CPB

Optimising New
Mobility Services
Discussion Paper

175
Dana Yanocha
Institute for Transportation andDevelopment Policy,
New York City

Roundtable

Corporate Partnership
Board

175
Dana Yanocha
Institute for Transportation andDevelopment Policy,
New York City

Roundtable

Optimising New
Mobility Services
Discussion Paper

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 59 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 andadministratively 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 andpromote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is theworld’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), Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and theUnited States.
International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

ITF Discussion Papers
ITF Discussion Papers make economic research, commissioned or carried out in-house at ITF, available toresearchers and practitioners. They describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s)and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the ITF works. Any
findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or the OECD. 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 thedelimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Comments on Discussion Papers are welcome.
Cite this work as: Yanocha, D. (2018), “Optimising New Mobility Services”, International
Transport Forum Discussion Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Acknowledgements
The expertise and experience captured in this paper was contributed by the Institute for Transportation
and Development Policy (ITDP) field office staff from around the world. The author would like toacknowledge the Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China and the International Transport
Forum for hosting the roundtable for which this paper was prepared.

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Table of contents
Background: Dockless bike share from Shanghai to Seattle ................................................................ 5
Why regulate? ..................................................................................................................................... 5Market failures ................................................................................................................................ 5
Regulation enables system-building ................................................................................................ 6
Policy framework for maximising benefits of dockless bike share ....................................................... 7
Outcome-oriented system planning................................................................................................ 8
Addressing operational shortfalls .................................................................................................... 8
Real-time monitoring and enforcement........................................................................................ 13
Long-term policy evaluation and adjustment................................................................................ 14
Lessons for regulating new mobility modes ....................................................................................... 15
Design and pilot regulations informed by city goals...................................................................... 15
Understand costs .......................................................................................................................... 16
Evaluate system performance ....................................................................................................... 17
Develop new mobility ecosystems ................................................................................................ 18

4© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Background: Dockless bike share from
Shanghai to Seattle
Over the past decade, emerging technologies and innovative business models have turned thetransportation sector on its head. New mobility options are constantly coming online; presenting morechoices to travelers as city transportation departments evaluate how best to integrate these modes into
existing networks. One of these new mobility offerings, dockless bike share, has increased the visibility
and ubiquity of urban cycling in cities around the world.
The concept of bike share without stations is not new. Operators like nextbike, Social Bicycles, and OV
Fiets have been offering hub-centric, stationless bike share options for years. However, dockless bikeshare in its current form - GPS-enabled bikes that allow users to lock and unlock them anywhere using
smartphones - has been operating in China since 2014, and was largely unregulated during its infancy.
Market imperfections quickly emerged as cities were inundated with millions of dockless bikes and thechallenges that came with them, including piles of discarded bikes blocking rights of way and vandalism.
A response from the government was all but inevitable and, in April 2017, Chinese cities were given
express permission to begin exploring options for regulating the supply of bikes and better managing
public space and parking (Perkowski, 2017). Soon after, dockless bike share began to emerge in the
United States and other western markets. In July 2017, Seattle, Washington released the first evercomprehensive permit structure as part of a pilot to manage dockless bike share operations before
companies dropped bikes on city streets. Since then, more and more cities have launched pilot programs
to test regulatory approaches on the ground prior to more formal implementation.
As cities began to proactively consider regulating dockless bike share, it became clear that a delicate
balance must be maintained. Operators consistently call for flexibility to innovate, compete, and improvetheir service delivery, technology, and business models. Meanwhile, parameters that limit oversupply of
bikes, ensure bike safety and protect users are critical to the public interest. Private dockless companies
claim to provide bike share profitably (that is, without subsidy), which creates the potential for bike shareto become a rapidly scalable transportation option in cities around the world. Cities are in a position toleverage this opportunity, working with the private sector to offer bike share options that increase accessto transit and key destinations, while ensuring that sidewalks and other public spaces retain their value
for all potential users. This paper aims to identify lessons and best practices from the rollout of docklessbike share to inform how cities manage all types of technology-enabled, new mobility services, toward
the goal of encouraging their use as part of a more sustainable transportation network.

