# Transportation Deployment Casebook/2024/Micromobility in Brisbane
## Shared Micromobility in Brisbane
### Introduction to Shared Micromobility

As a relatively new mode of transport, there are various definitions for micromobility. The US Federal Highway Administration defines micromobility as;
   Small, low-speed, human or electric-powered transportation devices, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances
While it has not provided a definition for micromobility, Brisbane City Council defines E-mobility (a significant portion of the micromobility market) as;
   E-mobility... refers to a range of small lightweight devices operating at powered speeds of no more than 25km/h...
The key attributes of most definitions are that the system is relatively small and lightweight, are designed to provide transportation for a single person, and operate at relatively low speeds.

### Technological Characteristics

Most definitions of micromobility include both vehicles owned privately by individuals, and shared vehicles. In this analysis we look at the specific case of shared micromobility which is characterised as being publicly accessible (though not necessarily publicly owned). The initial deployment of shared micromobility in the Brisbane context, and more broadly, was in the form of shared bikes with a fixed docking point.
More recent developments of shared micromobility have introduced electric powered devices, such as e-scooters and e-bikes which do not require a docking station. In the Brisbane context this has seen the deployment of shared e-scooters and e-bikes by private companies (Beam and Neutron) under a permitting system (competitive tender) with the Brisbane City Council.
While in Brisbane, shared micromobility has been in the form of conventional bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters, other technologies such as segways, electric skateboards and other devices fitting the above definition of micromobility may in the future contribute to the growth of shared micromobility.

### Main Advantages

The main advantage of micromobility over other forms of transport from a user perspective, relate to its ability to fulfil relatively short journeys within urban areas. Public transport generally operates at larger scales, providing transport between distance locations at a high speed, and automobiles can be constrained in urban environments by congestion and a need to find parking. In contrast, micromobility allows users to travel at moderate speeds utilising active transport infrastructure.
The introduction of dockless systems greatly improved the flexibility of the system by allowing users to start and finish trips at a wider array of locations.
Shared micromobility has the following important advantages over privately owned micromobility;
* No upfront capital cost to purchase a vehicle
* No need to find private storage for vehicles at destination, or to transport during multi-model trips
* Are available for unplanned trips

### Main Markets

The main market for shared micromobility is in relatively dense areas with safe active transport infrastructure. Generally, these conditions are most likely to be established in Central Business Districts, tourism focussed precincts and in the immediate areas around public transportation. The Brisbane CityPlan 2014 sets out the strategic direction for the future growth of Brisbane and identifies a goal to accommodate future population growth through infill development. As this occurs, a greater proportion of Brisbane residents will be within the catchment area of existing commercial and tourism areas, and in closer proximity to public transport stations. This suggests that as Brisbane develops, the market for micromobility services will grow.

### Shared Micromobility in Brisbane

Brisbane City Council rolled out the docked shared bicycle service (named as the CityCycle program) in October 2010. The initial system had a series of bicycle docking stations within the CBD of Brisbane, primarily along active transport corridors adjacent to the Brisbane River. Users would pay through a membership model (either a one-day membership or daily/weekly/monthly memberships) which allowed for the bikes to be accessed. Usage of the bikes would then be charged based on the time the bike was away from a dock. The bike could be returned to any dock.
In December 2018, electric scooters (E-scooters) were first trialed within Brisbane, with a system operated by private company Lime. In 2019 Brisbane City Council undertook a competitive tender for e-scooter operators, ultimately awarding contracts to two private operators (Lime and Neuron). The E-scooters operate as a dockless system where users subscribe to a mobile phone application, on which they can locate and pay to activate the scooters. When they finish their journey, the user can sign-off in the app. The scheme was limited to a total of 1,000 e-scooters.
In 2021 the Brisbane City Council discontinued the CityCycle scheme, to be replaced by a shared electric bike (e-bike) service, operated by private companies Beam and Neutron under a contract with the local government.

