CPB

Micromobility, Equity
and Sustainability

Summary and Conclusions

185

Roundtable

Corporate Partnership
BoardSummary and Conclusions

185

Roundtable

Micromobility, Equity
and Sustainability

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 63 member countries. It acts
as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only
global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively
integrated with the OECD.
The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social
inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy.
The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promoteexchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest
gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, theUnited Kingdom, the United States and Uzbekistan.

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

ITF Roundtables
ITF Roundtables bring together international experts to discuss specific topics notably on economic andregulatory aspects of transport policies in ITF member countries. Findings of ITF Roundtables are publishedin a Summary and Conclusions paper. Any findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or theOECD. Neither the OECD, ITF nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information
contained in this publication and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory,
city or area.
Cite this work as: ITF (2021), Micromobility, Equity and Sustainability: Summary and Conclusions, ITF
Roundtable Reports, No. 185, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Acknowledgements
This report was written by Tatiana Samsonova (ITF) and benefitted from input provided by Stephen Perkins(ITF).
The report is based on expert discussion held at the ITF virtual Roundtable on “Micromobility, Equity andSustainability” on 17, 18 and 19 March 2021.
We would like to thank the authors of two discussion papers prepared for and presented at thisRoundtable:

Brown, A. (2021), “Scooters are Here, but Where Do They Go? Aligning Scooter Regulations with
City Goals”, (University of Oregon).

Licea, K. (2021), “Micromobility Policies for Sustainable Transport: Bogota and Mexico City casestudies”, (Independent Consultant, Mexico City).

We would also like to thank the speakers who made presentations at the Roundtable:


Rosa Pierce “New Zealand’s Regulatory System for Shared/Rental Micromobility” (New Zealand
Ministry of Transport)

Erdem Ovacik “Donkey Republic Sustainability Framework” (Donkey Republic bike share)Sebastian Schlebusch “Enabling micromobility’s full potential through good regulation” (Dott)We would like to thank Richard Cross, Manager Strategic Policy and Innovation at New Zealand Ministryof Transport, for chairing the Roundtable discussions. The ITF Secretariat also wishes to thank the
38 participants, who joined from 12 ITF member countries and commented on the report. ITF colleagues
Philippe Crist, Pierpaolo Cazzola, Alexandre Santacreu, Rex Deighton-Smith and Luis Martinez also
provided valuable comments.

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Table of contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 9
Socio-economic costs and benefits of micromobility ......................................................................... 11
Micromobility and mode shift ....................................................................................................... 11
Role of micromobility for intermodal trips .................................................................................... 12
Environmental performance of micromobilty ............................................................................... 12
Sidewalks, streets and public space ............................................................................................... 16
Is micromobility safe? .................................................................................................................... 17
Principles for regulating micromobility .............................................................................................. 19
Considering broader sustainable urban mobility policy for regulating micromobility ................... 19
Applying outcome-based regulation linked to performance criteria ............................................. 20
Regulatory fees .............................................................................................................................. 23
Promoting equitable access and affordable service ...................................................................... 25
Applying principles of mode-neutrality ......................................................................................... 26
Adopting standard rules that can be applied uniformly across cities ............................................ 29
Fostering innovation through a permissive and adaptive regulatory approach ............................ 32
Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ 34
Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 35
References ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Annex. List of Participants .................................................................................................................. 40

4© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Figures

1. Central estimates of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of urban transport modes per pkm....... 14
2. GHG savings and health benefits of dockless pedal bikeshare, Copenhagen.................................. 16
3. Observed scooter and car parking behaviours in selected cities in the United States .................... 17
4. Vehicle occupant fatalities by third-party involvement .................................................................. 18
5. Space consumption by different transport modes, m2 per hour .................................................... 27
7. Share of cities allowing scooter parking across five US cities ......................................................... 31

TablesTable 1. Cost savings and GHG impacts across different transport modes in Copenhagen ................ 15
Table 2. Taxes on micromobility in Mexico City by operator .............................................................. 25© OECD/ITF 2021

5

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Executive summary
What we did
This report examines how micromobility (e-scooters, electric bikes and pedal bikes, whether docked or
dockless and other forms of light mobility) can address congestion, CO2 emissions and air quality in cities
and benefit users. It reviews benefits and social costs to inform the development of governance andregulatory frameworks that can maximise the contribution of shared e-scooters, electric bikes and pedal
bikes to accessibility and sustainable mobility and minimise negative effects, particularly for pedestrians.

What we found
Existing urban mobility solutions cannot keep up with the growth of cities and struggle to containcongestion, noise, pollution and inefficient use of limited space. Shared micromobility can reshape urban
mobility by offering a sustainable transport option that improves accessibility. Shared micromobility
predominantly replaces walking, cycling and public transport trips yet could also substitute short car trips.
The broadest benefit of integrating shared micromobility services into urban transport could be increasing
the catchment area of public transport. Their widespread availability, particularly for first/last-mileconnections, could improve access while shortening commuting time and reducing reliance on cars.
However, micromobility – especially e-scooters – raise concerns of nuisance on sidewalks, the safety ofusers and pedestrians, its substitution over walking reducing the health benefits of physical activity, andpotential adverse environmental impacts from the production and disposal of vehicles and batteries andgeneration of electricity. Negative effects of micromobility need to be weighed against the significant
consumer benefits they offer and their potential to replace less sustainable trips. Data on the negative
impacts of micromobility suggests these are comparatively small. The whole transport system must be
considered from this perspective to make informed policy decisions.
Most city authorities agree that micromobility enriches urban mobility, has the potential to change user
behaviour and thus help transition to low-carbon urban mobility. Operators and authorities concur thatthe extent to which such benefits will be reaped depends on getting the regulatory framework for
micromobility right. Finding agreement on what interventions work best is challenging, however.

What we recommend
Base regulation on sustainable urban mobility policy objectives
Micromobility regulation should support the objectives of sustainable and equitable urban mobility
planning. This means facilitating service availability across the urban area and promoting accessibility. Itshould also foster innovation and competition between operators and manage their use of street space.
Integration with other modes, particularly public transport, will create social welfare benefits and replace
car travel offered by these new services and improve accessibility. For micromobility to contribute toreversing car-dependent mobility will depend primarily on broader regulatory and fiscal policies to containcar traffic.

6© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Consult micromobility companies on public policy issues early and often to avoid distorting regulations
Proactive engagement and collaboration with micromobility companies should help reduce the need for
distorting regulations. City authorities should consider constructive proposals from micromobility companies
for meeting overall mobility objectives in the way they regulate and award concessions. On their end,
micromobility companies should be proactive in addressing public concerns.
Apply outcome-based regulations linked to specific performance criteria
Cities should focus on the expected outcomes from a regulation instead of specific, mandatory processes or
actions. Identifying clear performance indicators is helpful to understand how successful operators are andwhere they can improve. Criteria such as the number of trips per micro-vehicle per day should be used toregulate fleet size instead of static fleet caps. Targets for stationing vehicles in areas with poor transit accesscould ensure that micromobility serves sustainability and equity objectives. Cities should work with operatorson performance criteria and base regulation on factors within micromobility providers’ control.
Ensure limits on market access allow competition; avoid static caps on shared micromobility vehicle fleets
Cities need to monitor markets to ensure that any limits imposed on the number of operators do not unduly
limit availability or competition. Sharing a restricted number of permits equally between many operators may
compromise the sustainability of operations. At the same time, markets with only three players raise concerns
over potential oligopolistic behaviour. Instead of arbitrarily restricting the number of operators, cities should
encourage competition among them and accept multiple operators as part of the city’s mix of mobility services.
Where a city sees a need to manage the number of shared micromobility vehicles on its streets, it should use
dynamic caps based on specific performance indicators, such as the utilisation rate of vehicles, rather than bya static limit. Lower utilisation rates might be appropriate in neighbourhoods of concern in respect to inclusivity.
Limit data-reporting requirements to information used for mobility planning
Data reporting is an essential aspect of designing outcome-based regulations. When mandating data reporting,cities need to consider how the data will be used. Thought should be given to the strategic goal and the mostvaluable data to reach it. Producing performance indicators for sustainability and accessibility requires data on
deployment, repositioning, use and lifetime of vehicles. Mandates should limit the reporting burden on
operators to data needed for agreed performance benchmarks. Generally, all transport modes should have fairand balanced reporting requirements. Such data would enable cities to identify priorities for improvement andunderstand their impact on the whole transport network.
Set regulatory fees in light of the potential value of micromobility for sustainable mobility and the uncertain
viability of business models
High regulatory fees imposed on micromobility companies are likely to limit the supply, reduce socio-economic
welfare and make operations unviable. Cities should ensure that any fees are consistent with the negative
impacts they are intended to address. Governments could consider bearing (the majority of) regulation
administrative costs when justified by the benefits of more widespread use of micromobility.
Support equitable and affordable micromobility services
Shared micromobility should be promoted in areas of cities that are not currently well served by public transport
networks. To ensure that it is financially viable for micromobility companies to provide service in all areas of thecity, cities should minimise the burdens on providers from fees and caps on fleets. Cities might consider
subsidies to service providers to achieve desired connectivity improvements.

© OECD/ITF 2021

7

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Follow the principle of mode-neutrality when developping an urban transport system
City authorities should consider all transport modes when planning, regulating and funding transport services.
They should assess their respective contribution to positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes.
Governments should treat all transport modes fairly when imposing limits on access, speed or parking. They
should evaluate the rules and fees applied to different transport modes – particularly to private cars – before
putting in place restrictive regulations for micromobility. Comparing the full costs and charges for different
types of transport will improve decisions on policy interventions.
Reallocate road and parking space to micromobility users, cyclists and pedestrians
Roads and parking spaces are disproportionally allocated to cars. Shared micromobility has increased thedemand for redistributing urban space. Expanding dedicated cycling lanes to accommodate micromobility will
also improve conditions for cyclists and enhance safety and safety perceptions. This will make it more attractive
to cycle and use electric micromobility. Getting parking right is crucial. Sharing schemes as well as personal
micromobility will benefit from repurposing private car parking spaces. This can maximise the take-up of thesemodes and thus help realise their wider benefits for urban policy. At the same time, it would reduce nuisanceand minimise conflicts between modes.
Address motor vehicle speeds when regulating micromobility speed
Speed limits for micro-vehicles should recognise the value of speed for establishing micromobility as analternative to car trips. A speed limit of 25 km/h on appropriate infrastructure makes micromobility morecompetitive with cars than limiting speed to 20 km/h. Lower speeds may be appropriate in areas with heavy
pedestrian traffic. More broadly, 30 km/h is the maximum limit recommended for cars in city streets to reduce
the risk of death or serious injury from a collision of cars with pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
Limiting cars, motorised two-wheelers and micromobility to the same low speeds on streets with mixed
motorised and non-motorised traffic is a logical approach.
Apply coherent regulation that treats micromobility operators equally
Agreeing on a single set of rules applied uniformly across all operators in a city will facilitate the use of
micromobility and reduce the regulatory burden on companies. Micromobility should be regulated as a class,not device by device, given similar operational characteristics in terms of speed and size. Neighbouring cities
should also co-ordinate to harmonise approaches. Direction from national-level governments can help tostandardise regulation but should avoid suppressing innovation by operators and regulators. Safetycharacteristics of vehicles also require coherent regulation.
Adopt a permissive and adaptive regulatory approach to micromobility
Governments should ensure that regulatory interventions do not impede innovation. Regulation should allow
service providers to adopt new business models and technologies and respond to demand. Regulatory barriers
should be minimised to enable operators to gain footholds in urban mobility markets. Micromobility is at an
early stage of innovation and requires flexible regulation for market access that is updated as the market
evolves. Trialling regulatory approaches has proven valuable in many cities. Pilot projects produce data forevaluation and allow insights into how behaviours and outcomes change. They allow experimentation, beddingin and solving problems through experience and negotiation before regulatory intervention. Evaluations andamendments should be planned and clear timelines provided to micromobility companies to reduce
uncertainty and risks to their business models.

8© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Introduction
Congestion, emissions and air quality remain the most vexing transport challenges for urban areas.
Micromobility (e-scooters, electric bikes and pedal bikes, whether docked or dockless and other forms oflight mobility) presents decision makers with an opportunity to address these challenges apace with urban
growth. These services also have the potential to better connect people to public transport, reducereliance on private cars and make the most of scarce space for mobility in cities. The micromobility sector
has matured and innovated at tremendous speed. Shared e-scooters and e-bikes have resonated with
consumers, as demonstrated by their rapid adoption in the last three years. For instance, in the
United States, the total number of trips taken via all forms of micromobility increased by 60% between
2018 and 2019, reaching 136 million trips on shared bikes, e-bikes, and scooters (NACTO, 2019a. The
strong uptake indicates promising potential for driving behavioural change.
Despite this promise, micromobility – especially e-scooters – has raised concerns among many local
governments and citizens that the lack of concertation and unilateral deployment of ride-sourcing services
and some dockless bikeshare systems may repeat themselves. In many urban areas these services began
operating in a legal grey zone. Officials responding to citizen complaints are resisting shared micromobility,
especially e-scooters. Common concerns are cluttered sidewalks and oversupply of first-generation sharedbikes placed on the streets by operators aiming to achieve market domination through saturation.
Increasing criticism around the negative environmental impact of these services, unsafe riding behaviour
and poor parking fuelled the debate, leading some officials to call for an outright ban of e-scooter sharing
services. Many local governments have already put in place strict regulations or bans on new mobility
services. Other authorities have welcomed the arrival of shared micromobility because of its propensity toincrease demand for protected cycling space, allowing them to accelerate existing plans to invest in safe
cycling networks. Attitudes differ among authorities that run dockless shared bike schemes too. Some seethem as a valuable extension and lower-cost substitute for docked schemes. Others view them as
unwelcome competition for the operators of the systems they currently subsidise.
The Roundtable meeting convened by the International Transport Forum virtually in March 2021 analysed
governance approaches for commercially operated shared micromobility schemes. It identified regulatory
frameworks that maximise benefits for users and incentivise providers to innovate and maximise theircontribution to sustainable mobility whilst containing external costs. It discussed how to align regulations
for micromobility with goals for achieving sustainable mobility, equitable access and integrated transportand land-use policies. It explored evidence for the potential contribution of shared micromobility services
to these goals, establishing how these services are used and how regulatory intervention has affected
patterns of use. Regulation was examined from the perspectives of efficiency and competition policy,
equitable accessibility and urban planning and road-space allocation. Road safety is also a consideration
but was examined in depth in Safe Micromobility (ITF, 2020c).
The discussions focused on:the adoption trends of different forms of micromobility, whether docked or dockless, including
shared e-scooters, electric bikes and pedal bikes



the impact of these services on health, access, economic activity, congestion and emissions andon different groups in society© OECD/ITF 2021

9

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

adaptation of the transport system in terms of both infrastructure allocation and regulation to
manage the increase in their useappropriate regulatory frameworks to maximise the potential of these services to contribute tosustainable mobility options while curbing externalities

appropriate charging regimes and principles for their application

integration of shared e-scooters and e-bikes with public transport to contribute to multimodal
and integrated sustainable transport policy goals and to serve all groups of society.

The report is organised in two parts, first reviewing the costs and benefits of micromobility and thenexamining how best to regulate shared micromobility.

10© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Socio-economic costs and benefits of micromobility
Most city authorities seem to agree that micromobility enriches urban mobility and has the potential tochange behaviour and transition to low-carbon urban mobility. However, the choice of appropriate
instruments for regulating micromobility is contingent on a clear understanding of the value that these
new mobility services bring. Their contribution to broader sustainable mobility goals as well as potential
negative impacts that need to be contained. The most profound benefit of integrating sharedmicromobility services into a city’s transport system is to improve accessibility. This is done through direct
short-distance trips or access to public transport stops. To understand the determinants and obstacles andperceived benefits of micromobility, many surveys have been conducted to assess who uses it, for which
type of trips, and what barriers are faced.

Micromobility and mode shift
Available data suggests that shared e-scooters and bikes are particularly suitable for short trips in urban
areas. The typical scooter user or bikeshare pass-holder rides for 11-12 minutes and 1-3 kilometres on anaverage trip in major cities across the United States (NACTO, 2019a). The same trend is observed inEuropean cities. Research institute 6-t found that in Paris, median travel time for an e-scooter trip isapproximately 11 minutes (6-t, 2019). E-bikes are often used for longer journeys where walking is not a
viable option. According to research by Cairns et al. (2017), the average trip length for e-bikes is 11.4 km.
Micromobility has been found to substitute for walking, cycling and public transport trips (Reck andAxhausen, 2021; 6-t, 2019; Fishman et al., 2014; ITF, 2020a). However, micromobility also has the potential
to substitute for short car trips and thereby help to reduce traffic congestion and decrease vehicle
emissions. An INRIX (2019) study revealed that 48% of all car trips in the 25 most-congested US cities areless than three miles.
Indeed, data from several surveys suggest that across six cities in North America1, around 45% of
micromobility journeys replace car travel (a combination of private car use and ride-hailing, e.g. taxi, Uberor Lyft) (NACTO, 2019a). Data compiled by the International Transport Forum (ITF, 2020a) suggests thatthe average substitution effect across US cities is lower: around 15% of private car trips. In New Zealand,
24% of all micromobility trips replace a car trip, while 50% of e-scooter trips replace walking. Availabilityof micromobility may also affect car ownership. In Oslo, 2% of respondents to a survey of shared e-scooter
users confirmed that they got rid of their cars due to the use of e-scooters and another 8% had considereddoing the same. Surveys also suggest that micromobility substitutes trips by taxi. In Oslo, 46% ofrespondents stated that they use taxis less often (TOI, 2020). Similarly, bikesharing – both dockless andstation-based – has been linked to an observed decline in motorised vehicle use in cities across Europe
and the United States (Fishman et al., 2014).
The congestion reduction effect is more noticeable in cities where car use and ownership are higher andride-hailing is more common (ITF, 2020a). In dense European cities with lower car use, such as Paris orOslo, only 8-10% of e-scooter trips displace car trips (personal or ride-hail/taxi) (Fearnley et al., 2021; 6-t,2019). Even with a substitute effect of 10%, shared micromobility replaces enough car trips to materially
impact traffic flow and air quality.
There are concerns about micromobility competing with cycling and walking. What are the potential
ramifications for individual and population-level physical activity? Data from French cities shows that 44%© OECD/ITF 2021

11

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

of e-scooter users would have walked had the scooters not been available and 30% used public transport.
However, the same survey suggests that only 6% of users walked less overall since they have started using
e-scooters (6-t, 2019). In Brussels, 15% of micromobility trips replace cycling trips, 20-26% walking trips
and 26-28% car trips (Moreau et al., 2020). Similarly, surveys across the United States show that around
25% of respondents would have used a car (personal or ride-hail/taxi), while 57% would have walked and
8% would have biked (8%). However, only 15% of respondents indicated that they walk and bike less overall(Sanders et al., 2020). Walking is also the most replaced option in Brazil (58%), followed by car-based ridesourcing (25%), car travel (14%) and public transport (8% for buses, 6% for BRT and 6% for metro or train)(ITF, 2020a).
Another concern is that e-scooters compete with bikesharing. However, data suggest that averagebikesharing trip tends to be longer than trips taken by e-scooters. In France, bike sharing is used for trips
having similar distances to shared e-moped/motor scooters (5.25 km/trip). A user survey in Paris highlightsthat only 9% of respondents would have used a shared bike and 3% would have ridden their own bike totake their last trip instead of a free-floating e-scooter if the latter was unavailable (6-t, 2019). This suggeststhat e-scooters occupy a clear niche compared to other modes, including walking and cycling.

Role of micromobility for intermodal trips
Easier access to public transport is one of the key determinants for choosing between a car ride or public
transport (Holmgren, 2020). Micromobility can increase the catchment area of public transport. It provides
a quicker trip to/from public transport or increases the distance that people are willing to travel to/from
homes and public transport when compared to walking.
Some micromobility trips may replace public transport trips. For instance, in Brussels, around 30% of users
stated that the e-scooter replaced a public transport trip (Moreau et al., 2020). However, a large
proportion of both bike-sharing and e-scooter trips are part of longer intermodal trips, therefore increasing
the catchment area of public transport (Shaheen and Cohen, 2016; ITDP, 2018). In Paris, 15% of freefloating e-scooter trips and 18% of dockless bike trips are combined with public transport (6-t, 2019).2 In
Oslo, 57% of e-scooter users combined their trips with public transport (TOI, 2020). Similarly, Lime (2018)
reports a 20% share of e-scooter trips to/from public transport across their services. The Micromobility
Coalition (2019) reported that the widespread availability of micromobility services, particularly for first/last-mile connections, would increase access to 35% more jobs for Seattle city residents while shortening
commute time and reducing reliance on cars. In Zurich, dockless e-scooters and docked bikes are mostly
used in the city centre with clear hotspots at the main public transport stations (Reck and Axhausen, 2021),
suggesting that the integration of bike- and scooter-sharing with public transport can increase the numberof multimodal trips.

Environmental performance of micromobilty
The first generation of e-scooter and dockless bikeshare systems created environmental performance
concerns. Their poor quality, particularly the initial short lifetime of e-scooters, was exacerbated byvandalism. As a result, the first generation of e-scooters had a life expectancy of just a few months, which
was not enough time for operational CO2 emissions savings to outweigh embedded greenhouse gas
emissions.

12© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Battery recharging is an important issue. E-scooters are typically collected by larger vehicles for theirbatteries to be recharged, usually during off-peak hours. They are spatially dispersed, which generates
irregular and long travel patterns for scooter collection. During the initial deployment of e-scooters by
operators, little thought was given to controlling the method of this collection, with diesel vans often used.
The industry has made improvements in terms of hardware design, lifecycle emissions performance andoperational sustainability due to technology advances. Voi’s latest Voiager 4 scooter is estimated to havean average operational lifespan of 60 months (Voi, 2021. The carbon footprint of e-scooters has reduced
since their initial implementation, as documented by reports from Voi Technology, showing a 70%
reduction in CO2 per km, down to 35g CO2 per km since January 2019 (Voi, 2020). Assessment of theenvironmental performance of e-scooters in Paris, based on Consequential Life Cycle Assessment (CLCA),
highlights that extending the life span of vehicles in the city3 is not sufficient to get a positive balance interms of GHG emissions (de Bortoli and Christoforou, 2020).
Reductions in servicing emissions are also required. For example, the collection and distribution of escooters for battery charging. Micromobility companies argue that with the introduction of replaceable
batteries, fewer large diesel vans to transport the vehicles to and from recharging sites are needed (onlyfor repositioning), with operators increasingly using cargo bikes. Only batteries are transported to be
charged and are swapped on the spot, drastically reducing the service’s energy consumption andcontribution to congestion on the roads (TIER Mobility, 2019; ITF, 2020a). The use of replaceable batteriesalso ensures that vehicles stay in the field, increasing their usage and reducing their GHG emissions per
km ridden. However, emissions related to production of additional batteries also need to be considered.
With rapidly changing technology, appropriate assessment methods are needed to calculate direct andindirect environmental impacts of new mobility options (de Bortoli and Christoforou, 2020). ITF (2020a)
highlights that defining common and transparent methodologies to evaluate life-cycle emissions andrequiring third-party verification of the resulting assessments is important in setting environmental andenergy-related performance requirements for micromobility vehicles.
ITF (2020a) analysed the differences in climate impact between personal and shared electric kick-scooters,
bicycles, e-bikes, electric mopeds, as well as car-based ride-sharing services. The report assessed the lifecycle performance of these new vehicles and services based on their technical characteristics, operationand maintenance, and compared it with that of privately owned cars and public transport. This analysis
suggests that the lifecycle GHG emissions from an e-scooter, calculated on a per pkm basis, may be around
37% lower than those of conventional private cars and those of shared bikes 60% lower. The report also
highlights that private bikes and e-bikes that are regularly used have the lowest life-cycle energy
requirements and GHG emission impacts per pkm, which is several orders of magnitude lower than theshared model (Figure 1).

© OECD/ITF 2021

13

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Figure 1. Central estimates of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of urban transport modes per pkm

Notes: BEV = battery electric vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; ICE = internal combustion engine; FCEV =fuel cell electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. These estimates have been developed using key
inputs (such as average number of passengers, the electricity mix and the ratio of operational km per active km)
defined by global averages observed prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Specific circumstances occurring in different
world regions, changes in operational practices and the Covid-19 pandemic should therefore be modelled as
individual-specific cases, modifying input data accordingly.
The infrastructure component represents the ratio between CO2 needed to construct and maintain one km of theone-way lane (nominator); and vkm (or pkm) taking place on that one-way lane during its lifetime. The
infrastructure results are heavily dependent on the infrastructure attributed to each mode. Cars are assumed touse only car lanes. Bikes and e-scooters are assumed to use a mix of bike lanes (20%) and urban roads (80%).
Source: ITF (2020a).

Energy use and GHG emissions from shared micromobility - e-scooters, bikes, e-bikes and mopeds - arecomparable in magnitude to those of metros and buses. This is the case especially when actions are taken
to extend lifetime mileage and minimise energy use and GHG emissions from operational services (ITF,
2020a).
GHG savings and health benefits of micromobility: dockless pedal bikeshare in
Copenhagen

A very limited number of studies calculate health costs and benefits, GHG and cost savings associated withthe effects of different shared micromobility options. Donkey Republic – a bikeshare company, based in
Denmark – collaborated with Dresden University to examine the overall value of bikeshare in Copenhagenby putting numbers on health benefits, GHG savings and cost savings to society and individual users.
14© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

The health impacts of the different transport modes were assessed in relation to physical activity,
accidents and air pollution. Effects on physical activity were evaluated in terms of gains per marginal km
for cycling, cars and walking using unit prices developed for the Cycling Embassy of Denmark (COWI, 2020).
Air pollution (losses per marginal pkm) and safety costs were assessed with prices from the EU Handbook
on the External Costs of Transport (EU, 2019). The study also assessed impacts on congestion using a costfor marginal pkms on urban roads based on a value of time for Denmark from the EU Handbook.
Greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated using ITF estimates for the life-cycle impacts of new mobility
services (ITF, 2020a). This data was expanded to include Donkey bikes and e-bikes, considering vehicle
lifetime, the average number of trips per day and the technology used to charge and reposition swappable
batteries for e-bikes (Table 1). These co-efficients were combined with the estimates provided by Dresden
University on modal shift effects to determine the impact of bike-sharing. The Dresden team based theirestimates on the analysis of comprehensive GPS tracking data. The effects of bike-sharing on individual
travel behaviour were assessed through two online surveys.
Table 1. Cost savings and GHG impacts across different transport modes in Copenhagen
EUR-cents per marginal
passenger-km in urban areas

CO2 emissions perpassenger kilometre(pkm)

Modal shift

Congestion cost

Health benefit

GHG (LCA)

Share of trips replaced by
Donkey bikeshare

Donkey

0

131

17

-

eDonkey

0

88

45

-

Car (ICE)

35

-12.2

162

6%

eCar

35

-126

124

1%

Bus (ICE)

6

-2

92

30%

Rail

0

-1

66

20%

e-Scooter (shared, 2nd gen)

0

-140

107

5%

Bike

0

131

16

14%

eBike

0

88

34

Walk

0

151

0

24%

Source: Donkey Republic and Dresden University (2021).

The average Donkey Republic user makes two trips a day and cycles approximately 3 km per trip. Thistranslates into gains of EUR 2.54 at average rates of substitution for other modes. Average benefits of eachcar substation to Donkey Republic pedal bike in Copenhagen results in EUR 1.1 in congestion savings pertrip; EUR 4.3 in health benefits per trip and 434g in saved CO2 emissions per trip (Donkey Republic, 2021).
This illustrates the potential positive impact that pedal bikeshare can have (Figure 2).

© OECD/ITF 2021

15

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Figure 2. GHG savings and health benefits of dockless pedal bikeshare, Copenhagen

Source: Donkey Republic and Dresden University (2021).

The benefits of bike-share and e-scooters can differ widely between geographic areas. The higher the ratioof car journeys replaced by e-scooters, the higher the overall CO2 reduction of the system and higher theoverall benefits and cost savings. Additional independent studies of the costs and benefits of different
micromobility options in different environments are needed. But these results set the stage for an
informed discussion on the benefits and trade-offs associated with new mobility options.

Sidewalks, streets and public space
Space is one of the scarcest resources in cities. Real or perceived conflicts over the use of public space
underlie many of the concerns with the emergence of shared micromobility. The use of pavements by escooter riders in cities where they are restricted to sidewalks and in other cities where they contravene
regulations that ban them from sidewalks creates potential conflicts with pedestrians. And sharedmicromobility competes for space with cyclists using their own bikes on bike lanes. Dockless shared bikes
and scooters also compete for parking space and can clutter and obstruct sidewalks and other public areas(Gössling, 2020).
These issues reflect fundamental deficiencies in many cities’ infrastructure, which for decades has
prioritised cars at the expense of other modes (ITF, 2021b). And the emergence of shared micromobility
has increased existing pressure for redistribution of space to more sustainable modes (Gössling, 2020).
Cluttering and improper parking is another major negative discussion point in cities. Many have voiced
concerns about devices left clogging up sidewalks, blocking access to ramps and pathways, which can beespecially problematic for people with impaired vision, difficulty walking or using wheelchairs. However,observational research shows that scooters impede access relatively infrequently.

16© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Figure 3. Observed scooter and car parking behaviours in selected cities in the United States

Source: Anne Brown et al. (2020).

Anne Brown et al. (2020) collected 3 666 observations of e-scooters, bikes, motor vehicles across five US
cities – Washington D.C.; Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco and Santa Monica, California. They
found bikes and scooters were parked incorrectly in only 0.8% of insistences, while the rate for cars was
24.7% (Figure 3). While scooters can impede access, focusing only on scooters may miss a broader
landscape of challenges faced by pedestrians.

Is micromobility safe?
The safety concerns of micromobility dominate policy discourse in many cities and remains an issue.
Perhaps the novelty of shared e-scooters was responsible for the misconduct of some riders. In New
Zealand, for instance, surveys suggest that 31% of non-users are not willing to try e-scooters due to safetyconcerns. Inexperienced riders on vehicles with small wheels created a widespread perception that sharedmicromobility could become a crash hazard, endangering both riders and pedestrians. Vehicles have
improved over time, with larger wheels and tyres, suspension and changes in geometry in both shared escooters and bicycles.
ITF (2020c) complied crash and injury data from two years of e-scooters operations and compared thesedata with crash and injury data for other transport modes. The report found that a trip by shared standing
e-scooter is no more likely to result in a road traffic death than by bicycle trip. Findings were controlled forthe number of trips made.4 A trip by car or by motorcycle in a dense urban area is much more likely toresult in the death of a road user – this includes pedestrians – than a trip by a micro-vehicle. The report
also highlights that motor vehicles are involved in about 80% of crashes that result in the death of bicycleor e-scooter riders (Figure 4).

© OECD/ITF 2021

17

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Figure 4. Vehicle occupant fatalities by third-party involvement

Source: ITF (2020c).

Injury data is more mixed: the risk of hospital admission may be higher on e-scooters, but there have been
too few studies to draw firm conclusions. The very limited data available suggests that injury rates are
falling. This is because in the last two years, micromobility operators have improved vehicle design andconsumers are becoming more familiar with devices and traffic rules.
Good quality data on both crashes and exposure is difficult to obtain. In Oslo, where such data wascollected, studies have concluded that crash risk is higher for e-scooters than for bicycles, per kilometre
travelled, taking averages for all categories of e-scooter and for all kinds of bikes, including e-bikes5(Fearnley et al., 2020). Future research should focus on fatal and serious injury rates instead of a broadcrash rate.
More generally, e-scooters are seen to have the potential to contribute to safer streets: if they reduce car
trips, there are fewer car crashes, which tend to be more serious than e-scooter accidents (ITF, 2020c).
For this reason, cities should aim to compare micromobility crash data to overall motor vehicle crashes(e.g. as a percent of total crashes/ injuries) to provide the public with a more complete perspective.

18© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Principles for regulating micromobility
Micromobility regulation should harness potential net welfare benefits for society and individual users
while negative impacts associated with new services are contained. There is general agreement between
operators and authorities on the need to regulate micromobility in a way that will contribute to afundamental shift in mobility habits. But many authorities have been slow to adopt regulatory frameworks
that recognise e-scooters as a means of transport. One fundamental point is to decide whether to treat
the use of urban space by shared micromobility vehicles in a similar way to other private and public vehicles
or to apply laws that regulate the use of public space by street vendors instead, effectively treating thevehicles like food trucks. The use of public rights of way is the more relevant basis for managing andregulating these new mobility services (Fearnley, 2020). Competition policy is also a relevant
consideration, both in relation to the business initiative and to the attribution of public property rights tomobility businesses.