Why regulate?
Market failures
As dockless bike share gained popularity in China, many companies moved into the market in an attempt
to establish a user base. This eventually led to an oversupply of bikes – even though demand continued
to grow – and the emergence of “bicycle graveyards” where tens of thousands of dockless bikes wereleft abandoned (Taylor, 2018). Parked dockless bikes oversaturated city sidewalks, blocked pedestrianpaths and spilled out into streets.

© OECD/ITF 2018

5

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

In early 2017, successful Chinese bike share firms set their sights on new markets outside of China.
Employing the “ask for forgiveness, not permission” mantra, companies like the now defunct Bluegogo
launched fleets of bikes on the streets of San Francisco and New York. Without a system in place toproperly respond, these cities issued cease and desist notices (Hobson, 2017). Still, a precedent of rogue
launching of dockless bike share had been set, with private companies dictating how, where and whendockless bikes would be available. A lack of policies or regulations in place meant that cities had to create
new regulatory approaches or continue to allow dockless bike share to operate unregulated.
Despite seeing first-hand the challenges an unregulated environment can yield, many cities allowed
dockless bike share companies to operate unregulated. Taking a wait-and-see approach or allowing a“free market” environment in order to attract operators has, in many cases, resulted in poorly-delivered
service, parking complaints, vandalism, and other negative outcomes. Especially in cities without anexisting bike share system, these outcomes degrade the overall image and potential dockless bike share
can offer. In Dallas, Texas, unregulated dockless bike share companies flooded the unprepared city withbikes, the total number of which reached 20 000 in late 2018. Without proper infrastructure or policies
in place, the system soon devolved, generating a myriad of complaints about mis-parked, vandalized andabandoned bikes (Macon, 2018). Significant risks to active transportation writ large, to future
investments in cycling, and to accessing transit and other destinations could result from such a poorlymanaged dockless bike share system.

Regulation enables system-building
Privately operated, technology-enabled services like dockless bike share can have a positive impact onurban mobility. Operator data shows that dockless bike share extends the reach of transit networks byproviding first- and last-mile connections to rail and bus riders, and can help shift travelers away fromcars especially during peak travel times when cycling can be faster than driving (LimeBike, 2017; Wiley,2018). A nimble approach to regulating new mobility services that maximises these benefits, while
keeping the public interest front and centre, is critical. Regulation also enables cities to build a bike sharesystem that is integrated with other modes and structurally sustainable in the long term.
Multi-stakeholder relationship-building

Well-regulated dockless bike share establishes an expectation that private operators both collaborate
with the city and provide a high quality service for users. It cultivates a transparent working relationshipbetween the city and operators, more effectively securing bike share as part of the transportation
system. Developing these relationships enables cities to communicate their goals for bike share tooperators, as well as their expectations for service delivery. Several cities have established thisrelationship early on, requiring operators to respond to requests for expressions of interest (RFEI) so thatcities can understand how operators plan to provide services and meet goals related to equity,affordability, public space management, user privacy protections, etc.
Operational standards

Clear, outcome-oriented regulation creates a fair, stable and predictable operating environment forbusinesses. This is intended to establish a minimum level of service from all operators that improves
reliability at the system level and does not allow for a “race to the bottom” scenario in which operators
provide mediocre service without market consequences. Specific operational objectives and strategies tominimise operational shortfalls are discussed in the following section.
6© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Integration with other shared modes