## Invention and Innovation
### Prior to Shared Micromobility

The conventional bicycle is generally considered to have been developed in the 1850s and 1860s in France. The Velocipede, and subsequent improvements on the mode, provided users with a new way to navigate relatively short distances within towns and cities.
Prior to the advent of the personal automobile, bicycles represented a significant mode share within towns and cities. As automobile grew and infrastructure and land-use patterns increasingly became car-oriented and less dense, the mode share of bicycles declined.
In the 21st century, public and active transport has seen increasing investment as governments try to address the negative externalities resulting from the car-oriented development that has occurred.
A barrier for increasing the utilisation of public transport systems and inducing a modal shift away from private automobiles relates to the first and last kilometre/s of a trip. People are generally willing to walk up to around 400m to a destination. As a result, people living greater than 400m from a public transport station, or who are travelling to a destination greater than 400m from a public transport station, are more likely not to walk. Without an alternative such as micromobility, these people are likely to either drive to a public transport stop or to skip public transport altogether. In low-density cities such as Brisbane, this results in a relatively small number of people who are likely to utilise the public transport system.
While privately owned micromobility (such as conventional bicycles) have been around since the 19th Century, utilising them as part of a multi-modal trip requires consideration for the storage of the vehicle, which can be a barrier to their use.

### Invention of Shared Micromobility Services

The first deployment of a shared micromobility service in the global context is generally considered to the be the “White Bike Program” in Amsterdam. The project provided free bicycles to the public, without any associated security features. The next generation of shared bikes first deployed in Denmark in 1991 incorporated docking stations which locked the bikes until money was deposited to allow usage. The transport model developed further in France in 2007 to incorporate communications technology which allowed for greater monitoring of the system, and a more financially sustainable service.

### First Wave of Shared Micromobility in Brisbane (2010 to 2019)

In Brisbane, the first deployment of a shared micromobility service was Brisbane City Council’s docked shared bike schemes (CityCycle). The following technological building blocks contributed to the design of the CityCycle service:
* Conventional Bicycles
* The sharing economy – the sharing economy is a system where things that are traditionally owned by an individual, are instead owned by a private or public organisation with individual users able to access them as needed.
* Internet connectivity – the CityCycle service relied on internet connectivity within docking infrastructure to lock bikes in a public area, while allowing access for individuals
* Shared path infrastructure – The presence of separated active transport infrastructure (such as separated bike lanes and shared paths) is a key determinant in the adoption of micromobility. Prior to the deployment of the CityCycle scheme, Brisbane City Council had constructed a substantial network of physically separated shared paths adjacent to the Brisbane River which provided a ready-made network for the new service.
A significant issue encountered with the initial roll out of the system included that at first no helmets were available at the docking stations, and Queensland law requires that users of micromobility are wearing a helmet. Later the CityBike system provided helmets at the docking locations but in practice they were not always present. This means users either used the vehicles without a helmet, or needed to bring their own (a major barrier for usage).

### Second Wave of Shared Micromobility in Brisbane (2019 to - )

The second wave of micromobility in Brisbane incorporated small electric motors and dockless deployment systems. In 2019 e-scooters began to be deployed, and were closely followed by e-bikes, both operated by the private companies Beam and Neutron. The following technological building blocks contributed to the design of the e-scooter and e-bike services:
* Small and light electric motors and batteries – The development of small electric motors and batteries was essential as the overall system weight of small e-vehicles needs to be sufficiently small to ensure the motor can provide the necessary speed, and to ensure that the required battery can provide a long enough charge to be useful as a transportation service.
* Incorporating internet connectivity infrastructure into the vehicle – a key difference between docked and dockless systems is that dockless systems incorporate the internet connectivity into the service. Rather than each trip needing to start and finish at a fixed docking location, users are able to finish their trip at their intended destination. It also allows for the deployment of the service over wider areas without the need for investment in fixed infrastructure.
* Smart phones and phone applications – the dockless e-scooter and e-bike services incorporate user friendly mobile phone applications which provide details on the location of individual scooters and bikes, information on the cost and personalised accounts, all of which contribute to the ease of use.
* Geofencing – by integrating GPS into the vehicles, operators of the system are able to define a geographic area in which the vehicles can travel. When a vehicle is detected outside of the area (referred to as a geofence) the vehicle stops working. This can be used to prevent vehicles from traveling in high pedestrian traffic areas or on unsafe roads such as motorways.