Considering broader sustainable urban mobility policy for regulating
micromobility
Only a few cities have designed micromobility regulations specifically to make progress toward broader
environmental and socio-economic goals. In many cities, overly restrictive regulations have often been at
odds with sustainability objectives. Regulation of shared micromobility has sometimes lost sight of how
the system can be made most effective, convenient and reliable for users and how it can be integrated
with other transport modes. This has limited the extent of these services in some cities, reducing the valueof micromobility to the community.
Transport policy needs to shift from a focus on moving people and goods farther and faster to one focusedon accessibility through reliability, quality and proximity, serving all people, with a focus on those mostpoorly served, whether it be because of location, income, gender, physical or cognitive impairment.
Prioritising more sustainable forms of transport – walking, non-motorised vehicles, public transport andlow emission vehicles – will reduce damage to the environment, make street space more attractive andimprove road safety for non-motorists.
At the supra-national level in Europe, the European Commission includes specific guidance with respect tore-prioritising urban mobility around people over solely focusing on vehicular traffic flow outcomes. This isreflected in the guidance for developing Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) (Eltis, 2021).
Governments are increasingly emphasising this approach. At the national level, the new Mobility Law inFrance is a notable example. The Loi d’orientation des mobilités (mobility orientation law) allocates
investment to improving daily transport and getting the most out of the digital revolution as its toppriorities (Ministere de la Transition Ecologique, 2021). Many cities have made the same change in policy
orientation. For example, Mexico City’s 2014 Mobility Law inverted the traditional focus on provision forcars to prioritise walking and cycling, and the object of the City’s 2018 Strategic plan for mobility – One city
one system is to improve quality of life by reducing social inequalities, cutting emissions of air pollutants
and greenhouse gases, and improving accessibility with services that are decent, safe and secure (SEMOVI,2018).
The Covid-19 pandemic and the easing of lockdowns has highlighted the importance of individual, lowcarbon, socially distanced transport as governments try to prevent spikes in car use and pollution (ITF,© OECD/ITF 2021

19

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

2020b). The pandemic has accelerated the growth in micromobility stimulated by shared bikes andespecially the arrival of dockless systems and shared e-bikes and e-scooters. Micromobility can contributemuch to improved urban mobility but will deliver most in terms of sustainability when it is well-integrated
with public transport and mobility policy overall.
Regulation of privately operated dockless micromobility is also often at odds with the regulation of docked
bike-share systems. Cities either own and operate the assets of these docked bike-share systems (bicycles
and station infrastructure) or contract a single private operator to run the system. Cities, such as Paris or
Mexico City, were motivated to introduce these systems as part of their sustainable mobility strategies
and subsidise them with direct support or through concessions for the use of public space for otherpurposes such as advertising. For instance, Los Angeles’ Metro Bike Share receives more than
USD 15 million in funding per year from the city and the LA Metro transportation agency (Guaquelin, 2021;
Westervelt and Zipper, 2020). In the case of new privately operated systems, cities have less at stake;hence encouraging the use and growth of privately operated shared systems has often not been a priority.
Reck and Axhausen (2021), however, highlight that docked modes are preferred for commuting in Zurich,suggesting that docking infrastructure could be vital for promoting micromobility as an alternative to
private cars. Essentially, however, dockless micromobility provides similar benefits to “traditional” docked
bike-share systems, and therefore should be supported in a similar way through regulatory facilitationeven if subsidies are not needed.
To yield its full potential, policies toward micromobility need to be fully integrated with transit, parking,road safety and pedestrian accessibility policies (Gössling, 2020; ITF, 2020a; ITF, 2020c). Physicalintegration is important, including through the provision of parking space at transit stations (Ramboll,2020). Incorporating the new shared modes into travel card payment systems is useful and they shouldhave access to MaaS platforms, whether supported by subsidies or not. Payment integration between
micromobility and other transport modes is growing. In Berlin, for instance, users can pay for public
transport, the Nextbike bike-share system, and other shared mobility options, including e-scooters andmopeds through the Jelbi app. Similarly, in Denver, users can pay for metro, ride-hailing services ande-scooters via the Lyft app (RTD, 2020).

Applying outcome-based regulation linked to performance criteria
Regulatory intervention in shared micromobility markets should be determined above all by mobility policy
and informed by monitoring and analysis of impacts on public policy objectives. Outcome-based regulation
using performance criteria is more likely to ensure that new mobility options serve broader city goals thanprescriptive regulations such as fixed arbitrary caps on fleet size. Cities need to specify their mobility
objectives and work together with operators to define performance criteria accordingly to develop
outcome-based regulation. Regulation should then be based solely on factors that lie within micromobility
providers’ control.
Managing fleet size

Problems with shared bikes and electric scooters cluttering streets and complaints to the government fromlocal residents have led many cities to limit the number of vehicles permitted for operation. Acuteproblems arose in cities where some first-generation dockless bike operators swamped markets to crowdout the competition (ITF, 2019). In principle, the problem is less likely to arise with electric vehicles thathave higher unit costs and there are no reports of oversupply of shared electric bicycles (Licea, 2021). In
practice, there have been examples of problems with a fully unregulated supply of e-scooters. After

20© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

authorisation for legal operation in Norway, 20 000 electric scooters were deployed in Oslo, implying one
electric scooter for every 50 inhabitants. This resulted in chaotic conditions in popular locations, blocking
sidewalks (Fearnley, 2020). Recently, Oslo Municipality enacted a new regulation limiting the number ofmicromobility vehicles to 8 000 (shared between all companies that fulfil a set of requirements). This maylead to more companies operating fewer vehicles, resulting in a poorer user experience.
Experience under Paris’ successful, initially permissive approach was more positive. The city allowed open
access for e-scooter operators with incremental intervention to manage problems that proved persistent.
Early problems of clutter were resolved to a large extent by co-ordinated measures, with the city providing
a rapidly expanding number of authorised parking spaces, operators introducing incentives and penalties
with geofencing technology, and fines for using or parking vehicles improperly on sidewalks. Dott (2021)
reports compliance with parking regulations rising from 35% to 97% as a result of these measures (see thesection on management of street and parking space below). Subsequently, due to the increasing numberof shared vehicles, the city nevertheless decided to limit the supply of vehicles via competitive tender.
Licencing of micromobility varies from city to city in terms of the number of operators and vehicles
authorised. Jurisdictional responsibilities vary by city, often with the lowest level of government
responsible for authorising use of public space, which sometimes results in fragmented markets. Some city
mobility departments and some regional metropolitan transport authorities provide guidelines forregulation and others licence operation directly. Micromobility sustainable operation is compromised
where markets are fragmented or the number of licenced vehicles is low. Madrid, for example, hasauthorised 22 companies to provide shared electric scooters, each assigned to a specific neighbourhood,and Copenhagen split a city tender to provide 3 000 e-scooters between 10 operators. In these cities,
companies struggle to achieve profitability, impeding long-term investment in sustainable operations. Thisapproach also risks harming the user experience while increasing the complexity of management for thecity. Restrictive fleet caps for operators also cause problems in integrating micromobility effectively withpublic transport.
Other cities have opted to select a small number of providers that apply for permits allocated according to
pre-determined criteria. This is now the case in the City of Paris. In 2019, there were 12 firms offering a
total of around 20 000 dockless electric scooters in the city. Tenders were awarded in 2020 to threecompanies for the right to operate up to 5 000 units each. Tender applications were rated according tothree sets of criteria: 1) user safety, 2) operations – management, maintenance, and charging, and 3)
environmental responsibility. As a result, micromobility companies Dott, TIER and Lime have been awarded
two-year concessions to operate scooters (AFP, 2020).
Similarly, in London, Dott, Lime and TIER have been selected by TfL and six London Councils for a one-year
e-scooter trial. Throughout the trial, operators that demonstrate strong performance and compliance withsafety standards and control of parking locations could increase the number of vehicles deployed. Those
unable to comply with the requirements set out may be required to reduce the number of vehicles (TfL,
2021). Capping the number of operators may make it easier for cities to manage these services and capping
fleet size can avoid problems of oversupply, but cities need to monitor markets to make sure that permit
caps do not unduly limit availability and competition. In markets with only three players, concerns overpotential oligopolistic behaviour are acute (Deighton Smith, 2021). There is also a risk that if one of theoperators exits, the city will be under-supplied, at least until new concessions can be let.
Overly restrictive fixed fleet size caps could prevent services from expanding as demand grows and mayhinder operators from providing service equitably to all parts of a city. Any permitting structure initiallybased on fleet size should establish clear, performance-based indicators for the expansion of operator
fleets once operations commence to avoid degradations in service reliability as demand grows. Instead of© OECD/ITF 2021

21

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

imposing fixed caps on the number of scooters each company can deploy, cities should use dynamic capsthat can be adjusted depending on operators’ performance linked to the city’s strategic goals (Licea, 2021).
A clear and transparent methodology that sets thresholds to adjust the fleet size according to specificindicators is needed in order to give predictability to operators. NACTO (2019b) highlights several potential
criteria that cities can use to establish dynamic caps (Box 1).
Dynamic caps create an incentive system that rewards the operators that perform best and incentives
others to perform better. Many operators prefer dynamic fleet caps, which allow them to increase or
decrease the total number of vehicles they deploy based on specific metrics, such as rides per vehicle perday. This is a superior approach to limiting fleet size as the metric chosen can directly translate permit
terms and objectives of optimising vehicle use and positioning to maximise benefits and minimise externalcosts.

Box 1. Examples of performance metrics to adjust fleet sizeNumber of trips per scooter per day measured over an identified time frame: If an operator meets
this performance measure, they are allowed to increase their fleet size. If an operator fails to meet
performance measures, the allowed fleet size decreases.



Number of trips per scooter per day originating or ending in city-identified targeted service areas:
If an operator meets/exceeds performance standards for available vehicles in areas that have poortransit access and/or low rates of car ownership, they are permitted to increase their fleet size. If
an operator fails to meet performance measures, the allowed fleet size decreases.

Strategies that address barriers to use: Operators may increase the fleet size if they meet targets
for providing services to target groups such as unbanked populations or providing adaptive
vehicles.



Strategies that encourage preferred parking or riding behaviours: If an operator demonstrates
actions to meet the city’s goals for parking and use, they are permitted to increase their fleet size.

Permit compliance: Cities could adjust the allowed fleet size to reflect compliance infractions,
measured in the number of infractions per established timeframe.

Source: Adapted from Nacto (2019b).

Dynamic fleet caps have been successful in several cities across the United States. Santa Monica was thefirst city to introduce them. It originally had a fleet of 2 500 vehicles distributed among four mobility
companies. After the introduction of dynamic caps, the number of vehicles in the city increased to 3 250(City of Santa Monica, 2019). Similarly, St. Louis is an example of a city that uses dynamic caps for its
bikeshare. The city started with a pilot programme of 500 bikes. Every month, companies could add 350
bikes to each fleet until they reached a maximum of 2 500. After reaching a maximum, companies could
further expand their fleet only if they could demonstrate rising demand for their bikes and had an
education and social equity plan (Hall, 2020).

22© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Data-reporting for guiding micromobility outcomes

Public authorities require micromobility operation data for monitoring performance in relation to policy
objectives and licencing conditions. Access to data is typically required to monitor the adequacy of supply,
equitable distribution across neighbourhoods, temporal and spatial characteristics of use to guide
infrastructure investments, and what safety concerns may require action. Data reporting also enables theuse of dynamic caps on scooter fleets by adjusting the total number of vehicles operators can deploy basedon specific metrics, such as rides per vehicle per day. Authorities should also monitor the characteristics
and environmental performance of all vehicles and vehicle fleets to reduce the overall environmental
burden of vehicle travel. This evaluation should be based on broad and transparent life-cycle analysis
methodologies (ITF, 2020a).
To avoid the emergence of data availability bias, data reporting obligations on micromobility companies
should be proportionate to data collection processes from other modes. Micromobility is a digital service;hence data is easy to collect. Yet, there is a lot of analogous data that is not collected, in particular fromcars that represent the largest source of burdens from urban traffic. More generally, fair and balanced
reporting requirements across all transport modes should be considered.
Many cities have mandated data reporting as part of a scheme’s licence to operate. Micromobility
operators, for their part, appear increasingly willing to report data to cities, including information on
vehicle locations and trips. Some cities, however, are uncertain what to do with the data once they haveit or have data that provides no focus or purpose (Eurocities, 2020). When mandating data reporting, cities
need to identify exactly what data will be used for and in what form it should be delivered to facilitate
analysis, minimising the reporting burden and facilitating processing and analysis. Some analysis will also
require data from public transport and parking ticketing data to understand the impact of micromobilityon the transport network as a whole.
Collection and analysis of these data can provide important insights but may raise privacy issues, which
are of concern to both public authorities and operators. Operators have access to sensitive information,such as the start and end of trips, history of locations and personal information. Robust data privacy
policies should be in place to mitigate risks (Eurocities, 2020). All parties should employ techniques tomake data reporting compatible with privacy concerns through data aggregation, pseudonymisation andencryption, and undertake privacy impact assessments (ITF, 2021a).

Regulatory fees
Most shared micromobility operators are commercial businesses. Common with many new digitallyenabled services, sustainable profitability takes time to achieve and business models evolve with a fairly
high level of mergers and acquisitions. Rates of market exit and turnover have been accelerated by changes
in regulatory intervention. Lockdowns in response to the Covid-19 pandemic saw plummeting usage, withcompanies exiting many markets around the world (Hall, 2020). At the same time, as lockdowns ease,shared micromobility is seen by some commuters as preferable to crowded public transport and by publicauthorities as a more sustainable choice than recourse to private cars or motorcycles. Temporary bikelanes in response to Covid-19 have benefited micromobility and the crisis has made all forms of
micromobility more central to urban mobility planning (ITF 2020b).
Several advocates argue that micromobility should be treated as public transport, which – with a few
exceptions – does not generate profit (Westervelt and Zipper, 2020; Guaquelin, 2021). For all thesereasons, governments should not see it as a source of revenue. They should not seek to recover the full

© OECD/ITF 2021

23

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

costs of administering regulatory requirements in recognition of the social (external) benefits of morewidespread use of micromobility, except where warranted.
Cities should carefully assess the charges that are imposed on different transport modes, especially private
motor vehicles. Most drivers in urban areas only pay a fraction of the costs associated with car traffic.
Underpriced parking is widespread and leads to inefficient use of space and excessive parking demand(ITF, 2021b). While car users often do not pay the full costs of their use of urban space, in terms of parking
space and traffic congestion, under the status-quo, cities often impose substantial regulatory fees on
micromobility companies on the basis of their new demands on-street space. These fees can be imposed
per scooter, per operator permit or per ride and may be additional to penalties imposed for violations ofvarious rules. These fees are often inconsistent with potential negative impacts they seek to address. In
some cities, fees imposed on operators are disproportionately high relative to the space micromobility
requires and fail to consider the positive social, economic, and environmental benefits that micromobility
can provide (Kyrouz, 2020). Cities have justified fees by the need to cover the cost of operating the scooter
permit programme and overseeing compliance with the rules. In some instances, these costs are
significantly lower than the number of fees being charged.
Micromobility operators use public space to supply their mobility services. Some cities use a commercial
model for the use of this space by charging a license fee for usage of the right-of-way and public
infrastructure, similar to rent. Cities such as Bogota and Mexico City base regulatory fees on the need toinvest in additional infrastructure to accommodate new mobility options. Mexico City licensed docklessbikes and e-bikes and electric push scooters for use in a limited area of the central-western part of thecity. Rights to operate were allocated in 2019 through a competitive tendering procedure. A floor price
was set, calculated according to the cost of reallocating space to provide designated parking places nearmetro stations and at other strategic locations on the streets. This floor price was carefully calculated inrelation to the costs imposed.
The City’s Mobility Ministry calculated the cost of accommodating bicycles to be USD 45 and electricscooters USD 60. The estimates were based on prices paid for parking lots for motor vehicles and thenumber of micromobility vehicles that can be parked in a standard lot, construction costs for allocating
dedicated space for parking shared bikes and scooters, and the impact of these vehicles on the city.
However, the bidding process resulted in excessively high winning bids. This was the result of strategic
behaviour by some of the competing firms aiming to exclude rivals in an auction without safeguards. In
some cases, operators believed they could challenge the legality of the charges after the fact or simply not
pay the fees (the licence was subsequently withdrawn for the operator that took the latter route). This
resulted in unsustainably high charges per vehicle operated by the small number of winning bidders, up to
MXN 14 000 (USD 720) per scooter, per year (Table 2).
The auction collected USD 1 698 654, destined for a public fund for investment in infrastructure for cyclists
and pedestrians (Licea, 2021). This amount exceeds the annual regulatory fee paid, for instance, by taxi
services that take up more space and contribute far more to road congestion. Ultimately, high regulatory
fees forced many operators to exit the market, harming consumers and the city by making the service
infeasible for all of the scooter operators and most of the bike operators.
High regulatory fees are likely to limit the supply of micromobility and reduce socio-economic welfare.
Ultimately, it may make micromobility businesses unviable. Micromobility should be made available insuch a way that all costs are understood and that these costs are fairly shared between the public andprivate stakeholders (Ramboll, 2020). In some cities, where demand may be expected to be exceptionallylarge and robust (i.e. Paris, London, New York City), it may be reasonable to seek a fee. However, it isimportant to consider that costs, service expectations and operational complexity may also be high in

24© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

these locations. If fees are introduced, they should be specific, targeted and realistic. Fees should not belarge and generic irrespective of the actual service being provided, the income generated, or the ability to
pay local operators. Public authorities will need to monitor outcomes and adjust fees accordingly.
Table 2. Taxes on micromobility in Mexico City by operator
Units

Annual fee per unit

Total annual payment

Dezba (electric)500

MXN 1 800

MXN 900 000

Jump (electric)

1 900

MXN 1 300

MXN 2 470 000

Mobike

2 400

MXN 2 600

MXN 6 240 000

Total for three companies

4 800

CompanyBikes

MXN 9 610 000

Electric micro scooters
Lime

1 750

MXN 7 200

MXN 12 600 000

Grin

1 750

MXN 14 000

MXN 24 500 000

Total for two companies

3 500

MXN 37 100 000

Source: Licea (2021).

A careful analysis should determine the appropriate amount and type of fees for the deployment of
micromobility. A well-planned permit system can be a good mechanism to manage e-scooters and permit
fees can be used to cover some costs the e-scooters generate (Ramboll, 2020). Striking the right balanceis key, as high fees increase ride costs and limit the number of potential users and operators, or evendeprive the city completely of micromobility options.

Promoting equitable access and affordable service
One of the greatest potential benefits of micromobility is improved accessibility in areas and times of day
that are lacking public transport. However, deployment in such underserved neighbourhoods has often
been limited. The use of localised or geographical restrictions is a common regulatory approach, which insome cases limits operations to specific, often central, areas of cities. Previously, station-based bikesharing
systems were criticised in some cities for disproportionately establishing stations in wealthiercommunities, with limited accessibility in low-income and minority neighbourhoods. For instance, Ecobici– a docked bike-share system – established by the Environment Ministry in Mexico City is operated underconcession and serves only the most affluent central-western part of the city. Despite innovation by thecity to make Ecobici useable by people without smart phones, through SMS messaging, and providing freepublic wifi at bike stations, the operating area remains limited and the private dockless systems are limited
to the same inner areas. Pilot extensions to public transport nodes in less affluent adjoining areas havebeen very limited.

© OECD/ITF 2021

25

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Aware of equity concerns, some cities have created equity mandates by selecting zones where a certain
portion of e-scooters should be located. In the trial in Zapopan, Mexico, operators were required tomaintain an even distribution of vehicles throughout the operating zone and are encouraged toincorporate payment methods other than bank cards for unbanked users and for users without mobile
data plans. Similarly, cities, such as Columbus, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., are requiring companies todeploy in underserved areas in order to ensure these new services align with their equity goals (Johnston
et al., 2020). Many cities are now working with companies to provide solutions and access for unbanked
users, with alternative activation options. In Los Angeles, for instance, Bird offers an SMS messaging service
to unlock an e-scooter, and riders can pay with cash (Bird, 2021). In some US cities, micromobility
companies also offer discounts to individuals who are part of an eligible local, state or federal publicbenefits programme (Johnston et al., 2020).
Micromobility companies tend to agree that it is fair to serve all neighbourhoods in the city and provide
service to all population groups. However, unlike public transport services, micromobility companies do
not operate under formal public service obligations and thus do not receive subsidies to provide vehicles
in neighbourhoods where operating is unprofitable, with lower ridership and significant operational costs.
On the contrary, cities often charge companies the same fees in communities where service is lacking thatthey charge elsewhere regardless of the financial viability of providing service in those neighbourhoods.
To ensure that it is financially viable for micromobility companies to provide service in all areas of the city,
cities should lessen the burden of these equity-zone deployments by reducing fees and cap requirementsin those areas. With dynamic caps, the use of scooters in targeted, underserved neighbourhoods could be
excluded from the calculation of fleet limits. This would reduce the financial loss and decrease theoperational burden of trying to rebalance the fleet without exceeding caps. For instance, in Portland,
Oregon, following a dramatic drop in public transport ridership due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Portland
Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) waived the fees it charged Spin – a shared micromobility operator andallowed the operator to increase its overall fleet size by 250 scooters. This provided readily available accessto safe mobility in the midst of a public-health crisis while also helping to ensure remunerative returns for
Spin. This has led to a 46% rise in ridership overall and a 137% increase in ridership in East Portland – apriority underserved area (Spin, 2020). Additionally, cities can incentivise providing trips in theseneighbourhoods through bonus structures, allowing more vehicles throughout the city when rides inequity zones increase. In some cases, it might be appropriate to provide direct subsidies for operations inthese areas.

