary to enter or leave
adjacent property.
Since storage of these devices is often scattered in and throughout the public right of way, other
municipal codes are also implicated in terms of unlawful encroachment.
Safety Considerations
With the growing popularity of Shared Active Transportation Devices, cities have seen an increase in
calls for service for both Police and Fire, many related to injuries received while using these devices.
According to the Washington Post1, in Salt Lake City one hospital reported a 161% increase in the
number of visits involving scooters over the three-month period after electric scooters were deployed as
compared to the prior three-month period. Contributing factors to these safety concerns include lack of
experience when operating these devices, mechanical failures, improper safety equipment, and the
impact on pedestrian safety. Addressing many of these safety concerns have challenged city
administrations.
Cities with Shared Active Transportation Devices have experienced a significant increase in the number
of incidents police respond to related to the devices. For example, in September of 2017 Bird launched
in the City of Santa Monica deploying 500 devices, which quickly grew to approximately 2,000 by March
of 2018. The Santa Monica Police Department was able to provide some statistical data from January 1,
2018 to October 1, 2018. During this time period the police department responded to 691 calls for
service related to scooter share devices. The calls for service included reports of disturbing the peace,
erratic driving/speeding on scooters, traffic collisions involving injury, traffic hazards and injured
pedestrians. During the same time period, the Santa Monica Traffic Division made 1,997 traffic stops
that resulted in 1,186 citations issued for various violations. These violations included no helmets, riding
on sidewalks, tandem riding and violations under California Vehicle Code 21235 which regulates the
riding of scooters. This data does not include the number of calls the police department received
related to scooters/bikes that have been abandoned, vandalized, stolen, or blocking the sidewalk right
of way and/or business. All the mentioned impacts are predicted to have a significant impact on the City
of SLO Police Department and Fire Department’s current resources.
The San Luis Obispo Police Department has had an increase of 7,237 annual calls for service since 2010
(26,999 To 34,236). Santa Monica has a population of 92,000 people, nearly twice that of San Luis
Obispo. If San Luis Obispo receives a similar number of calls for service as Santa Monica, it would result
in an estimated additional 414 calls for service.
Cal Poly Coordination
The City has been in close coordination with Cal Poly on this issue. Shared transportation device
companies often seek joint agreements with cities and universities as students can be primary users and
the devices are used across jurisdictions. Cal Poly staff were included in the initial meeting with Bird and
a follow up meeting with City staff.
Cal Poly faces similar issues as the City in that there are both potential benefits and drawbacks. There
are some campus policies that could support the use of shared mobility devices, but as with the City,
1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/09/24/hospital-er-reports-percent-spike-visits-involving-e-
scooters/?utm_term=.dfad9aeb24d4
Packet Page 181
Item 9
Shared Active Transportation Devices Page 4
existing regulations would need to be modified. There are also safety concerns similar to those of the
City.
Cal Poly has expressed that it may consider joining in a pilot program should the City choose to do so,
but that it looks to the City, in general, to be the lead agency on this issue. There may ultimately be
alignment between the City and Cal Poly on the regulation and use of these devices, b ut that would
need to be informed by additional data and discussion. Cal Poly may also choose not to allow the use of
these devices on campus for reasons specific to the University even if the City elects to move forward.
Potential Benefits
In addition to the safety considerations, policy issues, and other factors, there are potential benefits
from the intersection of public mobility needs and shared active transportation devices. These include,
and are not limited to:
1. Congestion relief through the provision of different modes of travel, which is both a Major City
Goal and a goal of the Circulation Element.
2. Closing the ‘First Mile, Last Mile’ gap that is often a barrier to public transit and other modes of
travel.
3. Providing new transportation options to sectors of the population who desire and could utilize
these alternatives.
4. Providing a means of travel which could assist the city in meeting its multimodal goals following
the models in other cities where usage has been more welcomed by the public and managed by
the local government through lessons learned and collaboration with other municipalities,
enabling the City to find the alternative that works best for our residents and visitors.
5. Promoting the local tourism industry.
Potential Next Steps
Option A – Schedule a Study Session
If the Council would like to pursue a fit for Shared Active Transportation Devices in the City, staff
recommends placing a study session on the agenda to present and discuss formal policy issues on the
topic. This would include an evaluation of General Plan goals as well as potential permitting, operating,
and use issues of the public right of way, including safety aspects, and conflicts within the Municipal
Code. At this study session, the Council could provide direction specifically on how to generally proceed
with any regulatory changes, the type of devices that the City wants to authorize (bike and /or scooters)
and any other factors or details related to selecting vendors and minimizing injury and risk to the
community.
Staff proposes to utilize the process set forth by Eugene Bardach in his text, A Practical Guide for Policy
Analysis: The Eightfold path to More Effective Problem Solving (5th edition, 2016):
1. Problem Definition
2. Assemble Evidence
3. Construct Policy Alternatives
4. Select Evaluative Criteria
5. Project Outcomes of Alternatives
6. Evaluate Trade-Offs
Packet Page 182
Item 9
Shared Active Transportation Devices Page 5
7. Make a Recommendation
8. Provide a Rationale for Recommendation
Santa Monica’s recent experience with this issue could serve as a helpful example should the Council
ultimately decide to move forward with implementing a shared active transportation device program.
On June 26, 2018 the Santa Monica City Council adopted Ordinance 2578 and gave staff direction to
proceed with the implementation of a 16-month Shared Mobility Pilot Program to forge a model for
regulating new companies and technologies. The City released a Request for Applications seeking to
select up to four operators of e-bike and e-scooter sharing devices – two e-bike and two e-scooter – to
provide citywide services during the pilot program. The City received 18 applications from 13 different
operators and ultimately approved the applications of four private companies (Bird, Jump, Lime, and
Lyft) to provide shared mobility services in the public-right-of-way. The RFP process included an optional
applicant conference, public posting of recommendations, public comment, and the selection
committee’s recommendations to the Director of Planning and Community Deve lopment who made the
final selection determination. The selection committee consisted of the following City Staff members:
one Police Lieutenant, a Principal Transportation Planner, the Transit Planning Manager, the Economic
Development Administrator, and the Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development.
Goals for the 16-month pilot program include:
• Diversity mobility options for residents, employees, and visitors to Santa Monica.
• Protect public health and safety.
• Reduce sidewalk, pathway and ADA blockages.
• Reduce emissions from short trips and connections to transit.
• Maximize user awareness of safe and legal behaviors for operating shared mobility devices.
• Create an enforceable framework for managing shared mobility services.
• Ensure use of Public Right of way benefits public mobility.
• Ensure private operator response to pervasive issues and service complaints.
The pilot program began on September 17, 2018 and formal evaluation of the pilot will begin at the 9 -
month mark of the program, ending with a report and recommendation to the Santa Monica City
Council for a permit system or other next steps to occur within the 16 months.
Option B – Take No Action At This Time
A second option would be to not address mobility issues at this time and instead monitor other
jurisdictions, states and the private market to allow trends and legal issues to evolve and then pursue
legislative actions at a later time. While this option might allow for a more seamless (and les s
problematic) start for the City by allowing others to resolve conflicts, there is a general concern that
remaining in a reactionary mode may not result in intended results primarily due to the private market
“pushing” the issue both from an economic as well as demand standpoint . Even if a sanctioned public
program were to be deferred until a future time, it is likely that individual ownership of electronic
devices, particularly electric scooters2, will likely become more prevalent and require regulatory
changes.
2 Electric scooters are becoming more available in the public marketplace with speeds that are faster than offered by
shared mobility companies and with shorter charge times and longer travel ranges.
Packet Page 183
Item 9
Shared Active Transportation Devices Page 6
Option C-Active Transportation Plan Update
The decision about how to address Shared Active Transportation Devices could be included as part of
the update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and its transformation to an Active Transportation Plan.
This additional scope was not contemplated in the original budget and would likely add cost and time to
the overall schedule. The budget for this project is $40,000 and is currently estimated to be completed
by spring of 2020.
Potential Tradeoffs
No formal budget or funding has been identified for this work, or to implement any subsequent
direction from the City Council. Given the complexity of the issue and the staff resources necessary for
coordination with city departments, outside agencies, and the general public, the Active Transportation
Plan effort would likely be delayed by at least three months to bring this forward to the Council for a
study session. Further delays would be expected should there be direction to implement a program
outside of the City’s Financial Plan process.