Multimodal integration between bike share and transit or bike share and ride share is ripe fordevelopment as a first- and last-mile solution. Third party trip planning applications such as Transit andCitymapper are lowering barriers to finding the closest dockless bike, regardless of operator, by using
operator-provided application programming interfaces (APIs) to display bikes (and, when available,rideshare, bus, rail and other transit options) on a common map. Some of these companies are working
toward in-app payment integration, further reducing barriers to multimodal travel. More trips that
include sustainable transportation for at least one leg mean more city-wide benefits like greenhouse gas
and other emissions reductions, affordability, and more demand for street space dedicated to walking
and cycling.
Integration of dockless bike share and ride share companies like Lyft, Uber, and Ola into one mobile
application poses an interesting opportunity for shared mobility and, potentially, mobility as a service(MaaS). Several ride share companies have recently acquired or partnered with bike share companies tooffer bikes in their apps, most notably Uber, which now allows users to find and rent pedal assist electricbikes through its app in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York. Indian rideshare giant, Ola,launched its own dockless bike share pilot in India in late 2017 (Sharma, 2017). Reducing barriers toshared mobility modes makes these modes easier for users to choose and link together, offering morerobust alternatives to using a private vehicle. Early data from Uber in San Francisco shows a 10%
decrease in Uber car trips during peak travel periods, however engagement with the platform increased
by 15% following a user’s first Uber bike trip (Wiley, 2018). This indicates that users are substituting car
trips with bike trips in that market.

Policy framework for maximising
benefits of dockless bike share
In the past, cities and private companies entered into cost and revenue sharing contracts to provide
public transportation services like bike share. Now, in the new mobility era, private companies are morecommonly owning and operating these services – largely on their terms. Private investment intransportation could allow for public funding to be freed up for other uses, like infrastructure or more
frequent transit service. Still, private operation of dockless bike share requires the use of city-owned
streets, sidewalks and other public space. Cities have used that leverage not only to check rogue
operators, but to establish wholly new regulatory mechanisms to better manage private mobility
operations. Dublin, Mexico City, San Francisco, Singapore and others established permit systems,
requests for proposal (RFPs), and memoranda of understanding (MOU) that allowed those cities to set
service quality standards and align operators with their larger transportation and mobility goals.
The following policy framework encourages cities to think more holistically about how dockless bikeshare might contribute and connect to the broader transportation network, thereby integrating thismode into the mobility landscape in a more long-term, sustainable way. Concurrent real time andperiodic evaluation processes allow cities to address immediate operations issues like managing public
space and protecting users within the context of system-level performance goals. Figure 1illustrates thisiterative process.

© OECD/ITF 2018

7

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Figure 1. Methodology for regulating dockless bike share

Source: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2018).

Outcome-oriented system planning
Bike share can be a key component toward achieving access, economic development, sustainability,
health, and other efforts cities are already undertaking. Identifying how dockless bike share can connect
to existing goals will help cities decide which policies to prioritise, and how best to track progress andmeasure success. For example, bike share can contribute to economic development goals to attract
tourists and businesses – offering an affordable and sustainable transportation mode for visitors to
explore the city, and a quality of life benefit for residents. Buehler and Hamre (2013) found that 23% ofCapital Bike share riders in Washington, DC spent more money at local businesses because they usedbike share, and that 16% of riders to the central business district would not have made that trip if bikeshare were not available.

Addressing operational shortfalls
In addition to contributing to city-wide goals, regulatory requirements that address specific challenges
related to dockless bike share will help to maximise benefits. Some of the current challenges include:
oversupply of bikes, lack of coordination between governments and operators, uncertainty around8© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

service delivery, etc.. In this section, these challenges are grouped into four operations-level objectives:
manage public space; foster equity and accessibility; improve planning and enforcement; and protect
users. Table 1 includes examples of regulatory requirements and the operations objectives and broader
city goals that they can help achieve.
Table 1. Outcome-oriented policy options
Requirement

Operations objective(s) met

Data reporting standards

Manage public space
Foster equity and accessibility
Improve planning andenforcement
Protect users
Manage public space
Foster equity and accessibility
Protect users
Foster equity and accessibility
Protect users

User education

Equipment standards

Fleet cap

Manage public space

Bike distribution
requirement

Foster equity and accessibility

Transit integration

Foster equity and accessibility

Flexible payment options

Foster equity and accessibility

Clear safety information

Protect users

City-wide goal(s) contributed to
Improve transportation infrastructure, planning, cycling
network connectivity.
Track progress toward city goals.