Applying principles of mode-neutrality
When establishing a regulatory framework for new mobility services, governments should follow a
principle of mode-neutrality in considering what will best deliver on the city’s strategic priorities. They
should consider and evaluate all modes and options to find the best system solution. Principles of modeneutrality also require removing distortions and biases that favour particular modes, taking full account of
their social, economic and environmental costs and benefits instead. In this context, it is useful to assess
which rules and fees cities apply to other transport modes – in particular, private vehicles – and to what
extent they reflect external costs.
Management of street and parking space

The car is the most space-intensive mode of transport and, in many cities, road and parking space arelargely devoted to cars (Figure 5). Governments should review how much road and parking space is

26© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

allocated to the different transport modes. Several studies highlight a mismatch between the amount of
space given to each transport mode and their relative mode split, with car travel unfairly advantaged (ITF,
2021b; ITF, forthcoming). This bias towards private cars often limits the potential for deployment of moresustainable modes, including micromobility.
Urban design and planning should incorporate space for shared micromobility. This includes dedicatedlanes and safe and dedicated parking. People feel more comfortable using active modes of transport when
protected infrastructure separate from high-speed car traffic is available (Buehler and Dill, 2016).
Expanding dedicated cycling lanes for these modes will greatly increase safety and safety perceptions andmake it much more attractive to cycle and use electric micromobility (ITF, 2013). ITF (2021b) highlightsthat the re-allocation of space for the safe use of active travel and micromobility is not a matter of
discouraging car use but correcting policy bias that favours automobile travel over other modes while
giving those who own a car the ability to change to more sustainable modes.
Figure 5. Space consumption by different transport modes, m2 per hour

6 km round trip, 8 hours parking

80.0 m2/h

StaticDynamic
12.5 m2/h
6.4 m2/h

3.1 m2/h

9.5 m2/h

1.6 m2/h

9.5 m2/h22.0 m2/h

4 km/h

15 km/h

40 km/h,on-street parking

10.4 m2/h

90.4 m2/h

0.3 m2/h

35 km/h, single driver,on-street parking

20 km/h,
30% occupancy

Source: Calculations based on Heran (2011) and ITF (forthcoming).

Parking – on-street and off-street – is also responsible for the consumption of vast amounts of land andaccounts for a substantial share of the social costs of car ownership and use (See figure 5). To betteraccommodate more sustainable modes of transport, cities must rethink parking policy. Estimates suggestthat in the United States there are approximately four parking spaces per vehicle (ITF, 2021b). Thissuggests that car parking could be limited and a proportion reallocated to use by personally owned as well
as shared micromobility. A single converted car parking space can store up to 12 micromobility vehicles(Polis, 2019). The low turnover of parked cars when compared with shared e-bikes and e-scooters means
the number of people benefitting from this conversion is even higher (Polis, 2019). The default measure
should be converting on-street car parking space into bike and e-scooter parking to accommodate
micromobility, with space on sidewalks considered a last-resort solution. In this way, cities can use urban
space more efficiently while also addressing the issues of improper parking on sidewalks.
The city of Paris is one of the most prominent examples of addressing cluttering and promoting proper
scooter parking. The city defined clear goals to 1) ensure that riders do not park on the city’s narrow© OECD/ITF 2021

27

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

sidewalks and 2) ensure that riders end their rides in dedicated “preferred parking”. Paris established 2 500
dedicated parking bays (with an average of six spaces per bay) across the city, reallocating public spacefrom cars and two-wheelers (mopeds and motorcycles) to micromobility. The average distance between
parking bays is 100 metres (or two minutes walking distance). The network has been planned not to exceed
2 minutes as, based on the 6t study from 2019, commissioned by Dott, 90% of Parisians would find thatan acceptable distance to walk to the nearest scooter. As reported by Dott (2021), the availability ofparking spots, combined with in-app enforcement, increased parking compliance from 35% in 2019 to 97%
in 2020. Similarly, in London, Boroughs, Canary Wharf and the City of London provided designated bays toprotect against street clutter and ensure footways are kept free. Dott (2021) reports that three weeks into
the trial, 94% of shared e-scooters were properly parked in the bay or next to it.
It is important to work with service providers when deciding on the location of parking stations. For
instance, in Mexico City and in Bogota, the cities earmarked revenues from licence fees imposed on
micromobility operators to build parking stations for shared micro-vehicles and bikes. However, operators
have complained that the location of these stations was not aligned with demand and the origindestination of trips, making them inconvenient for users (Licea, 2021).
Safety and speed limits

There is a large variation in the regulated maximum speeds of e-scooters and e-bikes globally. Some aresubject to national legislation; others set locally. Norway and Sweden set a 20 km/h speed limit. Paris
introduced speed limits of 25 km/h for shared e-bikes and 20 km/h for e-scooters as a whole and 810 km/h in slow zones. Some countries, like Belgium, have recently increased the speed limit for e-scootersfrom 18 km/h to 25 km/h to improve the value of trips by scooter to users. In some cities, however, thespeed limits imposed are as low as 15 km/h on streets, making scooters ineffective in providing a mobility
service. This could also increase time-based trip prices, decreasing affordability (ITF, 2020c). Low-speed
limits could also contribute to increased ridership on footpaths in highly pedestrianised zones because
riders judge that to be safer than riding on the road with faster vehicles and also seeing the low speed ascompatible with walking. Very low on-road speed limits can severely limit micromobility devices’ ability tocompete with cars for trip speed, making people much more likely to choose other alternatives, includingcars, for their trips.
Micromobility speed limits should take into full account the value of (reasonable) speed to making
micromobility an effective alternative to cars. Car traffic flow is maximised on city streets at speeds of
between 25-35 km/h (ITF 2021b) and an on-street speed limit of 25 km/h may be more appropriate than
20 km/h in order to make micromobility competitive with cars, although limits may need to be lower inareas where pedestrian traffic is heavy. Conventional bicycles also typically reach speeds over 25 km/h,
making generalised shared micromobility speed limits of less than 25 km/h questionable. Where
micromobility is limited to a 25 km/h maximum to protect users from death through collision with motor
vehicles, it would be logical to consider limiting cars to the same speed. A single speed limit for all in mixeduse streets would be easier to enforce and make traffic more homogenous (ITF, 2020c). Cities around theworld are increasingly limiting car speeds to 30 km/h on all but expressways, in line with therecommendations of the Stockholm Declaration of the Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety(Sweden, 2020).
Lower speed limits may be appropriate for certain types of infrastructure – pedestrian zones and trafficcalming zones with posted speed limits of 20km/hr or less. Some cities have implemented theseinfrastructure and location-based speed restrictions – or geo-fencing – in particular in places with highpedestrian traffic. Condition-based speed limitation adds complexity and costs to operations when28

© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

application differs between cities and the current GPS margin of error is around 10 m, making geo-fencing
suitable to protecting broad areas but not differentiating between use on roads and adjacent sidewalks.
Limiting e-scooters to lower speeds than shared e-bikes is debatable except where e-scooters are required
to use sidewalks. Exposure to the risk of minor injury may be higher and collisions with pedestrians may
be more frequent, but very little data is available. High-quality studies of the risks of serious injury need to
be undertaken and will be particularly instructive in cities where e-scooters and e-bikes are both limited
to 25 km/h.
It makes sense to reduce speed in pedestrian areas, but speed regulations should ensure that all vehicles
face the same requirements. Speed limits should apply to all non-pedestrian users of those spaces and notjust to micromobility devices. Regulations should ensure that all operators face the same requirements
and implement them in the same way. Different speed limits for e-scooters and e-bikes may cause
unnecessary confusion between riders of these forms of electric transport, particularly given many ridersof traditional bikes operate at a similar speed. Thus, speed regulations should apply broadly to all vehicles
in these spaces and, more specifically, to all micromobility options (ITF, 2020c). It is important to note thatshared e-scooters are more easily regulated and controlled than privately owned e-scooters, and overly
stringent regulations of shared operations could push people towards privately owned scooters where thesafety risks are more significant.
ITF (2020c) recommends that authorities at all levels should intensify their efforts to address risky driver
behaviour, including speeding. Speed limits for all motor vehicles should be no higher than 30 km/h wheremotorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space. Imposing strict speed limits on microvehicles is disproportionate if limits applicable to heavier and faster vehicles are not as strictly enforced.
As with speed limiters required by micromobility companies, intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is a solution
for cars. ISA helps drivers to ensure that vehicle speed does not exceed a safe or legally enforced speed.

Adopting standard rules that can be applied uniformly across cities
The regulation of shared micromobility differs from city to city and even within cities. Rather thanaddressing common issues in a similar way, many local authorities have created inconsistent andunnecessarily complex regulations. This imposes costs on operators in customising vehicles and operations
to fragmented markets and can make service provision infeasible. This affects consumers by making sharedmicromobility rides more expensive and inconvenient, especially when arriving in a new city for work or
leisure. Instead, regulations should promote ease of use and interoperability through a standardised
minimal approach.
Agreeing on a common set of shared principles that can be applied uniformly across all cities would reduce
the regulatory burden on micromobility companies and municipal staff. Micromobility should be regulated
as a vehicle class, not operator by operator or device by device, given their similar operational
characteristics in terms of speed and size. Thus, cities should establish a single set of rules for all bikes andscooters, whether owned or shared. In areas where multiple jurisdictions are close together, it is importantto recognise that shared micromobility vehicles will migrate across boundaries and should be able to crossadministrative boundaries in order to serve typical commuting patterns in particular. Neighbouring cities
should discuss regulatory co-ordination.
Micromobility providers and local officials agree that state or national legislatures are the appropriate
entity to establish general rules and guidelines that could be then adapted to local context. A nationalframework for micromobility regulation could also require regulations within a city to be uniform© OECD/ITF 2021

29

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

regardless of the operator or district of the city. In some countries, national legislation already provides
some requirements, such as age limits for electric scooter users when riding on a road or requirements towear protective equipment (e.g. helmet or safety vest). Since 2018, European countries have started toinclude e-scooters in road safety codes and national laws. France updated its national transport law in
2019, replacing it with a mobility law, the Loi d’orientation des mobilités (LOM), which makes harnessing
the potential of new digitally enabled services one of its top priorities and assigns authority to regulate escooters to cities. Article 41 of the LOM presents “a toolbox, enabling a dialogue between operators andpublic authorities for good usage of public space while helping to integrate and make free-floating services
sustainable”. The law authorises cities to regulate beyond the rules of the Highway Code (Box 2).

Box 2. Regulation of micromobility in France

In France, users of electric scooters must comply with the requirements of the Code de la Route (Highway
Code). In urban areas, users must use cycle paths when available or roads limited to 50 km/h or less. The
maximum speed limit for scooters is set at 25 km/h. In addition:E-scooters are not allowed on sidewalks (fine of EUR 135) unless authorised by the mayor. In thiscase, the maximum speed is 6 km/h only for non-electric vehicles

Users must be at least 12 years oldCarrying additional passengers is prohibitedThe use of headphones is prohibitedParking on the sidewalks is authorised, provided it does not obstruct pedestrians. The mayor can
decide to forbid it. For instance, in Paris, parking of shared e-scooters on the sidewalks is illegal
and subject to a fine of EUR 49 for users.