### The Role of Policy

The initial implementation of shared micromobility in Brisbane utilised the conventional bicycle. As a result, it was largely able to function within the existing policy framework for bicycles. The existing road rules had been developed to include requirements for the use of bicycles and the shared bike system utilised the existing infrastructure, such as shared paths, separated cycle paths and on-street cycling lanes.
An early impediment to the adoption of shared bikes was the legal requirement to wear a helmet when riding a bike. Initially the docking stations did not include helmets, and so users were required to bring their own. This reduces the desirability of the service for unplanned trips and results in people utilising the service without helmets.
Brisbane City Council played a major role in the deployment of shared micromobility in Brisbane by owning and operating the CityCycle service, and by investing in active transport infrastructure throughout the deployment area.
The introduction of e-scooters and e-bikes in Brisbane presented significant challenges to the existing transport policy framework. E-scooters are distinct in design from bikes and so were less able to fit within the existing framework. The E-scooters can operate at speeds significantly greater than pedestrians, creating a sense of danger if they are allowed to operate on footpaths, however like bicycles the unenclosed and small design creates significant safety concerns if required to operate on roads.
To manage the deployment of e-scooters, Brisbane City Council have constrained the roll-out of vehicles by imposing caps on the service operators. Brisbane City Council has also developed the Brisbane E-mobility Strategy to manage the growth of shared micromobility. The strategy identifies that the accelerating growth of e-mobility within Brisbane has to date been largely driven by commercial considerations of the operators, which has potential transportation access equity implications that will need to be considered in the future.
In response to the continuing growth of shared micromobility services, the Queensland Government in 2022 introduced new laws imposing requirements on the use ‘personal mobility devices’ (PMD’s). This included setting a speed limit of 12km/h for PMD’s on all footpaths and shared paths. The legal changes included an option for council’s to apply to increase speed limits up to 25km/h on shared pathways, where certain criteria is met.

### Growth of Shared Micromobility in Brisbane

The first phase of shared micromobility in Brisbane saw relatively slow growth of the CityCycle docked share bike scheme, commencing in 2010 and reaching a peak in 2018 of around 198,650 trips per quarter (or approximately 2,200 trips per day). The introduction of e-scooters in 2019 saw a decline in the usage of CityCycle, further exacerbated by lockdowns during the COVID19 pandemic. Brisbane City Council announced the closure of CityCycle in November 2020.
The introduction of shared e-scooters in 2019 and shared e-bikes in 2021 saw a rapid increase in the growth of shared micromobility in Brisbane.

### Opportunities for Further Growth

Strategic planning undertaken by Brisbane City Council, including the CityPlan 2014 and the Transport Plan for Brisbane, suggest that future land-use planning and infrastructure investment will focus on increasing population density and encouraging a mode shift from private automobiles towards public transport and active transport. The result of which would be improved viability for micromobility for transport.
The growth of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is also likely to benefit the adoption of shared micromobility. Mobility as a Service provides a single interaction point for consumers that allows them to purchase trips between different destinations, utilising multiple modes of transport. Micromobility could play a significant role in this approach by fulfilling the first and last kilometres of a multimodal trip initiated through a MaaS provider.
In addition, more sophisticated pricing systems have the potential to improve utilisation of existing systems, such as by adjusting pricing based on demand to incentivise off-peak usage.
The vehicles themselves are also likely to contribute to future growth of micromobility. Improvements in safety features or the development of more diverse forms of micromobility are likely to improve adoption of the mode of transport.

## Quantitative Analysis of Lifecycle of Shared Micromobility in Brisbane
### Logistic Curve Regression Analysis

Quantitative analysis has been undertaken utilising regression analysis, assuming that the lifecycle of shared micromobility follows a logistic curve.
As the deployment of shared micromobility is still in the early stages of its lifecycle, it is difficult to establish a maximum market size for the technology with a high level of confidence. In order to analyse the development of the technology the following assumptions have been made:
* It is assumed that in the maturity stage of the technology 5% of all trips within Brisbane will be made by shared micromobility. Based on a future population of 3.8 million people, which the Queensland Government forecasts for Brisbane in the year 2046 and an assumption that on average people make 5 trips per day, the maximum market size for shared micromobility has been estimated as 950,000 trips per day (or 85,500,000 trips per quarter).
Data for the model has been obtained from the following sources:
* CityCycle – Brisbane City Council
* E-scooters and E-bikes – Ride Report

### Accuracy of the Model

The R$^2$ value of the regression analysis is 0.962, suggesting a relatively strong relationship between the model and the shared micromobility utilisation to date, however given that the technology is in such an early phase it is difficult to estimate a maximum market size.