Increase physical activity.
Reduce traffic injuries and fatalities.
Provide affordable, reliable multimodal trip options.
Attract businesses/high-skilled workers.
Attract tourists.
Reduce traffic injuries and fatalities.
Provide public right-of-way that is safe for all users.
Provide affordable, reliable multimodal trip options.
Improve access to jobs/destinations.
Increase physical activity.
Provide affordable, reliable multimodal trip options.
Improve access to jobs/destinations.
Reduce GHG emissions, other pollutants.
Attract businesses/high-skilled workers.
Provide affordable, reliable multimodal trip options.
Improve access to jobs/destinations.
Reduce traffic injuries and fatalities.
Provide public right-of-way that is safe for all users.

Conditions and goals undoubtedly differ from city to city, and uncertainty exists in some cases around
local authority being able to regulate dockless bike share. Given this, different policies (or a combinationof policies) may be necessary to address each objective, and cities should construct regulatory
frameworks that meet their specific needs. In addition, it is important to consider that goals andobjectives may conflict with each other. For example, requiring rigorous equipment standards as ameans of protecting users may lead to more expensive bikes and user fees, making it more challenging
to meet the city-wide goal of providing affordable travel options. The following sections explore
regulatory requirement options that could help to address dockless bike share challenges, and to
maximise system wide benefits.
Objective 1: Manage public space

Dockless bike share operates under the assumption that public space will be available for bike parking
between uses. In some areas of the city, public space may be less contested due to wide sidewalks, lowpedestrian flows, etc. However in areas with narrow sidewalks, high pedestrian traffic, street trees orother planters, outdoor restaurant seating, and any number of other uses of public space, parked bikeshare bikes compete for space. Regardless, public space is a social and economic good, which cities are
responsible for maintaining.

© OECD/ITF 2018

9

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

There are many examples of public space management issues that have arisen due to a lack of proactive
regulation. “Bike piles” on Chinese city sidewalks in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and elsewhere havecaused major concerns. Early dockless bike share adopters in the United States like Washington, D.C.,
Seattle and Dallas saw parking issues on a smaller, yet still noteworthy, scale. Strong concerns wereraised by mobility-challenged residents and American Disabilities Act (ADA) advocates about bikes
blocking curb ramps and narrow sidewalks, preventing wheelchairs from passing (Cohen, 2017). As
evidenced by Chinese bike piles, the public space management challenge tends to grow with the size of
dockless bike share fleets. Larger fleets, on the one hand, help to achieve scale and improve reliability,
but they can also increase the rate and occurrence of mis-parked bikes.
Local authorities will also need to consider trade-offs - designating space for dockless bikes will likely
mean less space for pedestrians (if parked on the sidewalk) or cars (if street parking is converted to bikeparking areas). However, capacity and/or resource constraints may limit what a city is capable of both
requiring and enforcing.
Policies which cities have at their disposal to yield more clearly-defined parking habits and orderly public
spaces include:
Fleet cap: The total number of bikes each operator is allowed to have on the street is limited to a specificnumber. The cap could be dynamic, changing over time - for example, increasing by a percentage eachmonth for the first three months of operation, as is the case in Seattle – or when an operator meets
certain milestones, or remains static, like in Milan, which restricts each operator to a maximum of
3 000 bikes.
Time-Bound response to parking complaints: Operators are required to respond to mis-parked bikecomplaints within a certain time frame, typically two hours. The city then has the authority to fine theoperator, or remove the bike from the street at the expense of the operator.
User education: Operators are required to include information on proper and inappropriate parking
locations on their website and in their mobile app which users must read through and agree to follow inorder to complete the registration process.
Lock-to requirement: Cities limit dockless bike share operation to companies that can provide bikes thatlock to existing infrastructure (bike rack, sign post, etc.) in order to end a ride. There is no definitive
evidence that lock-to technology reduces instances of tipped-over bikes, or bikes blocking right-of-ways
and other public spaces. Still, cities interested in implementing a lock-to requirement should work with
operators to invest in additional bike parking given the significant increase in demand for racks thisrequirement yields.
The following requirements may require more political will, staff time and resources to implement
relative to the requirements suggested above.
Designated parking areas: Physical parking areas are sited and painted by the city for use by all docklessbikes. Parking areas may be particularly beneficial in more congested areas where competition for
sidewalk space is high. City staff will need to work with operators to ensure that a) the GPS technology
on their bikes is accurate enough to recognise bikes parked within the designated areas as complying,
and b) parking areas are clearly defined (and users are incentivised to use them) across all real-time
service maps.
Demand-based designated parking areas: Designated parking areas can be priced based on demand. For
example, parking areas in the central business district could carry a premium parking fee during weekday

10© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

mornings. Cities would need to work closely with operators to ensure pricing changes are being
implemented in alignment with congestion management goals.
Objective 2: Foster equity and accessibility

Station-based bike share systems have been widely criticised for their inequitable rollout in terms ofstation locations and marketing strategies. Due to the high costs of stations, traditional bike sharesystems have typically concentrated stations in central business districts and other high-density, highdestination areas to generate ridership and, thus, revenue to fund expansion into lower-density areas(Shaheen et al., 2014). While this strategy is intended to minimise risks and ensure long-term financial
stability of the system, it simultaneously excludes residents who live in lower-density areas further fromthe city centre (often low income communities) from using bike share. Focusing on building ridershipfrom the wealthier city centre sends the message that bike share is designed for wealthier, downtown
residents and, conversely, that bike share is not intended for low income residents. Indeed, manystation-based systems’ ridership demographics reflect this sentiment.
One of the strengths of dockless bike share is its potential to bring fleets of shared bikes to all corners ofa city at once, given substantially lower upfront capital costs compared to station-based systems. Accessto transit, jobs, and other destinations could drastically improve - especially in historically disconnected
communities - if dockless bikes are consistently available across all neighborhoods. This will only happen
if cities are mindful of the barriers that bike share can present to low-income communities, and demand
operators meet one or more of the following accessibility requirements to minimize those barriers.
Additionally, cities should develop a comprehensive community outreach strategy for communicating
the benefits of bike share and encouraging cycling as a cost-effective, sustainable transportation option.
Accessibility requirements to minimise use barriers for low-income communities include:
Bike distribution requirement: An operator can only have a certain number of bikes (cap) or must have aminimum percentage of their fleet (minimum) in each zone (could be neighborhoods, wards, etc.) at any
given time. This could help to ensure more equitable spatial distribution of bikes across the city, and thatbikes can be more reliably found in less dense or less destination-heavy zones.
Flexible and reduced payment options: Accessibility to dockless bike share can be limited by needing asmartphone to locate and unlock a bike, and a credit card linked to a user’s account. Cities could require
operators to provide at least one alternative payment option for users to top up their account (cash at
local stores, using a pre-paid card, etc.). To ensure bike share is affordable, San Francisco requires
dockless operators to provide a reduced fare plan to low-income customers that waives the initialdeposit and offers unlimited trips under 30 minutes.
Transit integration: Citywide accessibility rests heavily on the reach of the transit network, and bike share
has the opportunity to extend that reach if it is well-integrated, affordable, and efficient for users.
Reduced fare bike share trips that connect to transit (similar to reduced fare transfers from bus tometro), as well as the ability to access bike share and transit using a common radio-frequency
identification (RFID) card, could significantly expand first- and last-mile connections. Cities could require
dockless operators to provide bikes that can be unlocked using an RFID card (preferably the city transitcard), or work with operators to develop a payment platform that allows for reduced-fare transfers
between bike share and transit.