The 2019 Loi d’orientation des mobilités (LOM) is a national framework that accounts for public space
occupation by free-floating services. Operators require a permit from local authorities through tender or
expression of interest. Article 41 of the law instructs authorities on regulating free-floating services:
1. Data sharing: Public authorities can ask operators to share data (GDPR format) to ensure compliancewith licencing criteria. The number of available vehicles, number, duration and length of trips, origindestination, and the number of unique users, are among the most common data required.
2. Fleet size: The LOM allows public authorities to cap fleet sizes. Caps must take into account the minimum
fleet size required for a service to be economically viable, and the maximum fleet size should not flood the
public space with shared vehicles. Public authorities can choose to leave fleet sizes and number ofoperators unregulated or to deliver a limited number of permits via the competitive tender procedure.
3. Spatial conditions for vehicle deployment: The law allows local authorities to define the operational area(including parking and no-ride zones) after consultation with operators.
4. Compliance with riding and parking rules: In addition to the Highway Code, the LOM allows publicauthorities to implement additional rules, especially in places of potential conflicts with other road users.
Operators have to use technical means such as GPS solutions to enforce safety rules.
5. Removal of unavailable vehicles: Permits can set requirements and deadlines for removal of any out oforder vehicle to avoid impeding access in public spaces. It also allows for removal requirements for specific30© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

situations, such as for operators withdrawing from a city. A good practice is set at between 24 and 48
hours for light vehicles.
6. Polluting emissions and greenhouse gases: Electric vehicles are preferred and full-lifecycle costs are to
be considered.
7. Advertising restrictions on the vehicles: Local authorities are authorised to ban advertising, other thanfor the shared mobility service itself, on the shared vehicles.
8. Respecting neighbourhood tranquillity: Public authorities need to take into account noise pollution
impacts (including maintenance, charging, removal of vehicles, or vehicles’ alarms).
Adapted from the French government (2019, 2020).

Parking regulations

Inconsistent and overly-restrictive dockless micromobility parking regulation is proving problematic inmany places, undermining the value of services. Most regulations focus on keeping sidewalks accessible
and clear for pedestrians. However, differences between cities – or even within the same city – create
unnecessarily complex regulations that may be challenging for cities to communicate to the public or
enforce (Figure 7) (Brown, 2021). The numerous and often subtle distinctions between and within city
e-scooter regulations tend to lead to confusion among riders over parking requirements. For example,
Figure 7 below shows the proportion of US cities that allow or prohibit a range of different parking
locations for e-scooters.
Figure 7. Share of cities allowing scooter parking across five US cities

Notes: Original data on 3 666 e-scooters, bikes, motor vehicles, and sidewalk objects in five cities across theUnited States: Austin, TX, Portland, OR, San Francisco, CA, Santa Monica, CA, and Washington, DC.

© OECD/ITF 2021

31

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Source: Brown (2021).

To address parking violations and to help tackle vandalism and clutter, several cities across theUnited States have made so-called “lock-to” technology mandatory. Requiring vehicles to be locked toexternal racks or other specific parking infrastructure effectively banned one of the most common bikemodels that first emerged, which relies on wheel-locks that looped between the bike’s spokes on the backwheel. Mandatory lock-to requirements effectively positioned dockless bike companies that alreadyincorporated lock-to cables in their design to be the only vendors able to operate in these cities legally.
Research by Anne Brown (2021) highlights that lock-to requirements do not necessarily prevent parking
violations. Scooters may be locked to unpermitted infrastructure (e.g., parking meters, light posts) or “freelocked” – left free-standing unattached to a stationary object despite locking capability. Brown et al. (2020)
find similarly low rates of scooters blocking sidewalk access in cities both with and without lock-to
requirements, suggesting that lock-to requirements are not a precondition for keeping sidewalks clear.
Where insufficient designated parking infrastructure exists, lock-to requirements complicate the use ofshared micromobility services and requires that cities invest in filling the gap. Current research suggeststhat lock-to requirements are an ineffective, unnecessary and counterproductive form of parking control.
From the user perspective, the use of geolocation technology and geofencing for parking seems to be themost convenient option. It is important to ensure that the rules are the same for all operators within thecity if users are to be able to comply consistently. The accuracy of GPS means geofencing leaves a margin
for users to park up to 10 m away from the parking spot and photo enforcement technology in combination
with dedicated, clearly marked hubs has been an important element of ensuring parking compliance.

Fostering innovation through a permissive and adaptive regulatory
approach
Micromobility is a rapidly evolving sector, where technologies, service offers and business models arechanging quickly as service providers seek to respond to user needs and demands. Minimising regulatory
barriers is particularly important for innovation to thrive (ITF, 2019). Overly restrictive regulation,
particularly in determining market access, risks distorting the market while inhibiting innovation andreducing value to users (Deighton-Smith, 2021). The principles for regulating app-based mobility set out
by the ITF (2019) conclude that
“Regulation should reflect an essentially permissive and facilitative approach to innovation, which
accepts market disruptions, rather than seeking artificially to slow or impede the adoption of new
business models and technologies.”
Micromobility is at an early stage of innovation. A flexible approach to regulation is required, with rulesthat can accommodate the market as it evolves (ITF, 2019; Fearnley, 2020). This does not mean frequentchanges in regulations, as this is itself a barrier to operators and users and adds to the costs of regulatorycompliance. Adopting indicators related to system performance and avoiding over-specifying regulation ispreferable to a focus on fleet size, vehicle characteristics and operating areas. Many authorities have notadapted their legislation with sufficient flexibility to tackle the fast-paced emergence of new services.
Many cities have shifted from unregulated micromobility to overly strict regulations. As experience grows
and the market matures, some cities have fostered more flexible regulatory frameworks that are linked tooperators’ performance, using data to design incentives and penalties. Cities in France, Germany andBelgium have been at the forefront of creating frameworks for collaborations between local authorities
and operators through licences with built-in flexibility.

32© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Some cities have adopted pilot programmes, which allow authorities to learn about services, providers,
operations and their impacts before settling on a formal permit or licensing structure. Trials and pilots
have also proved to be valuable in helping build trust and a mutual understanding of objectives andstrategies – and they encourage innovation (Fearnley, 2020). Pilots via temporary operating permits allow
cities to collect data needed and produce performance indicators (e.g. utilisation rates, hotspots forparking demand) that should later be included in more formal regulation or bylaws. In Washington D.C.
and Los Angeles, an initial set of rules for e-scooters is in effect for one year, enabling city authorities tolearn from that trial period and modify regulations before more permanent rules are introduced.
The need to plan evaluations and amendments is equally important (Fearnley, 2020). Lack of clarity
represents considerable regulatory risk. Clearly formulated regulations with clearly communicated plans
for revisions and amendments will help to stabilise the regulatory environment and give micromobility
operators some predictability to base decisions upon.

© OECD/ITF 2021

33

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Conclusions
Micromobility is a new urban challenge for governments, with many cities being in an early phase of
market deployment. Some countries are proactive and make it clear that new forms of micromobility
contribute to sustainable mobility. They recognise the value of an alternative to dependence on cars,
motorcycles, taxis and shared cars, which all pose greater climate burdens, consume much larger amounts
of urban space, pollute the air, emit noise and present much higher crash risks to vulnerable road users.
Given the fast-evolving nature of new micromobility services, local authorities are unavoidably going
through a period of trial and error. They are learning from experience that some regulatory approaches or
specific rules work better than others. Some of the most successful have proven to be incremental
approaches that have welcomed entrance to the emerging market and addressed problems where
warranted while at the same time regulating and providing space for the new modes. Cities that are
advancing in this approach include Brussels and Paris.
Importantly, governments need to align regulatory frameworks with goals for achieving sustainablemobility, equitable access and integrated transport and land-use policies from the outset. Regulatoryinterventions should assess how to maximise net welfare benefits for society and create user benefits fromshared micromobility services whilst containing potential negative impacts. Regulation should take into
account efficiencies, environmental performance, beneficial competition outcomes, equitable accessibility
and urban planning and road-space allocation consistent with sustainable mobility policy.
Outcome-based regulation should be preferred to static, overly specific, prescriptive regulation.
Performance criteria should therefore be preferred to vehicle fleet caps when managing the supply ofshared vehicles. Some cities are now more actively working in collaboration with service providers toestablish regulatory frameworks that focus on equitable, sustainable and accessible outcomes. In
particular, defining performance criteria to regulate fleet size, environmental performance and targets forservicing areas with poor access will help ensure that micromobility serves broader city goals. And cities
should carefully revise fees imposed on operators, which in many instances are disproportionately highrelative to the space micromobility consumes and the contribution these services make to a multi-modal
sustainable transport system. Directions from national-level government are needed where appropriate
in order to standardise regulation and treat micromobility operators equally. Importantly, to advancepolicies for sustainable and efficient transport systems, there is the need to correct policy biases thatfavour automobile travel over other modes.

34© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Notes

1

According to NACTO (2019a) 45% of users in Santa Monica, CA, Alexandria, VA, Bloomington, IN, Brookline, MA, Hoboken,
NJ, Oakland, CA, and San Francisco, CA report that if a shared dockless scooter had not been available, their trip would haveinstead been completed using a personal or ride-hail vehicle.

2

The study reported that in Paris 23% of free-floating e-scooter trips and 27% of dockless bike trips are “intermodal”: 66%
with public transport and 19% with walking. The figures quoted in the current report assume the 66% share of public
transport applies equally to e-scooter and bike trips.

3

These results are specific to the case of Paris due to high substitution of micromobility with public transport (in particular
metro and light rail (RER)) and very low GHG emissions from metro and light rail (RER) running on nuclear electricity.

4

When comparing crash risk across modes, one could control for three exposure metrics: distance travelled, time spent
travelling or trip numbers. ITF “Safe Micromobility” (2020) adopts trip numbers as the denominator in risk comparison due
to limited data available on the total distance or total time spent travelling on e-scooters. In some cases e-scooter trips could
be shorter on average than bike trips, which may affect the comparison on per km basis.

5Fearnley (2020) reviews several sources of information based on data on ICU visits. For e-scooters, data was obtained fromtwo main shared e-scooters operators and calibrated to include other operators and privately owned e-scooters by adjusting
the number of kilometeres travelled. This data was compared to a study on bicycle crash data (Bjørnskau and Ingebrigtsen,
2015) who calculated the crash risk for bicycles to 8.00 per million km.