The City Council may provide additional direction on this issue during the communications portion of the
agenda at a future City Council meeting.
Please contact Adam Fukushima or Greg Hermann with any questions.
Packet Page 184
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 1
In this guide:
Introduction 2
Shared Active Transportation 2
The Public Authority 4
Managing Shared Active Transportation 6
Policy areas where all cities should be in alignment 6
Oversight & Authority 7
Data Standards 8
Small Vehicle Standards for the Shared-Use Context 9
Policy areas where issues should be evaluated at a local level 10
Small Vehicle Parking 11
Community Engagement and Equity Programs 19
State of Practice 21
Fleet Size and Service Area 21
Small Vehicle Distribution 27
Fees and Pricing 32
Equity Programming 36
Permit Overview 40
NACTO Policy 2018
Guidelines for the
Regulation and Management
of Shared Active Transportation
Version 1: July 2018
Packet Page 185
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 2
Introduction
Shared Active Transportation
Over the past decade, Shared Active Transportation systems have become a common sight on North
American public streets and rights-of-way, creating new mobility opportunities and changing the
way people move around their cities. To create these systems, cities, local governments, and trusted
civic partners (e.g. downtown alliances, community-based development organizations) have typically
followed a careful, coordinated process; developing structured public-private partnerships, vetting
companies through competitive bidding, and managing and regulating systems through binding
contracts, to ensure the best outcomes for the public.
Over the past decade, the long-term public-private-civic/non-profit partnerships developed for, by, and
along with bike share systems in the U.S. have helped this new transportation option to thrive. In many
places, this coordination between cities, operators, and other community stakeholders has allowed bike
share practitioners to grapple with complex issues around access and equity, expanding transportation
options for low-income people, and focusing investments in communities with histories of chronic
disinvestment.
Companies rent small, shared-use-specific, vehicles to the public from multiple locations
within the right-of-way. To date, these small vehicles include: bikes, e-bikes, scooters,
and e-scooters, but other vehicles may be under development. Typically, Shared Active
Transportation small vehicles are stored in the public right-of-way.
In the initial (also known as “station-based” or “docked”) bike share systems, customers
picked and returned bikes at stations placed strategically throughout the right-of-way and
adjacent public and private property. In the new (also known as “dockless”) systems, stations
are eliminated, small vehicles can be picked up or left anywhere absent regulation, and small
vehicle rental is facilitated through an app. As the technology advances, most companies
are moving toward hybrid options, where systems can be station-based, or dockless, or both
depending on need.
• Shared Active Transportation – a network or system of small vehicles, placed in the
public right-of-way and for rent in short time increments, that provides increased
mobility options over short distances in urban areas
• Small Vehicles – bikes, scooters, e-bikes, e-scooters, and other small, wheeled vehicles
designed specifically for shared- use and deployed by Shared Active Transportation
companies
What is Shared Active Transportation?
Packet Page 186
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 3
In January 2017, a new breed of Shared Active Transportation companies began operating on North
American public streets and rights-of-way. Many of these companies initially launched absent
contracts, permits, or business licenses, often completely independent of municipal knowledge, policy
making, or existing partnerships and community programs. In response, cities have developed new
permitting and licensing structures to manage them and to ensure that public needs stay at the forefront
of new mobility advances. These companies and their operations typically differ from the initial systems
in three ways:
• They are not selected by the municipality or approved civic partner via a competitive bidding
process.
• They are not managed or regulated through a contract or legal partnership agreement.
• To date they exclusively use the “dockless” technology model.
This document provides guidance for cities and public entities as they look to manage and regulate
Shared Active Transportation Companies that are not otherwise managed through competitive
procurement processes or contracts. It focuses on clearer and more formal management of public-use
mobility options that are not created under the auspices of a public entity. The regulatory focus of this
document is not based on the technology or the business plan. Rather, as businesses operating on city
streets, Shared Active Transportation Companies need to be overseen and regulated by public entities
when they are not otherwise managed through existing processes.
The guidance is divided into broad categories: policy areas where cities should be in alignment and
places where policy should be decided at a local level. In addition, this guidance provides a state of
the practice overview for key issues such as determining allowable fleet sizes, ensuring engagement
and equity-focus programming, setting permit fees, and vehicle distribution. This overview is meant
to provide an at-a-glance look at how different cities are approaching the same issues, providing
cities with the best possible information as they decide how to manage and regulate Shared Active
Transportation Companies in their jurisdictions.
As the landscape of Shared Active Transportation is rapidly changing, this document will be reviewed
and updated approximately 6 months after release, and updated as needed after that.
Introduction
Packet Page 187
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 4
The Public Authority
Codified in city charters, state constitutions, and laws across North America, is the fundamental
responsibility of cities and public entities to ensure safe passage on public rights-of-way, to protect
public health, safety and welfare, and govern commerce in the public right-of-way and on private
property. From this responsibility comes government’s authority to regulate and manage activity and
commerce in the public street, such as Shared Active Transportation companies.
If and why cities choose to allow Shared Active Transportation companies to operate on their streets is
a local decision. Some cities may find that allowing Shared Active Transportation companies to operate
in their jurisdictions in a managed and orderly fashion meets and supports city goals. Others may
equally conclude that, such companies impede or detract from local policy goals and should be limited
or banned from operating. In many places, cities have intentionally procured and promoted bike share
systems as key tools in larger sustainability and mobility plans, conceiving of bike share as part of a
package of services provided to the public. In other places, bike share has been a stand-alone addition
to the landscape, largely divorced from municipal mobility planning and policy. Demonstrations or
pilots may provide useful information on how Shared Active Transportation can best serve a specific
city but only if the city is explicit about what it hopes to test and learn.
As cities look to manage Shared Active Transportation, they need to be clear on where and when
company goals align with public benefits and to carefully define the terms of success. In thinking
through regulation, incentive-based tools may become increasingly important to ensure that the public
benefits. In particular, introducing or expanding Shared Active Transportation options provides cities
with opportunities to develop, require, and fund necessary equity and engagement programing that
can increase ridership and help meet mobility needs. For example, in St. Louis, companies can only
expand past 2,500 bikes if they develop and implement a social equity plan and meet other ridership
requirements.
Many of the newer small vehicles in the Shared Active Transportation arena—e-bikes, scooters,
e-scooters—exist in a regulatory grey area, regulated in a limited fashion on an individual or
recreational level but not envisioned en masse or in an automated rental scenario. For example, rules
are inconsistent from city to city on where e-scooters or e-bikes allowed to operate or even how they
are defined. This murky equipment landscape further complicates regulation. Part of the success of
bike share over the past decade has come from the high quality of bike share bikes which need to meet
different and often higher safety standards than bikes developed for personal use because they are
intended for shared-use and remain in the public realm at all times (examples of shared-use equipment
standards include: always-on front and rear lights that remain illuminated after the bike stops, or
fully-enclosed and tamper-proof brake cables).
Introduction
Packet Page 188
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 5
When and where governments choose to exercise their authority varies from city to city. However, the
mechanisms for how and why cities can regulate generally fall into similar categories:
Commerce on the public right-of-way
The small vehicles deployed by Shared Active Transportation Companies are commercial
equipment. In most places, business cannot be conducted in the public right-of-way without an
appropriate permit. Though cash or credit payments are conducted through an app, the transaction
is completed within the right-of-way. Shared Active Transportation rentals should be regulated
similarly to other businesses.
Zoning regulations
In places where Shared Active Transportation companies propose to conduct some or all of
their business from private property, local zoning may apply. Most zoning codes designate what
kinds of businesses are permitted where. There is wide variation in how local zoning codes are
promulgated, so using zoning as a mechanism to regulate Shared Active Transportation Companies
is a local decision. For example, in at least one community, public bike share is explicitly defined
and permitted in the zoning code but private bike share is not. Therefore, renting out bikes is not
permitted on private property, because it is not an allowed use under zoning.
Regulating where small vehicles are permitted
Regulations about how small vehicles are parked on public property also falls under the general
framework of health and safety. If a municipality permits an operation – whether it be an ice cream
stand, outdoor dining, or a parked bike/scooter – it can designate the area where the activity is
permitted to be.