© OECD/ITF 2018

11

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Objective 3: Improve planning and enforcement

Dockless bikes with on-board GPS provide more robust trip data than was previously possible with nonsmart bikes. This data is particularly valuable to cities for its potential to inform a variety of planning
decisions related to citing and improving cycling infrastructure, as well as to shed light on how and whereusers are riding dockless bikes (perhaps compared to other modes). Understanding these trends mayhelp cities to better prioritise – and expand the impact of – limited funding available for active
transportation improvements that support the bike share system and cycling more broadly. Real-time,
verifiable data from dockless bike share operators is also critical for monitoring and enforcement ofcompliance with city policies.
Cities should set a precedent for data sharing from operators early on in the permitting process,requiring both real-time and historical data as a condition of operation. Permit language in cities like
Washington, D.C., St. Louis, and Chicago requires that operators provide specific data points and, in mostcases, establish a standard format for submitting that data. A comparison of requirements from thesecities is included in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparing data reporting requirements
City

Maintenancereportrequired/periodTheft andvandalism
report/periodCrash
reportrequired/periodProgress oncommunity
engagement
report/periodUser
surveyrequiredBikelocationandavailability
via API/
using GBFS

Anonymised
trip data/
standard
formatidentified

Washington,
DC

Y/monthlyN

Y/monthly

N

Y

Y/Y

Y/N

St. Louis, MO

Y/monthly

Y/monthly

Y/monthly

Y/monthly

Y

Y/Y

Y/Y

Chicago, IL

Y/notspecified

N

N

N

N

Y/Y

Y/N

Source: Individual city permit documents (n.d.).

Without clear data reporting requirements, cities risk not having access to critical insights on mobility
patterns unfolding on their streets and limiting the effectiveness of their monitoring and enforcement
efforts.
The following policies enable cities to leverage these insights and improve their dockless bike sharesystem performance over time.
Data reporting standards: Operators are required to provide access to real-time data on the location of
every operational bike via an API that uses the General Bike share Feed Specification (GBFS) format.1
Anonymised trip data, maintenance activity data, and crash data should also be shared at periodic
intervals set by the city through a standardised format detailed in the permit or MOU.
User survey requirement: Operators are required to distribute an annual survey (preferably drafted by
the city to standardise data collection across operators) to users that collects data on the demographics
of dockless bike share riders and how and why they use dockless bikes. This data may help analyse
progress toward city goals such as expanding access, and where and to what groups the city should
target efforts to encourage bike share use.

12

© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Objective 4: Protect Users

Generally, bike share is considered a relatively safe transportation mode - safer, even, than riding apersonal bike. This is largely attributed to both the heavy, limited-performance design of most bike sharebikes, as well as observed cautious riding behavior common to less comfortable or experienced riders(Martin et al., 2016). Due to a lack of crash data, however, little is known about the overall safety of
dockless bike share. Newer dockless bike share bike models, are much lighter and, arguably, lower
quality than traditional bike share models, which could increase the likelihood of malfunctions andcrashes. Fishman and Schepers (2018) propose that because dockless bikes can be found in more areasof the city than docked bikes, there could be an increase in bike share riders in areas without bike lanes,
which may increase the prevalence of crashes.
Cities have a responsibility to protect residents and visitors riding dockless bikes on city streets and trails.
Educating users and requiring that operators meet industry standards for equipment and maintenancecan contribute substantially to safety at the system level. Protecting users also entails requirements thatsafeguard user privacy and transactions within dockless bike share apps. For example, Denver’s docklessmobility pilot permit includes a requirement that operators’ electronic payment systems comply with
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS), a global standard that protects credit
cardholder data and helps to reduce fraud.
The following requirements seek to address both pieces - physical and financial - of the user protection
picture:Clear safety information: Operators are required to include safety information for riders on their website
and in-app, which is triggered upon registration. Such information includes educating riders to wear ahelmet, inspect the bike for damage before riding, submit a maintenance report, yield to pedestrians
while riding, and park in acceptable locations, etc. Requirements for especially pertinent information, likea customer service phone number for the operator, on each bike could yield additional benefits.
Equipment and liability standards: Bikes are required to meet ISO Standards for safety, which include
front and rear lights. Prior to being permitted to operate, companies are required to present proof that aprocess in place for users to notify them of safety or maintenance issues involving their bikes. As
standard practice, proof of liability insurance is also required prior to operating.
User deposit refund protections: Operators are required to refund deposits and/or account balances tousers according to an established timeline if they cease operations in the city. While many operators
seem to be moving away from requiring user deposits, at least in certain markets, several still require a
deposit upon registering. Cities may consider establishing a government or escrow account to house(and protect) these user deposits.