### Predicted Lifecycle of Shared Micromobility in Brisbane
#### Birthing Phase (2010 to present)

The birthing phase of shared micromobility in Brisbane commenced with the introduction of the CityCycle docked shared bike scheme in 2010. The rate of growth of the mode is relatively slow during this period, prior to the introduction of the alternatives of e-scooters and e-bikes. The utilisation of shared micromobility then starts to rapidly grow. The end of the birthing period of the lifecycle is generally defined as 15% of the ultimate maximum. Given that micromobility is early in its development, it is difficult to estimate an ultimate maximum utilisation, and therefore defining the end of the birthing phase is also difficult. Based on the maximum utilisation that has been assumed for this analysis, the development of the technology is still in the birthing phase, however a more conservative assumption would conclude that the technology is in the early growth phase.

#### Growth Phase

Based on the maximum utilisation assumption, the model suggests that half of the max utilisation would occur in the year 2038 (or the time of inflection). Using 15% and 85% to define the limits of the growth phase suggests that the growth period will occur between 142,500 trips per day and 807,500 trips per day. (Note the current maximum usage is approximately 10,303 trips per day).

#### Mature Phase

The analysis undertaken suggests that shared micromobility will reach maturity above 807,500 trips per day, based on an estimated peak usage of 1,280,000 trips per day.

### Regressional Analysis

| Year | Observed Market Size (total trips) | Predicted Market Size (total trips) |
| 2011 | 96961 | 114581 |
| 2012 | 217342 | 153165 |
| 2013 | 229978 | 204734 |
| 2014 | 289646 | 273652 |
| 2015 | 344251 | 365743 |
| 2016 | 432017 | 488782 |
| 2017 | 656767 | 653132 |
| 2018 | 772706 | 872601 |
| 2019 | 1009416 | 1165565 |
| 2020 | 1677623 | 1556436 |
| 2021 | 2504234 | 2077580 |
| 2022 | 3270300 | 2771790 |
| 2023 | 3279000 | 3695429 |
The following values were utilised in the regression analysis:
| S$_{max}$ | 85,500,000 (trips per quarter) |
| c | -592 |
| b | 0.2903 |
| R$^2$ | 0.962 |
| t$_i$ | 2038.94 |

## References

* ↑ "Micromobility: A Travel Mode Innovation". Public Roads - Spring 2021. 85 (1). Spring 2021 – via US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
* ↑ Brisbane's e-mobility strategy 2021-2023. Brisbane City Council. 2021.
* ↑ Ghaffar, Arash; Hyland, Michael; Saphores, Jean-Daniel (2023). "Meta-analysis of shared micromobility ridership determinants". Transportation Research Part D. 121 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
* ↑ "Brisbane City Plan 2014". Brisbane City Council. 2024.
* 1 2 3 Brisbane's e-mobility strategy 2021-2023. Brisbane City Council. 2021.
* ↑ Levinson, David M; Garrison, William L (2014). The Transportation Experience: Policy, Planning and Deployment. Oxford University Press.
* 1 2 3 Ghaffar, Arash; Hyland, Michael; Saphores, Jean-Daniel (2023). "Meta-analysis of shared micromobility ridership determinants". Transportation Research Part D. 121 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
* ↑ Zhang, Yuerong; Kamargianni, Maria (8 Sep 2022). "A review on the factors influencing the adoption of new mobility technologies and services: autonomous vehicle, drone, micromobility and mobility as a service". Transport Reviews. 43 (3): 407–429 – via Tandfonline.
* ↑ Oeschger, Giulia; Carroll, Paraic; Caulfield, Brian (2020). "Micromobility and public transport integration: The current state of knowledge". Transportation Research Part D. 89 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
* ↑ Shaheen, Susan; Cohen, Adam; Broader, Jacquelyn (2022). "What's the 'Big' Deal with Shared Micromobility?: Evolution, Curb Policy, and Potential Developments in North America". Built Environment. 47 (4): 499–514.
* 1 2 3 Brisbane's e-mobility strategy 2021-2023. Brisbane City Council. 2021.
* ↑ "New Rules for Riders". Streetsmarts initiatives. Brisbane City Council. 2022.
* ↑ Brisbane's e-mobility strategy 2021-2023. Brisbane City Council. 2021.
* 1 2 "Brisbane CityCycle - Membership and trip numbers". Data - Brisbane City Council. 2021.
* ↑ "Brisbane City Plan 2014". Brisbane City Council. 2024.
* ↑ "Transport Plan for Brisbane - Strategic Directions". Brisbane City Council. 2018.
* ↑ Ghaffar, Arash; Hyland, Michael; Saphores, Jean-Daniel (2023). "Meta-analysis of shared micromobility ridership determinants". Transportation Research Part D. 121 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
* 1 2 "Micromobility Dashboard - Brisbane". Ride Report. 2024.