Existing Contracts
Municipalities with existing contracts with vendors to run local bikeshare systems may have
exclusivity or other provisions which limit the municipalities’ ability to permit additional vendors/
operators of bikeshare to operate or do business within the municipality. The specific language of
the contract dictates how much the municipality has to do to actively discourage these operations
and may range from simple notifications to removal of unauthorized bicycles. These contracts may
or may not apply to other small vehicles such as scooters, one wheels, e-bikes or others depending
on the contract language.
Introduction
Packet Page 189
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 6
Managing Shared Active
Transportation
Policy areas where all cities should be in alignment
All cities and local governments should ensure that their contracts, permits, and licenses address the
following core issues in substantively similar ways in order to comprehensively manage and protect the
public right-of-way and provide a level playing field for this new and evolving industry.
In this section:
Oversight & Authority
General Provisions
Operations Oversight
Public Communications Oversight
Data Standards
Provision & Access
Quality & Accuracy
Privacy
Small Vehicle Standards for the Shared-Use Context
Packet Page 190
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 7
Oversight & Authority
General Provisions
1. Bike share companies and other mobility service providers are only allowed to operate in the public
right-of-way with legal permission (e.g. license, permit, contract) from the City or relevant local
government.
2. Cities should reserve the right to limit the number of companies operating (e.g. cap the number of
permits or licenses issued, issue exclusive contracts, permits, or licenses).
3. Cities should reserve the right to revoke permits, licenses, or contracts from specific companies (e.g.
when a company fails to comply with permit, contract, or license terms, or fails to meet national
accreditation standards if applicable).
4. Cities should reserve the right to prohibit specific companies from operating in the public-right-of-
way based on conduct or prior conduct (e.g. when a company deploys equipment prior to applying
for a permit, license or contract, or fails to comply with permit, contract, or license terms).
• Note: Cities may want to consider accreditation by, or conduct code violations recorded by,
national organizations such as NABSA (US/Canada) or BikePlus (UK), in addition to examples
and experiences in other North American cities, when issuing permits, licenses, or contracts.
5. Cities should reserve the right to establish operating zones and fine companies for bikes and
equipment found outside of those designated areas.
6. Cities should limit the duration of licenses and permits to a fixed time period (e.g. 6-12 months) and
require all companies to re-apply for each renewal. Contracts developed as the result of competitive
bidding processes may have a longer duration. Companies should be aware that cities may update
permits terms over time.
7. Cities should charge fees that accurately reflect the cost of regulating, overseeing, and managing
bike share and assess penalties or recoup costs to the city for non-compliance with contract,
license, or permit terms. (See State of Practice: Permit Fees Table)
8. Cities should require companies to hold insurance and indemnify the city.
Operations Oversight
1. Cities should require companies to remove small vehicles (e.g. damaged, abandoned, improperly
placed etc) within contractually agreed-upon time frames and assess penalties for failure to do so.
2. Cities should require companies to come to agreement with the city on procedures and protocol for:
• extreme weather (e.g. blizzards, hurricanes, floods)
• emergencies (e.g. earthquakes, fires, etc)
• special events (e.g. marathons, events, parades, film shoots, etc)
• maintenance (e.g. snow and trash removal) for small vehicle parking zones.
3. Cities should require companies to provide 24-7 contact information (name, phone number, and
email) of a locally-based manager/operations staff with decision-making power who can respond
to city requests, emergencies, and other issues at any time.
4. At the city’s request, provide staffing and operations plans.
Public Communications Oversight
1. Require all companies to create and maintain a city-specific website and/or social media platform
that explains the terms of service, including user instructions, privacy policies, and all fees, costs,
penalties, and unexpected charges, in all languages required by the City.
2. Companies shall place a customer service contact phone number, answered 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, on all small vehicles and other equipment (e.g. signage, racks etc), which connects the
public to local management and operations teams.
Universal Policy Areas
Packet Page 191
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 8
Data Standards
Companies operating in the public right of way must provide cities and local governments with
accurate, complete, and timely data about how Shared Active Transportation services are used and,
in an appropriately anonymized fashion, who is riding.
Data Provision & Access
Format:
1. At a minimum, all data should be provided to the city in the General Bike Share Feed
Specification (GBFS) format. In addition to GBFS, cities ensure that additional data fields that
record small vehicle location are also required. Cities should be aware that GBFS cannot measure
maintenance status, small vehicle condition, or record customer complaint reports. In developing
data standards and adding small vehicle field(s), cities should look to the data requirements
created by Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington DC.
• Los Angeles: https://github.com/CityOfLosAngeles/mobility-data-specification
• Washington DC: To be released—contact DDOT directly.
• Chicago: https://chicago.github.io/dockless-bikeshare-reporting-manual/
• GBFS: https://github.com/NABSA/gbfs
2. Additionally, cities should retain the right to request aggregated reports on system use,
compliance, and other aspects of operations (e.g. parking complaints, crashes, damaged or lost
small vehicles). Cities should request the data in any reports to be provided in .csv, .exls, .exlsm,
or similar format, in addition to the report format.
3. Cities shall require that companies make anonymized trip data available to the public for use in
creating apps that are not affiliated with the companies or city.
Process:
1. All data shall be provided directly to the city, or to a city-approved 3rd party data aggregator such
as Shared Streets, or university/academic institution.
2. Cities should retain the right to require that companies send an opt-in user survey to all users
and to provide input into survey questions.
3. At a minimum, aggregated data shall be provided to the city on a weekly basis, or at a timeframe
specified by the city.
4. Cities should require companies to retain all records in full accordance with local and state
records retention policies.
Data Quality and Accuracy
1. In order to accurately convey small vehicle location, use patterns, and other information, all small
vehicles shall ping, at a minimum every 90 seconds while in use.
2. In order to ensure that small vehicle locations are known even when the small vehicle is not in
use, all data shall be provided by GPS equipment that is affixed to the company’s small vehicle
(e.g. not customer phones). This does not include phone-based location services information,
used by customers, to locate a small vehicle or track their own personal route.
Data Privacy
1. All companies must ensure customer data privacy and that company policies are in accordance
with city data privacy policies.
2. Cities should require companies to provide a clear, written justification for why they need access
to each type of customer files (e.g. contacts, camera, photos, location, other apps etc.)
Universal Policy Areas
Packet Page 192
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 9
3. Customers shall not be required to share personal data with 3rd parties (e.g. advertisers, investors
etc.) in order to use the mobility services.
4. Customers shall not be required to provide access to their contacts, camera, photos, files and
other private data to use the mobility service. Location services may be required to use the
service for the purpose of locating nearby vehicles, but not for providing trip-level data. For
camera and photo access, cities should encourage companies to work with phone software
companies to develop “only-open-when-app-is-running” options.
5. Companies must provide customers with clear, prominent notification about what data will be
accessed (e.g. location services, camera, contacts, photos etc.) and explain how and why data
will be used. Notification must be active (e.g. affirmative confirmation-required to continue) and
should not be buried in larger terms-of-service notifications.
6. Customers may opt-in (not opt-out) to providing access to their contacts, camera, photos, files,
other private data and 3rd party data sharing.
Small Vehicle Standards for the Shared-Use Context
Companies must provide small vehicles and other equipment that is safe for public use and developed
for the shared-use context.
1. All small vehicles must comply with safety standards established by the CPSC and all other
federal, state, and city safety standards:
• For regular bikes, refer to ISO 43.150
• For e-bikes/electric-assist bikes, refer to CPSC Public Law 107-309 for Low Speed Electric
Bicycles for maximum engine wattage. Please note that these standards are evolving.
• For scooters, refer to CPSC in Public Law 107-309 for standards around for weight bearing.
Please note that these standards are evolving.
2. In addition to safety standards established by the CPSC, companies must provide small vehicles
that meets all state and local safety standards.
3. For all electric-assist small vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, e-scooters), the maximum motor-assist speed
shall be 15mph.
4. All small vehicles must have always-on front and back lights that are visible from a distance of
at least 300 feet under normal atmospheric conditions at night. Front and rear lights must stay
illuminated for at least 90 seconds after the bike has stopped.
5. All small vehicles must have, and clearly display, a unique, permanent identification number that
is provided to the city.
6. Companies must ensure that all small vehicles are inspected, maintained, and/or replaced on a
mutually agreed-upon schedule with the city.