© OECD/ITF 2021

35

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

References
6-t (2019), Usages et usagers de services de trottinettes électriques en freefloating en France, bureau derecherche, Juin 2019, https://6-t.co/trottinettes-freefloating/
Buehler R. and J. Dill (2016) “Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling”, Transport Reviews,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 9-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069908
de Bortoli A. and Christoforou Z. (2020), “Consequential LCA for territorial and multimodal transportation
policies: Method and application to the free-floating e-scooter disruption in Paris”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Volume 273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122898
Bird (2021), Cities, https://www.bird.co/cities/ (accessed 30 September 2021).
Bjørnskau T. and Ingebrigtsen R, (2015) Alternative forståelser av risiko og eksponering TØI rapport
1449/2015, https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=41817
Brown, A. et al. (2020), “Impeding access: The frequency and characteristics of improper scooter, bike,and car parking”, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Volume 4,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100099
Brown, A. (2021), “Scooters are Here, but Where Do They Go? Aligning Scooter Regulations with City
Goals”, International Transport Forum Discussion Papers, No. 2021/11, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Cairns et al. (2017), “Electrically-assisted bikes: Potential impacts on travel behaviour”, Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 103, 2017, pp. 327-342, ISSN 0965-8564,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.007.
City of Santa Monica (2019), Shared Mobility Pilot Program Summary Report 2019,https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/SantaMonicaSharedMobilityEv
aluation_Final_110419.pdf
COWI (2020), Transportøkonomiske Enhedspriser For Cykling,https://www.trm.dk/media/4931/dokumentationsnotat-version-6-endelig.pdf
Deighton-Smith, R. (2021), “Regulating app-based mobility services”, Going Digital Toolkit Note, No. 4,
http://goingdigital.oecd.org/data/notes/No4_ToolkitNote_AppBasedMobility.pdf
Donkey Republic and Dresden University (2021), Donkey Republic Sustainability Framework (PPT)
https://www.itf-oecd.org/donkey-republic-sustainability-framework-bike-share.
Dott (2021), First Paris, now London – micromobility parking gets smart,
https://ridedott.com/blog/global/first-paris-now-london---micromobility-parking-gets-smart.
Eltis (2021), The SUMP Concept, The European Local Transport Information Service,https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/sump-concept
EU (2019), Handbook on the external costs of transport, European Union,
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1
Eurocities (2020), Playing by the rules Report on e-scooter operators and fleets in cities - a survey of city
approaches and options to optimise regulations, https://eurocities.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/Playing-by-the-rules-A-report-on-e-scooter-operators-and-fleets-in-cities.pdf

36© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Fearnley, N. (2020), “Micromobility – Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities”, Governance and Policy
Instruments in times of Sustainability Transitions, pp. 169–186, doi:10.1108/978-1-83982-650420201010
Fearnley, N.et al. (2020), Delte elsparkesykler i Oslo En tidlig kartlegging, TØI rapport 1748/2020
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=52254
Fishman, E. et al. (2014), “Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain,
and Australia”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol 31. Pp. 13–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.013.French Government (2019), « LOI n° 2019-1428 du 24
décembre 2019 d'orientation des mobilités(1) »,https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000039666574/
French Government (2020), Circulation en trottinette électrique, rollers ou skateboard,
https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F308
Gössling, S. (2020), “Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: problems, policies, and the prospectof system change”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102230 .
Guaquelin, A. (2021), The Case for E-Scooters as Public Transit https://shared-micromobility.com/thecase-for-e-scooters-as-public-transit/
Hall, K. (2020), The Post-COVID world needs micromobility https://www.thecgo.org/news/the-post-covidworld-needs-micromobility/
Holmgren, J. (2020), “The effect of public transport quality on car ownership – A source of wider
benefits?”, Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 83, ,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100957.
INRIX (2019) Micromobility Potential in the US, UK and Germany, http://www2.inrix.com/micromobilitystudy-2019
ITDP (2018), E-scooters could be a last mile solution for everyone. Institute for Transportation &Development Policy, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy,
https://www.itdp.org/2018/12/14/e-scooters-last-mile-solution/
ITF (2013), Cycling, Health and Safety, ITF Research Reports, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789282105955-en.
ITF (2019), Regulating App-based Mobility Services: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports,
No. 175, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/94d27a3a-en.
ITF (2020a), "Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility", International
Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 86, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f5cd236b-en.
ITF (2020b), “Re-spacing Our Cities For Resilience”, International Transport Forum Covid-19 Transport
Brief, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/respacing-cities-resilience-covid-19.pdf
ITF (2020c), "Safe Micromobility", International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing,Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0b98fac1-en.
ITF (2021a), Big Data for Travel Demand Modelling: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports,
No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08378837-en.

© OECD/ITF 2020

37

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

ITF (2021b), Reversing Car Dependency: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 181,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
ITF (forthcoming), “Streets that fit”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris,
OECD Publishing, https://www.itf-oecd.org/modelling-future-urban-mobility
Johnston et al. (2020), "Regulating Micromobility: Examining Transportation Equity and Access," Journalof Comparative Urban Law and Policy: Vol. 4:Iss. 1, Article 35, pp. 685-723,
https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/jculp/vol4/iss1/35.
Kyrouz, M. (2020), How to Reboot Micromobility In Cities And Make Shared Scooters A Sustainable
Business, Start it up, https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-reboot-micromobility-in-cities-b8ed2eb11b0f
Licea (2021), Micromobility Policies for Sustainable Transport: Bogota and Mexico City Case Studies, ITF
Roundtable Discussion Paper, OECD 2020.
Lime (2018), 2020 End of Year Report, https://www.li.me/pdf/eoy-report.pdf
Ministere de la Transition Ecologique (2021) La loi d'orientation des mobilités
https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/loi-dorientation-des-mobilites
Micromobility Coalition (2019), Micromobility and job access in Seattle,
https://blog.conveyal.com/access-in-seattle-fb5ef952c3ae
Moreau et al. (2020), “Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study
between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters”, Sustainability, 12 (1803),
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1803
NACTO (2019a), Shared Micromobility in the U.S.: 2019, https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2019/
NACTO (2019b), “Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility”, Version 2, National Association of City
Transportation Officials, https://nacto.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/NACTO_Shared_Micromobility_ Guidelines_Web.pdf
Polis (2019), “Macro managing Micro mobility: Taking the long view on short trips”
https://www.polisnetwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Polis-Paper-MacromanagingMicroMobility.pdf
Portland Bureau of Transportation (2018), 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report,
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719
Ramboll (2020), “Achieving Sustainable Micro-mobility”, Green Paper, https://ramboll.com//media/files/rgr/documents/markets/transport/m/ramboll_micromobility_greenpaper_a4_0320_lowres_v.pdf
Reck D. J. and K.W. Axhausen (2021), “Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence from
Zurich, Switzerland”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803.
RTD (2020), Rtd, Lyft And Masabi Launch Mobile Ticketing For Transit Customers, https://www.rtddenver.com/news-stop/news/rtd-lyft-and-masabi-launch-mobile-ticketing-transit-customers.
Sanders et al. (2020), “To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits andbarriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy andPractice, Vol 139, 2020, pp. 217-227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009

38© OECD/ITF 2021

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

SEMOVI (2018), Strategic plan for mobility in Mexico City – One city one system (Plan estratégico demovilidad de la Cieudad de Mexico 2019), Government of Mexico City,
https://semovi.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/plan-estrategico-de-movilidad-2019.pdf
Shaheen, S. and A. Cohen (2016), Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles, United States
Department of Transporation, Washington, DC,
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16022/fhwahop16022.pdf
Spin (2020), A New Partnership Model: Portland’s Leadership in Promoting Safe and Affordable
Transportation, https://www.spin.app/blog-posts/a-new-partnership-model-portlands-leadership-inpromoting-safe-and-affordable-transportation
Sweden (2020), Declaration of the Third Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety, Stockholm 2020
https://www.roadsafetysweden.com/about-the-conference/stockholm-declaration/.
TIER Mobility (2019), “TIER mobility launches operations with swappable batteries as the first e-scooter
provider worldwide”, Press release, TIER Mobility, https://www.tier.app/tier-mobility-launches
operations-with-swappable-batteries-as-the-first-e-scooter-provider-worldwide
TfL (2021), TfL and London Councils announce London’s e-scooter trial will begin in June,
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2021/may/tfl-and-london-councils-announce-london-se-scooter-trial-will-begin-in-june
Voi (2020), Micromobility: Moving cities into a sustainable future, https://www.voiscooters.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/20200316_EY_Micromobility_Moving_Cities_into_a_Sustainable_Future.pdf
Voi (2021) Voi unveils the Voiager 4, an e-scooter truly built for cities for living, featuring noise andoptional air-quality sensors, https://www.voiscooters.com/blog/voi-unveils-the-voiager-4/
Westervelt M. and Zipper D. (2020) Anyone Feel Like Saving Electric Scooters?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/subsidize-e-scooters-cities-should-consider-it(Accessed on 30 August 2021)© OECD/ITF 2020

39

MICROMOBILITY, EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | ITF ROUNDTABLE 185

Annex. List of ParticipantsParticipant affiliations were provided at the time of their participation in the ITF virtual Roundtable on“Micromobility, Equity and Sustainability” on 17-19 March 2021.

Richard CROSS, Chair

New Zealand Ministry of Transport

Natalia CICIARELLOCity of Paris, France

Nils FEARNLEY

Transportøkonomisk institutt, TØI, MA Transport Economics, Norway

Erdem OVACIK

Donkey Republic, Denmark

Alexandre SANTACREU

International Transport Forum (ITF), France

Kristian AGERBOVOI, Denmark

Saúl ALVEANOSecretaría de Transporte de Jalisco, Mexico

Lorena ARAYA CARVAJAL

Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones / Gobierno de Chile ,ChileAnne BORTLOLIEcole des Ponts ParisTech, France

Anne BROWN

University of Oregon, US

Diego CANALES

Populus, United States

Sebastian CASTELLANOSWorld Resources Institute / the New Urban Mobility Alliance(WRI/NUMO), United States

Pierpaolo CAZZOLAITF, France

Mervyn CHETTY

Auckland Council, New ZealandFrederick CONQUER

Beam, New ZealandPhilippe CRIST

ITF, France

Rex DEIGHTON-SMITH

ITF, France

Melinda HANSONElectric Avenue, United States

Mona HARNETTParis School Economics, France

Pedro HOMEM DE GOUVEIA Polis Network, Belgium
Lissette ISA MOHOR

Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones/ Gobierno de Chile ,Chile

Marion LAGADIC

6t, France

Veronica LEE-THOMPSON

Auckland Council, New Zealand

Joanne LEUNG

New Zealand Ministry of Transport

40© OECD/ITF 2021

Karina LICEA

Independent Consultant, Mexico

Carlos LÓPEZ ZARAGOZA

Sustainable Culture and Entailment Coordination for Zapopan
municipality, Mexico

Jacksen LOVE

Flamingo Scooters, New Zealand

Sergio MARTINEZ

Independent, Colombia

Lauren MENTJOXLime Scooters, New Zealand

Jaime MILLAR FRANCO

Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones/ Gobierno de Chile ,Chile

Stephen PERKINSITF, France

Rosa PIERCE

Strategic Policy and Innovation New Zealand Ministry of Transport

Iris POON

Paris School Economics, France

John PRITCHARD

ITF, France

Fernanda RIVERA

Road Safety and Sustainable Urban Mobility Systems, Mexico

Jaime ROMÁN CASTILLO

Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones/ Gobierno de Chile ,Chile

Sam SADLE

Lime, United States

Tatiana SAMSONOVA

ITF, France

Sebastian SCHLEBUSCHPDOTT, Germany

Stefan SEERAIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria

Jesús SOTO

Mobility and Transport Director for Zapopan municipality, Mexico

Felipe TARGAWorld Bank

Leila TAYEBINew Zealand Ministry of Transport

Vicente TORRESVTG Consulting , Mexico

Bryant WALKER SMITH

University of South Carolina School of Law, US

Martin ZACH

AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria© OECD/ITF 2021

41

Micromobility, Equity
and Sustainability
Micromobility offers cities an opportunity to address congestion,
emissions and air quality. This report examines micromobility trends
and reviews its benefits and social costs, with the aim to help develop
governance frameworks and regulations that maximise the contributionof e-scooters, electric bikes and pedal bikes to more sustainable mobility
and minimise any negative effects, particularly for pedestrians.

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16+33 (0)1 73 31 25 00
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

Published: 06/2021| Photo credit: r.classen/Shutterstock

All resources from the Roundtable on Micromobility, Equity andSustainability are available at:https://www.itf-oecd.org/micromobility-equity-sustainability-roundtable