Real-time monitoring and enforcement
Effective monitoring and enforcement of dockless bike share operations requires data to be submitted
by private operators and validated by dedicated government staff, and a strategy that imposes penalties
for non-compliance.
Data sharing

In order to make sure permit or other regulatory requirements are successfully minimising operationslevel challenges, cities need real-time data from operators that is easy to validate. Verified operator data

© OECD/ITF 2018

13

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

is critical for an accurate analysis of system performance and for carrying out effective enforcement. This
will underscore the impact policies are having towards each operational objective. More broadly, using
operator data to track progress toward city goals can also help evaluate the success of dockless bikeshare policies, and whether and how policies should be adjusted - for example, re-evaluating fleet caps if technology, business model, or other changes arise. Consistent, reliable data submitted by operators ina standardised format allows the city to be flexible and responsive to how these changes affect the bikeshare operating environment, and to rework policies in order to stay on track to meet city goals.
Staffing

A minimum suggested staffing requirement for any jurisdiction is one full-time staff member dedicatedexclusively to monitoring dockless bike share. However, cities should plan for the staff they will actuallyneed to effectively run the program, which will likely be more than one staff member. Bike share staff
should be able to understand and critically evaluate data submitted by operators to ensure compliancewith city policies, which would likely include geographic information system (GIS) skills, an understandingof APIs, and field-verifying operator data. Because this data will help to inform compliance checks, theposition(s) should be housed within or have a direct link to the department tasked with issuing fines toenforce dockless bike share policies. It is not recommended, however, for these staff to be directly orsolely responsible for issuing fines so as to avoid potential for bribery from operators, or other corrupt
practices. Optimally, additional staff would be responsible for community outreach and education to
encourage the uptake of bike share citywide and help establish norms of behaviour.
Compensation for dockless bike share monitoring staff can be funded through permit and/or
administrative fees paid by the private companies to operate on public rights-of-way. Dallas, Denver, andSeattle’s permits include application review fees paid by operators to cover staff time (National
Association of City Transportation Officials, 2018). Given the potential for conflict of interest, funding tocover staff time for monitoring should not come from non-compliance fines imposed on companies.
Developing an enforcement strategy

An enforcement strategy implemented from the outset will help to establish norms that maximise policy
compliance, and minimise the need for future enforcement. A successful strategy will require bothelements described above: reliable, real-time data from operators, and staff capable of interpreting thatdata to assess non-compliance penalties when appropriate. It is recommended that cities enforce
policies using fines or other penalties. Enforcement strategies should also be designed in a way thatencourages compliance, and reduces the need for enforcement over time as operators understand that
adapting their operations to meet requirements is cheaper and easier than paying penalties, having theirfleet size reduced, etc. The number of staff and other officers required to conduct enforcement may,then, reduce over time.
Revenue generated from fines should be directed to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects (andnot city bike share staff compensation), under a separate jurisdiction from the city’s bike share program
staff, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Long-term policy evaluation and adjustment
System performance should be periodically evaluated by the city, or a third-party managed by the city, toensure that dockless bike share policies are effectively meeting established goals. Appropriate data that14

© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

corresponds to progress toward each goal should be collected for this purpose. For example, to measureequity of the system, an annual, comprehensive survey distributed by each operator to their users could
help the city understand the demographics and needs of system users. These data could then be
combined with modal split, accessibility, and other existing indicators to reveal a more complete travel
picture.
Through this evaluation, policies such as fleet caps, service area boundaries, equipment standards, etc.
can be adjusted as needed. Periodic evaluation may also shed light on the need for secondary or followup policies to bolster the effects of existing policies, such as adding designated parking areas if operators
are falling short on public space management requirements. It is important, however, to make thisprocess as clear as possible to operators, which may be sensitive to significant changes in policy. This
process should also include a review of technological, business model, and/or other significant
innovations that have emerged, and how these might impact existing policies.
Funding to support this periodic, larger-scale data analysis and evaluation could come from permit
and/or administrative fees assessed from the dockless operators as part of their initial application tooperate.