7. Companies have the ability to remotely lock-down individual small vehicles (e.g. when they are
deemed/reported unsafe.)
Universal Policy Areas
Packet Page 193
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 10
Policy areas where issues should be evaluated at a local level
In developing regulatory frameworks for managing Shared Active Transportation on city streets,
cities and municipalities should also address key questions around space in the right-of-way and
how to best provide engagement and equity focused programming. Reconciling these question
in ways that best meets local needs and context is essential to the success of any Shared Active
Transportation program. This section outlines current known strategies and provides examples that
cities should consider in developing permits, licenses, contracts, and pilots.
In this section:
Small Vehicle Parking
Locking Options
Where in the Right of Way?
How can space be provided or marked?
Community Engagement and Equity Programs
Discount Programs
Engagement Programs
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 194
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 11
Small Vehicle Parking
Despite being “dockless,” allowing Shared Active Transportation companies and customers to
leave small vehicles on public property requires cities and local governments to designate places
where those small vehicles may be parked. In some cities, Shared Active Transportation parking is
unrestricted or “free floating,” meaning that customers can leave bikes and scooters anywhere. In other
cities, companies are required to tell their customers to only leave bikes and scooters in the curb strip or
furniture zone, although enforcement abilities are limited. Most recently, a few cities have required that
all dockless bike share bikes include a “lock-to” option in order to create a more orderly system.
Currently, the limitations of GPS and geo-fencing technologies means that there is not a
comprehensive, remote/data-based way to enforce small vehicle parking locations. Typically, GPS can
determine locations within about 5’-10’ but not to the finer degree of accuracy needed for enforcement.
Most cities rely on reported problems and spot-checks to assess compliance. As geofencing technologies
are improved and refined, it may be possible to use it to ensure parking locations.
Locking Options
Unrestricted
Small vehicles (e.g. bikes and scooters) can be left anywhere that doesn’t block
ADA-required sidewalk space.
Pros
• Small vehicles can be left anywhere
which makes point to point trips
easier.
• The program is simple to understand.
Cons
• Parked small vehicles can easily end
up blocking sidewalks, driveways,
crosswalks which can reduce space
and impede access for pedestrians,
especially people with disabilities.
• Reports of “clutter” can impact the
image of the program.
Other considerations
• If small vehicles are often parked incorrectly and block accessible travel paths space and
access in the public ROW, this may also open the government to potential lawsuits.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 195
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 12
Encouraged Placement
Small vehicles can be left most places with some limitations and can depend on the
geographic area (e.g. only in the “furniture zone,” or more restrictions in crowded
pedestrian areas like CBDs)
Pros
• Small vehicles can be left in most
places which makes point to point trips
easier. The program is relatively simple
to understand.
Cons
• Can be difficult to inform and explain
to all customers where small vehicles
can be left.
Other considerations
• Cannot enforce remotely or via data, must rely on reports or inspections.
Lock-to
Small vehicles are required to be locked to a fixed object.
Pros
• Small vehicles are left in orderly
fashion and do not block pedestrian
access.
Cons
• Small vehicle parking opportunities
may be limited. Using existing racks
for shared-use small vehicles may limit
supply for personal bikes.
Other considerations
• Cities may need to increase overall bike parking options, or require companies to provide
small vehicle parking, in order to accommodate increased demand.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 196
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 13
Where in the Right-of-Way?
No matter how a city choses to regulate parking for Shared Active Transportation small vehicles, they
have many options for where that parking can go.
In the Street
Small vehicles are parked within a demarcated space on the street, such as in a car-parking
spot. Some cities have repurposed no-parking zones near intersections for bike and bike
share parking, as they have a lower profile and do not interfere with the line of sight for
pedestrians or drivers.
Pros
• Keeps small vehicles away from
pedestrian movement and does not
impact ADA access.
• Can improve or preserve sightlines for
crossings (especially if an area where
cars frequently illegally park). When
considered in light of traffic safety
plans, on-street bike parking can help
to calm traffic (see NACTO: Bike Share
Siting Guide)
Cons
• May get pushback on actual or
perceived removal of parking.
• If using fixed racks, companies
and/or cities will need to develop
maintenance agreements with local/
private entities to address typical
issues like trash and snow removal.
Other considerations
• Many cities choose to demarcate on-street bike parking with signage, planters, or flexible
delineators to increase visibility and provide some protection from moving vehicles. (See
Corrals)
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 197
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 14
On the Sidewalk
Small vehicles are parked anywhere on the sidewalk or pedestrian plazas.
Pros
• People are used to racks on sidewalks.
• Does not take car parking.
Cons
• Takes space away from pedestrians
and can impede pedestrian and ADA
access.
• Small vehicles can easily fall and
begin to block the pedestrian clear
path. Improper small vehicle parking,
even by a few inches, can significantly
degrade pedestrian access.
• Many sidewalks are too narrow for
provide bike parking and retain 6’
pedestrian clear path. (see NACTO:
Bike Share Siting Guide)
Other considerations
• Bike parking on the sidewalk may encourage sidewalk riding, which is illegal for adults
in many cities. A potential unintended consequence is that minor infractions, such as
sidewalk riding, are often disproportionately enforced in communities of color.
• Companies will need to develop and actively publicize clear, multi-language instructions
to explain to people which parts of the sidewalk are acceptable for small vehicle parking.
E.g. many cities only allow small vehicles to park in the “furniture zone” (the portion
of sidewalk between where people walk and the curb, often where you’ll find other
street signs, street furniture, trees, parking meters, etc.) but this concept is not widely
understood.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 198
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 15
How can space be provided or marked?
Providing clarity around where small vehicles can or should be left is essential to a successful program.
Painted Boxes
Pros
• Inexpensive and quick to install
with in-house crews, can put many
throughout a city or district.
• Unique/interesting sidewalk treatment
that provides an opportunity for
branding and creativity.
• Offers some predictability to Shared
Active Transportation systems.
Multiple companies can and should
share the same space.
Cons
• Paint will wear out over time and boxes
may be less clearly understood as small
vehicle parking.
• May not fully address “clutter” issue
as small vehicles are not locked to
anything and may easily fall over or be
parked outside the box.
• Some cities may find it challenging to
align contractors for small jobs.
• If on the sidewalk, boxes should only
be considered on wide sidewalks or
places with very limited pedestrian
activity.
Other considerations
• Since these will only be useful to Shared Active Transportation vehicles (as opposed
to personal bikes or scooters), cities may want to require that the companies to pay the
planning and materials associated with this treatment.
• Cities will have to allocate staff time to identify locations and conduct necessary outreach
with communities.
• For signage, consider having a neutral color/design, or having multiple logos on each sign.
• If requiring that small vehicles only be left in boxes and/or other designated areas, follow
NACTO station density guidelines.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 199
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 16
Street Corrals
Pros
• Relatively inexpensive and quick to
install with in-house crews, can put
many throughout a city or district.
• Easy to understand as Shared Active
Transportation parking and can serve
as additional parking for personal bikes
as well.
• Offers predictability. Multiple
companies can and should share the
same racks.
• Ensures that Shared Active
Transportation vehicles do not impede
pedestrian clear-path or sidewalk.
• Addresses “clutter” issue.
Cons
• Typically takes parking (when placed
in the street).
Other considerations
• Cities should not repurpose existing bike corrals (and racks) for Shared Active
Transportation as that significantly limits bike parking availability for people using their
own personal bikes.
• Cities will have to allocate staff time to identify locations and conduct necessary outreach
with communities.
• Cities should consider rack costs when determining permit or license fees.
• Companies will need to guarantee maintenance or enter into a maintenance agreement
with other private entity (typical issues include trash and snow removal). Cities using
Street Corrals should ensure that maintenance responsibilities are spelled out in permits
and licenses.
• If requiring that small vehicles only be left in corrals and/or other designated areas, follow
NACTO station density guidelines.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 200
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 17
Signed Sidewalk Racks
Pros
• Relatively inexpensive and quick to
install with in-house crews, can put
many throughout a city or district.
• Easy to understand as Shared Active
Transportation parking and can serve
as additional parking for personal bikes
as well.
• Offers predictability. Multiple
companies can and should share the
same racks.
• Addresses “clutter” issue.
Cons
• Only viable on wide sidewalks or
places with very limited pedestrian
activity.
Other considerations
• Cities should not repurpose existing bike corrals (and racks) for Shared Active
Transportation as that significantly limits bike parking availability for people using their
own personal bikes.
• Cities will have to allocate staff time to identify locations and conduct necessary outreach
with communities.
• If racks are only meant for Shared Active Transportation vehicles (as opposed to personal
bikes or scooters), cities may want to require that the companies pay for the planning and
materials associated with this treatment.
• Cities should consider rack costs when determining permit or license fees.
• For signage, consider having a neutral color/design, or having multiple logos on each sign.
• If requiring that small vehicles only be left at racks and/or other designated areas, follow
NACTO station density guidelines.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 201
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 18
Geo-Fencing
Pros
• Requires no physical installation of
equipment
• Provides some control over parking
where conflicts are likely to occur
(i.e. high pedestrian traffic areas,
aesthetically-focused landmarks)
• Can easily designate large areas where
small vehicles are not allowed (e.g.,
neighboring municipalities, campuses)
Cons
• Accuracy is limited and insufficient
to assess compliance on a street level.
There have been numerous issues
reported with app and data accuracy
—“ghost” or missing bikes, more bikes
than shown on the app, bikes not
where the app shows them to be etc.
• User must open app when ending ride
to look for geo-fenced areas. Opening
the app is not currently required to end
the ride, so user may not do this.
• Does not address “clutter” concerns.
Other considerations
• The accuracy limitations make geo-fencing a better tool for assessing neighborhood-level
behavior, not exact street location.
• Companies must explain to users how and where geo-fencing is used (e.g., via app
notifications, in-app map, email/text notification, language on bikes, signage on streets)
• If requiring that small vehicles only be left at geo-fenced areas and/or other designated
areas, follow NACTO station density guidelines.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 202
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 19
Community Engagement and Equity Programs
In order to meet the mobility needs of their residents, cities with Shared Active Transportation
systems must also focus policies and programs that ensure that these transportation systems are
understood and can be used by all. Today, most cities and local governments require Shared Active
Transportation companies operating in the public right-of-way to participate in public engagement
efforts and provide pricing options that address the needs of low-income residents. This focus on equity,
and developing appropriate programs and policies, make it possible for Shared Active Transportation to
provide real transportation options to all residents.
Regardless of technology or operator, introducing or expanding Shared Active Transportation options
provides cities with opportunities to develop, require, and fund necessary equity and engagement
programing that can increase ridership and help meet mobility needs. In contract-based systems and
those developed through competitive procurement processes, meaningful engagement programming
can be achieved through contract language or agreements within a robust public-private partnership.
In permit or license-based systems, milestones and incentives may be an effective mechanism. For
example, the St. Louis permit does not allow Shared Active Transportation companies to expand their
fleets unless certain equity-focused programming is developed and implemented.
This section provides an overview of discount and engagement programs and policies that cities should
consider as they manage Shared Active Transportation companies operating in their jurisdictions. More
information is available in publications produced by the Better Bike Share Partnership.
Discount Programs
While there are many kinds of price discounts (e.g. student discounts, employee discounts etc.), equity-
focused discounts are designed to reduce prices for low-income individuals. Verification of who is
low-income may be done in a variety of ways but all require strong coordination between
government and the private sector.
Tips for Income Verification
• Verification should be done in a fashion that is easy and fair (e.g. minimal steps,
not subjective, does not take longer than a few minutes) for both the applicant and
administrator.
• Verification should not require individuals to share personal information via unsecure
methods, such as sending personal information or documents via email.
• The presence of income-based discounts, and what information is needed to qualify
for them should be clear, well publicized, and available in, at a minimum, all languages
required by the city.
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 203
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 20
Examples of Income-Based Discount Program Mechanisms:
• Government Benefit ID (e.g. SNAP, TANF, WIC)
Examples:
Philadelphia Indego AccessPass
Detroit MoGo AccessPass
Metro-Boston Blue Bikes Income-Eligible Program
SFMTA Muni Lifeline Transit Pass for GoBike
• Proof of Public Housing residence
Examples:
New York and Jersey City Citi Bike NYCHA and JCHA discount
• Community Development Credit Union membership
Examples:
Washington DC Capital Bike Share Bank on DC program
NYC Citi Bike CDCU discount program
• Discount code distributed via designated community groups or service providers
Examples:
Portland OR’s Biketown for All
Capital Bikeshare Community Partners Program
• In-person or phone verification
Examples:
Metro-Boston Blue Bikes Guided Enrollment
Bay Area Ford GoBike Bike Share for All Program
In addition to providing reduce fares, some station-based systems, such as Philadelphia’s Indego Bike
Share and Detroit’s MoGo Bike Share have developed cash-payment options via PayNearMe to address
disparities in credit card access. Some “dockless” systems have also developed a cash-payment option
for their services but, to date, they require income verification processes that put customers’ personal
information at risk (e.g. require customers to email copies of their photo ID, name, and proof of low
income status, such as EBT card).
For systems that rely on smartphones to locate and unlock bikes, cities may want to require companies
to develop options for people who do not have smartphones.
Engagement Programs
As new mobility options emerge, cities may want to require companies to provide community
engagement and education programming to offset the burden to the city of explaining what is going
on. Cities should also ensure that education and engagement efforts are provided in all the languages
commonly spoken in the area.
Examples of education and engagement programming include:
• Company participation or attendance at public events and meetings
• Company participation or attendance at community-led events or gatherings
• Company participation or provision of bike education classes, distributed equitably throughout
all neighborhoods
• Companies partner with job-training programs, youth programs
• Multilingual mobile app and/or other interfaces, as applicable
• Companies pursue grants with municipal and/or non-profit organizations to develop
ambassador programs
Contextual Policy Areas
Packet Page 204
Item 9
State of Practice
Fleet Size and Service Area
In order to ensure that Shared Active Transportation Companies provide a reliable, convenient transportation option for citizens, cities should
consider how many small vehicles should be made available. Unfortunately, Shared Active Transportation is still too new for there to be a set
standard for determining the appropriate number. This section provides an at-a-glance look at how different cities are approaching fleet sizes as of
early summer 2018. It will be updated and expanded into explicit guidance as this field develops.
To date, cities have employed a variety of metrics to determine appropriate small vehicle fleet sizes, including bikes per 1,000 residents, bikes per 100
residents, or total number of small vehicles that can be effectively managed by city staff. In determining fleet sizes and coverage areas, cities should
consider what geographic areas they want to serve, what number of small vehicles would be necessary to provide a meaningful transportation
service, and their internal staffing and oversight capacity.
In addition, many cities have developed permits that phase in Shared Active Transportation small vehicle fleets, either over time to allow cities and
companies to adjust (x bikes allowed in month one, y bikes allowed in month 2) or by requiring companies to meet basic service thresholds (e.g. 2
rides/bike/day, or development of community engagement programming) in order to expand.
Allowed Fleet Sizes in the US as of June 2018
City Type Status Min #
bikes/
Company
Max #
bikes/
Company
Phasing & Expansion Equity
Programming
Notes
Austin License Approved n/a 500 Companies must begin with 500
bikes. Can increase by increments of
250 bikes, upon City approval, if they
operate outside of downtown core
and the insurance bond is increased.
Must reach 2 rbd per zone by August
1, 2018 or reduce fleet size.
n/a Dockless units must
be able to be locked to
a fixed object or have
a haptic (sensory)
response indicating
compliance with
parking regulations.
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 21
Packet Page 205
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 22
State of Practice
Allowed Fleet Sizes in the US as of June 2018
City Type Status Min #
bikes/
Company
Max #
bikes/
Company
Phasing & Expansion Equity
Programming
Notes
Boulder Permit Approved
(pilot)
n/a 100 initial
deploy-
ment.
150 if
e-bikes or
adaptive
bikes are
included
in fleet.
Fleet size may increase by 10-20%
on a quarterly basis if operator
meets key performance indicators.
Demand based cap of each fleet at
2 r/b/d.
n/a “Lock To” bikes only
- must be (un)locked
to a bike rack before
and after each use.
Charlotte Permit Approved
(pilot)
200 bikes
and/or 50
e-scoot-
ers
500 and/
or 300
e-scoot-
ers
CDOT will evaluate the ability
to phase-in an expanded fleet
throughout the term of the pilot.
n/a Should a permitted
operator chose to
deploy bikes and
e-scooters, they can
have maximum fleet
of 100 e-scooters. If
a permitted operator
only deploys
e-scooters, they can
have maximum fleet
of 300 e-scooters.
Chicago Pilot Approved
(pilot)
n/a 350 350 n/a Current wheel-lock
vendors - up to 50
bikes for the duration
of the pilot. Lock-to
vendors - up to 350
bikes for duration of
pilot.
Dallas Ordi-
nance
Pending n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Packet Page 206
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 23
State of Practice
Allowed Fleet Sizes in the US as of June 2018
City Type Status Min #
bikes/
Company
Max #
bikes/
Company
Phasing & Expansion Equity
Programming
Notes
Denver Pilot Approved n/a Up to 400
(bikes/e-
bikes)
Up to 250
(e-scoot-
ers and
others)
Possibility of scaling fleet size to be
determined by the Department of
Public Works, based on utilization
data, performance and operational
outcomes.
Bikes/e-bikes:
operators can
increase to
500 if they
guarentee
that 100 will
stay within
designated
“opportunity
areas.”
E-scooters/
other
approved:
operators can
increase to
350 if they
guarentee
that 100 will
stay within
designated
“opportunity
areas.”
Painted dockless
parking zones will
be required to be
installed and main-
tained by permitted
operators.
Durham Approved n/a n/a n/a n/a Operators allowed to
determine fleet size
at application. Direc-
tor has right to limit
if needed.
Packet Page 207
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 24
State of Practice
Allowed Fleet Sizes in the US as of June 2018
City Type Status Min #
bikes/
Company
Max #
bikes/
Company
Phasing & Expansion Equity
Programming
Notes
Los Angeles Permit Pending 500 3000 Companies must provide a
minimum of 500 bikes within
4 weeks of permit issuance.
Justification and approval required
for increase fleet size.
Operators
are allowed
up to 2,500
additional
vehicles in
disadvantaged
communities;
operators may
be allowed
up to 5,000
additional
vehicles in
disadvantaged
communities
in the San
Fernando
Valley.
If fleet is 100% non-
electric adaptive
bikes, there is no
minimum fleet size.
If fleet is mixed
(bikes, e-bikes,
e-scooters + adaptive
bikes), 500-vehicle
minimum applies.
At least 50% of fleet
shall be e-bikes.
Minneapolis Contract Approved 1,500 in
2018
n/a Licensee must give City at least
14 day written notice of any fleet
size change. Can add 1,500 bikes
in 2019, plus potential 1-for-1
replacement of docked bikes
above and beyond that 1,500. If
performance targets are met, can
add 1,500 in 2020 and 2021.
n/a The first site planned
dockless system,
using geo-fencing
and a combination
of signage/striping/
safety devices. The
City is coordinating
with Nice Ride
regarding station
placement options in
right of way and on
private property.
Packet Page 208
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 25
State of Practice
Allowed Fleet Sizes in the US as of June 2018
City Type Status Min #
bikes/
Company
Max #
bikes/
Company
Phasing & Expansion Equity
Programming
Notes
New York
City
Demon-
stration
Approved
(Demon-
stration)
n/a n/a Bikes must be placed in 1 of 4
city-defined zones, companies are
limited to a specific zone.
n/a n/a
Palo Alto Permit Approved 100 City
Manager
to desig-
nate
n/a n/a n/a
Philadelphia n/a Pending n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sacramento Permit Approved n/a n/a Allowed through an expansion
permit process (and fee)
n/a n/a
San
Francisco
Permit Approved n/a n/a The permit allows Jump to roll
out 250 e-bikes initially and 250
more after nine months if the city
approves.
n/a Permit requires
JUMP bikes to be
locked to bike racks
(not signs) and no
more than one bike
per rack.
Seattle Permit Approved 500 no cap Companies may provide up to 500
bicycles first month of the pilot,
1,000 second month of the pilot,
and 2,000 the third month. Beyond
3 months, companies can expand
beyond 2,000 bikes assuming all
other requirements are met.
Fleets
over 2,000
bicycles must
include Tier 1
Priority Hire
neighborhoods
in 20% or more
of their service
area.
n/a
Packet Page 209
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 26
State of Practice
Allowed Fleet Sizes in the US as of June 2018
City Type Status Min #
bikes/
Company
Max #
bikes/
Company
Phasing & Expansion Equity
Programming
Notes
St. Louis Permit Approved 500 2,500 Companies may provide a
maximum of 750 bikes in month
one, then an increase of 350 each
month thereafter until the cap of
2,500
With City
approval,
may go above
2,500 if rbd
is increasing
and education
and social
equity plan is
implemented
n/a
Washington
DC
Pilot Approved
(pilot)
50 400 n/a n/a n/a
Packet Page 210
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 27
State of Practice
Small Vehicle Distribution
In order to provide reliable service, companies must ensure that small vehicles are appropriately distributed across the service area. There
is not currently a regulatory standard for cities to use to ensure that companies provide a minimum level of service. This section provides an at-
a-glance look at how different cities are approaching small vehicle distribution and rebalancing as of early summer 2018. It will be updated and
expanded into explicit guidance as this field develops.
To date, cities have employed a variety of metrics to determine how small vehicles are distributed throughout service areas. These include limiting
the number of small vehicles/company that can be located on any block face, requiring that small vehicles that have not moved in 7 days be
relocated, requiring that companies deploy more staff at peak hours, defining geographic zones with maximum and minimum numbers of small
vehicles, and requiring a certain number of percentage of the fleet that must be maintained in neighborhoods targeted for social equity needs.
Because Shared Active Transportation small vehicles move around cities and app data is not fully reliable, distribution enforcement is difficult.
Many cities have taken a manual, spot-check approach, tasking community advocates, staff, and interns to do “spot checks” on a regular weekly or
monthly basis to count all the small vehicles and identify where they are on the app. Some cities also use customer or citizen complaints.
Approaches to Small Vehicle Distribution in the US as of June 2018
City Status Distribution Damaged or Stagnant Vehicles
Austin Approved Licensee must monitor distribution of available
vehicles according to the City parameters. City may
reduce allowed # of vehicles based on the overall
number of vehicles concentrated within a specific area.
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
4 hours of notification.
Boulder Approved Operators must distribute bikes throughout the city -
specific locations are identified in City Manager Rules,
which include transit stops. Operators shall relocate or
rebalance shared bicycles within 2 hours of receiving a
request from the city.
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification by any means to the operator by
any individual or entity.
Charlotte Approved
(pilot)
When deploying or rebalancing, operators shall not
place more than three bicycles and two e-scooters on a
block face
Operators must address improperly parked vehicles within
2 hours of notification at all times. City has the right to
remove any and all such bikes that are not remedied in
accordance with the provisions outlined. Operators are
responsible for all costs to the City for improper parking,
bike removal, public safety or property damage.
Packet Page 211
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 28
State of Practice
Approaches to Small Vehicle Distribution in the US as of June 2018
City Status Distribution Damaged or Stagnant Vehicles
Chicago Approved
(pilot)
Goal of redistribution is to ensure customers
have reasonable and consistant access to vehicles
throughout the service area. Rebalancing must ensure
that at least 15% of a vendor’s fleet is available in each
quarter of the pilot service area, according to the
Equitable Distribution Map.
Vendors are required to remedy any bikes that are not
parked lawfully or in accordance with the conditions
attached to the issuance of the emerging business permit
within 2 hours of the report, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The City has the right to remove any and all such bikes
that are not remedied in accordance with the provisions
outlined. Vendors incur all costs to the City for improper
parking, bike removal, public safety or property damage.
Dallas Pending n/a Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification from the director. Vehicles in a
residential areas may remain in the same location for up
to 48 hours if correctly parked. Operators must remove
vehicle parked in a residential area after receiving a citizen
request or complaint within 2 hours weekdays 6AM -
6PM, and within 12 hours all other times.
Denver Approved City has created map with 3 zones to guide vehicle
placement and distribution - City Core, Opportunity
Areas, High Opportunity Areas. City Core - Operators
can place vehicles in painted parking zones.
Opportunity Areas - Operators participating in pilot
incentive program must place bikes in these areas to
meet incentive requirements and increase fleet size.
High Opportunity Areas (subset of Opportunity Areas)
- highest need areas; vehicles placed here will also
meet incentive requirements for increased fleet size.
Operators must “rebalance” vehicles back to transit
and bus stops throughout the day and “reset” the
vehicles back to these locations no later than 7AM
daily. Operators participating in Opportunity Area
incentive must relocate vehicles back to designated
Opportunity Areas at least once per day.
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification. Failure to do so may result in the
revocation of a permit.
Packet Page 212
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 29
State of Practice
Approaches to Small Vehicle Distribution in the US as of June 2018
City Status Distribution Damaged or Stagnant Vehicles
Durham Approved Operators must rebalance bikes daily and may not
discriminate against low and moderate income
residents. Operators must deploy and maintain a
sufficient number of bicycles to satisfy customer
demand within census tracts of low median income
areas of the city as definded in ther permit and
determined by the director. At least 20% of bikes will
be located on a daily average in the following census
tracts: (designated in permit).
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification. Vehicles must be repaired before
being put back into service. Bicycles will not be parked in
one location for more than 7 consecutive days.
Los Angeles Pending n/a Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification. Failure to do so may result in the
revocation of a permit. Vehicles must be repaired before
being put back into service.
Minneapolis Approved The goal of rebalancing is to maintain a reasonable
minimum share of the fleet distributed throughout
the City taking into account residential density,
employment density, visitor activity level, and equity;
The Public Works Director, in their sole discretion,
may request Licensee to rebalance the distribution
of the Bicycle Fleet in specified areas if deemed too
dense or too sparse, or if doing so will help promote
equitable access to and from traditionally underserved
areas within the City. Licensee will use best efforts to
comply with such requests within 24 hours.
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification. Vehicles must be repaired before
being put back into service. Bicycles will not be parked in
one location for more than 7 consecutive days.
New York
City
Approved
(pilot)
Companies are restricted to one of 4 city defined
zones. Bikes must stay in designated service area.
n/a
Packet Page 213
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 30
State of Practice
Approaches to Small Vehicle Distribution in the US as of June 2018
City Status Distribution Damaged or Stagnant Vehicles
Palo Alto Approved At no time shall more than fifty percent (50%) of a
permittee’s free-floating bicycles be located in the
Downtown or California Avenue business districts, as
defined in Exhibit A. Permittees shall provide City staff
with a direct contact to a representative who is capable
of rebalancing the locations of free-floating bicycles
within the City of Palo Alto.
In the event a bicycle, electric-assist bicycle, and/or
electric scooter is parked in one location for more than
72 hours without moving, it may be removed by City
and taken to a City facility for storage at the expense
of the Permittee. In the event a safety or maintenance
issue is reported for a specific bicycle, that bicycle shall
immediately be made unavailable to users and shall be
removed within the timeframes provided herein and shall
be repaired before it is put back into service.
Philadelphia Pending n/a n/a
Sacramento Approved Applicants must submit a Rebalancing and Relocation
Plan including how the provider will redistribute
bicycles to high use areas within peak operating hours
Operators must remove any vehicle that is unsafe/
inoperable, improperly parked, not at a bike rack, or
blocking pedestrian acces within 2 hours of notification.
San
Francisco
Approved Operator must monitor distribution of bicycles
available to customers according to parameters
required by the SFMTA. At a minimum, the density
of bicycles in the designated service area shall not
fall below at least 3 bicycles per square mile for more
than 10 consecutive minutes between the hours of
6:00 am and 10:00 pm, 7 days a week. At least 20% of
overall bicycle availability shall be maintained within
groups of census tracts designated as “communities of
concern” (CoCs) by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, calculated by the total number of
bicycles located in CoCs multiplied by the minutes
they are available for hire between the hours of 6:00
am and 10:00 pm, divided by the total number of
bicycles in service times minutes available throughout
the service area.
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification. Vehicles must be repaired before
being put back into service.
Packet Page 214
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 31
State of Practice
Approaches to Small Vehicle Distribution in the US as of June 2018
City Status Distribution Damaged or Stagnant Vehicles
Seattle Approved Companies may not exceed 340 bikes/sq mile. Fleets
geater than 2,000 bicycles must include Tier 1 Priority
Hire neighborhoods in 20% or more of their service
area.
Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within
24 hours of notification. Bicycles will not be parked in one
location for more than 7 consecutive days.Companies shall
relocate or rebalance bikes within 2 hours of notification
from 6am-6pm on weekdays, and 10 hours of notification
all other times.
St. Louis Approved Operators will rebalance bikes to improve usage and
spread/social equity outcomes. At least 20% of bikes
will be located on a daily average in the Bike Share
Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods. At
least 1.5% of bikes will be located on a daily average in
each of these neighborhood groupings.
Operators must evaluate and/or remove any vehicle that
is parked in one location for more than 7 consecutive days
upon notice. If the vehicle is not removed by the Operator,
the City may remove it and take it to a City facility for
storage at Operator’s expense.
Washington
DC
Approved
(pilot)
Permit holder will relocate dockless sharing vehicles
to eliminate an over-concentration of dockless sharing
vehicles within 2 hours if notified by the District of
public access and safety concerns.
Permit holder will remove improperly parked dockless
sharing vehicles in accordance with
local law and without prior notice from the District
of Columbia, within 2 hours of notification, including
notification.
Packet Page 215
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 32
State of Practice
Fees and Pricing
Cities should ensure that the full cost of regulating and managing Shared Active Transportation companies is considered when setting fees.
Cities may choose to waive aspects of the permit fee as applicable. Some permit fees may not be applicable when systems are developed a part of a
formal public-private partnership, a city-initiated RFP or public process, or when other cost-sharing or equipment ownership or service agreements
are in place.
Cities typically incur the following costs in managing or regulating Shared Active Transportation:
Administration & Oversight Costs
• Reviewing application
• Ensuring permit compliance
• Analyzing and assessing data
• Responding to public complaints
• City liability insurance
Direct Costs
• Removing broken, damaged, and/or incorrectly parked small vehicles if the companies can’t/won’t
• Purchase and installation of physical infrastructure related to the system (e.g., racks, thermoplastic markings)
• Potential reduction of available bike racks for private bikes
• Loss of public right-of-way space, especially sidewalk space
Planning and Engagement
• Planning
• Advertising/outreach/encouragement
• Assessing Compliance
Permit Fees in the US as of June 2018
City Status Permit/
License
Fee
Application
Review
Per Bike
Fee
Performance
Bond
Relocation
/Removal
Required
Infrastructure
ROW
Mainte-
nance
& Repair
Permit
Duration
Austin Approved $0 $0 $0 $100/bike All costs n/a Inlcuded in
Performance
Bond
6 months
Packet Page 216
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 33
State of Practice
Permit Fees in the US as of June 2018
City Status Permit/
License
Fee
Application
Review
Per Bike
Fee
Performance
Bond
Relocation
/Removal
Required
Infrastructure
ROW
Mainte-
nance
& Repair
Permit
Duration
Boulder Approved $3,300
(Renewal:
$1,800)
$0 $100 $0 $80/bike 1 space/bike Inlcluded
in the
Relocation/
Removal
guarantee
Annual
Charlotte Approved
(pilot)
$0 $0 $0 $0 All costs n/a All costs Pilot ends
November
1, 2018
Chicago Approved
(pilot)
$250 $0 $50 $0 $0 n/a Included in
Insurance
Policy
Pilot ends
November
1, 2018
Dallas Pending $1,620 -
$48,600
(Renewal
Fee: $404)
$808 $21 $10,000 All costs n/a All costs 6 months
Denver Approved
(pilot)
$15,000
(bikes/e-
bikes)
$15,000
(e-scooters
and other)
$150 per
permit
application
n/a $20 per
bike/e-bikes
$30 e-scoot-
ers and other
vehicles
Inlcuded in
Perfor-
mance Bond
n/a Inlcuded in
Performance
Bond
1 year
Durham Approved $250 $0 $10/bike $0 $50/bike n/a All costs
Packet Page 217
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 34
State of Practice
Permit Fees in the US as of June 2018
City Status Permit/
License
Fee
Application
Review
Per Bike
Fee
Performance
Bond
Relocation
/Removal
Required
Infrastructure
ROW
Mainte-
nance
& Repair
Permit
Duration
Los Angeles Pending $500 $0 $50 $80/Vehicle All costs at
city crew
rate plus
any ad-
ditional
storage/im-
pound fees
All costs All costs Annual
Minneapolis Approved $0 $0 $5 $0 $0 n/a n/a n/a
New York
City
Approved
(pilot)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pilot ends
September
2018
Palo Alto Approved $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 n/a n/a 12 months
Philadelphia Pending n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sacramento Approved $14,480 -
$28,440
(Renewal
Fee:
$12,380 -
$26,340)
n/a $0 $0 All costs 1.5 spaces/bike n/a Annual
San
Francisco
(see further
permit fee
details)
Approved Initial
Permit
Fee:
$12,208 -
$19,558
(Renewal
Fee: $9,725
- $17,704)
$0 $4-$20/
bike de-
pending
on total
number
of bikes
$0 All costs 1 rack/2 bikes $2,500/yr
(10 years)
18 months
(Jan 2018-
June 2019)
Packet Page 218
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 35
State of Practice
Permit Fees in the US as of June 2018
City Status Permit/
License
Fee
Application
Review
Per Bike
Fee
Performance
Bond
Relocation
/Removal
Required
Infrastructure
ROW
Mainte-
nance
& Repair
Permit
Duration
Seattle
(see further
permit fee
details)
Approved $146 $209/hr (est.
8 hours)
$15/bike $80/bike,
capped at
$10,000
All costs at
city crew
pay rate
plus 15%
n/a n/a 12 months
St. Louis Approved $500 $0 $10/bike $0 All costs n/a All Costs Annual
Washington
DC
Approved
(pilot)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 Pilot ends
August 31,
2018
Packet Page 219
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 36
State of Practice
Equity Programming
In order to meet the mobility needs of their residents, cities with Shared Active Transportation systems must also focus policies and programs
that ensure that these transportation systems are understood and can be used by all. This includes developing permit or license requirements and
programming to address:
• Outreach and engagement
• Financial access
• Employment
• Access and reliability (see Allowed Fleet Size and Small Vehicle Distribution tables)
Equity Programming as of June 2018
City Employment Financial Access Outreach + Engagement
Austin n/a • Licensee shall offer an affordable
non-smart phone option for any
customer with an income level
at or below 200% of the federal
poverty guidelines.
• Licensee shall prepare and implement a marketing
and outreach plan at its own cost to promote the
use of dockless mobility in neighborhoods currently
underserved by dockless mobility options.
Chicago • Vendors are
encouraged to hire/
use MWBE local
firms, and provide a
hiring plan.
• The hiring plan must
also include planned
work with workforce
development
programs.
• Vendors must provide a cash
payment option.
• Vendors are required to meet with monthly and
provide reports to the Mayor’s Office for People with
Disabilities and other City of Chicago Staff.
• Vendors must educate dockless bike users on rules of
the road and proper parking.
• Vendors shall implement a marketing and targeted
community outreach plan at it’s own cost by
distributing education and outreach materials to
communities in the Pilot Area.
• Vendors must host one community event in the Pilot
Area for education and outreach, and or present at
local alderman’s ward night.
Packet Page 220
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 37
State of Practice
Equity Programming as of June 2018
City Employment Financial Access Outreach + Engagement
Denver n/a • Program applicants must submit a
plan outlining how their services
will be available to those without
smart phones or those who are
under-banked/un-banked. They
must also submit information
regarding the rate structures that
will be offered to all users. This
information should include any
discount programs.
• Permitted operators will be expected to participate in
meetings with DPW staff. The meetings will discuss
topics such as operations, usage, fleet size, community
concerns, safety concerns and data reviews.
Durham n/a • All permitted bike share operators
shall provide an option for users
without a smart phone and or
credit card to use the bike share
system.
n/a
Los Angeles n/a • Operators are required to provide
a non-smart phone and non-credit
card option
• Operators will offer a one-year
low-income customer plan that
waives any bicycle/e-scooter
deposit and offers an affordable
cash payment option and
unlimited trips under 30 minutes
to any customer with an income
level at or below 200% of the
federal poverty guideline.
• Operators must attend meetings with surrounding
municipalities and community-based organizations
as stipulated by the City to introduce the operators
to them and make these communities aware of the
program and how it may affect the communities.
Packet Page 221
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 38
State of Practice
Equity Programming as of June 2018
City Employment Financial Access Outreach + Engagement
Minneapolis • NRM/Motivate
must provide hiring
goals for percentage
of hours worked
by people of color.
The goal for each
group should
be at minimum
proportional to the
population in the
service area.
• NRM/Motivate will offer
discounted memberships to
lowincome individuals, non-
smart-phone options such as
integration with Go-To cards and
cash options, geographically-based
pricing capacity, and integration of
other innovations as they become
available.
• NRM/Motivate will use local ambassadors, community
events, and group rides as part of their efforts to make
bikeshare a resource.These programs will be evaluated
annually, and representatives of local communities will
be consulted in an ongoing effort to improve ridership
among communities of concern.
Palo Alto n/a • Permittee will offer a one-year
plan that waives any program
deposit and offers an affordable
cash payment option and
unlimited trips under 30 minutes
to any customer with an income
level at or below 200% of the
federal poverty guidelines.
• Permittee will implement a marketing and targeted
community outreach plan at its own cost or pay an
in-lieu fee to the City of Palo Alto to provide these
services and promote the use of shared mobility
vehicles, particularly among low-income communities.
• Permittee will maintain a multilingual website with
languages determined by the City of Palo Alto, call
center, and mobile application that is available twenty-
four hours a day, seven days a week.
San
Francisco
n/a • Permittee will offer a one year low-
income customer plan that waives
any applicable bicycle deposit and
offers an affordable cash payment
option and unlimited trips under
30 minutes to any customer with
an income level at or below 200%
of the federal poverty guidelines.
• Permittee will implement a marketing and targeted
outreach plan at its own cost or pay an in-lieu fee to
the SFMTA to provide these services and promote
the use of bike share citywide, particularly among low
income communities.
• Permittee will maintain a multilingual website with
languages determined by the SFMTA, call center, and
app customer interface that is available twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week.
Packet Page 222
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 39
State of Practice
Equity Programming as of June 2018
City Employment Financial Access Outreach + Engagement
St. Louis n/a • Bike Share operators are required
to have a non-smart phone option
to use the bike share system.
• Bike Share operators are required
to have a non-credit card option to
use the bike share system.
• Bike Share operators must meet with surrounding
municipalities to make them aware of our Bike Share
program and how it may affect them.
• Bike Share Operators will attend an onsite meeting
with the City of St. Louis staff to discuss the program
and demo their bikes before a permit is to be approved.
Packet Page 223
Item 9
NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation | 40
State of Practice
Permit Overview
Shared Active Transportation Permits in the US as of June 2018
City & Permit URL Status Permit Duration
Austin Approved 6 months
Boulder Approved Ordinance Sunsets Aug 2020
Charlotte Approved (pilot)Pilot ends November 1, 2018
Chicago Approved (pilot)Pilot ends November 1, 2018
Dallas Pending Pilot ends
Denver Approved (pilot)1 year
Durham Approved 1 year
Los Angeles Pending Annual
Minneapolis Approved n/a
New York City Approved (pilot)Pilot ends September 2018
Palo Alto Approved n/a
Philadelphia Pending n/a
Sacramento Approved Annual
San Francisco (bike)Approved 18 months (Jan 2018- June 2019)
San Francisco (scooter)Approved 18 months (Jan 2018- June 2019)
Seattle Approved 1 year
St. Louis Approved Annual
Washington DC Approved (pilot)Pilot ends August 31, 2018
Packet Page 224
Item 9
National Association of
City Transportation Officials
120 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10017
www.nacto.org
Published July 2018
This Guidance is made possible by the Better Bike Share Partnership.
The Better Bike Share Partnership is a collaboration funded by The
JPB Foundation to build equitable and replicable bike share systems.
The partners include The City of Philadelphia, the Bicycle Coalition of
Greater Philadelphia, the National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) and the PeopleForBikes Foundation.
Packet Page 225
Item 9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 226
Item 9