Lessons for regulating new mobility modes
Shared, point-to-point transport options can improve accessibility and connectivity in crowded cities, andthe private sector is playing an increasingly major role in these solutions (National Association of City
Transportation Officials, 2018). City policies will ultimately dictate how and to what extent emerging
modes like dockless bike share will contribute to less polluted, congested spaces. As additional new
mobility modes emerge, and existing ones iterate and evolve, cross-cutting lessons for maximising
benefits, reducing logistical challenges, and minimising negative impacts on the public should be
documented. Early lessons for regulating new mobility modes, informed by cities’ experiences managing
dockless bike share, are explored in this section.

Design and pilot regulations informed by city goals
As discussed in detail above, identifying how new mobility modes will serve as tools to meet existing
citywide goals is a critical first step to developing outcome-oriented regulations. This exercise
encourages cities to evaluate how new mobility can impact multimodal integration, equitable access,emissions reductions, etc. and what processes will need to be in place to maximise those impacts. At thisstage, it is also critical to define metrics to track progress toward mobility and access goals. These
metrics, combined with ridership data from operators, will inform how well the system is being used.
Many cities have designed pilot programs to test regulations for dockless bike share before they are
more formally adopted and enforced. Pilots typically run for up to one year, giving the city and operatorstime to experience and understand how the service is working on the ground. During this time, cities cancommunicate goals with operators, ensuring that the latter are positioned to align their operations
toward those goals identified by the city. Pilots also provide an opportunity to establish standards fordata sharing, and set a precedent that data sharing is compulsory. Findings from the pilot often inform
revisions to the original requirements before final permit requirements are adopted.

© OECD/ITF 2018

15

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

The ever-changing nature of new mobility operations, both from technological and business model
perspectives, requires more nimble processes from cities to regulate and respond. Past models for
public-private partnerships – like those created for public bike share systems – often included longcontracts that did not allow for or incentivise much innovation by the operator or the city. For example,
in 2017, a 15-year contract was awarded to Smovengo, a consortium of French and Spanish mobility
companies, to take over operations of Paris’ hugely successful Velib’ system. However, delays andglitches in system equipment to allow for pedal assist e-bikes plagued Velib’ throughout 2018. The
system suffered from dramatic drops in memberships and significant ridership declines, and while
Smovengo was forced to pay high penalties for the delays, it remains the system’s operator (Chrisafis,2018). Recognising that the evolution of new mobility services is incredibly fast-paced and dependent on
the most cutting-edge technology, policy models that allow for changes to regulations and/or operatorsin the short-term are clearly needed. Annual or biannual permits awarded to companies that show
genuine ability to meet cities’ standards and needs for providing new mobility services may better alignwith the rapid pace of development of those services. Requiring operators to apply annually for a permit
provides cities the opportunity to evaluate each operator’s performance from year to year, and denypermits to operators that have underperformed.

Understand costs
Despite cities not having to contribute funding for capital costs related to dockless bike share or otherprivately-funded new mobility services, managing these services will carry costs associated with staff
time to design, implement, and evaluate a pilot program, as well as infrastructure investments to
support growing ridership.
Staff time

As mentioned in the previous section, city staff will need to be designated or hired to develop permit
requirements and/or a pilot program to test those requirements prior to implementation on the ground.
Associated tasks may include but are not limited to:16

Drafting a request for expression of interest (RFEI) form to be completed by operators.



Reviewing submitted RFEIs.



Gathering input from city active transportation staff and experts, operator RFEIs, and community
members about pilot program goals and high priority requirements.

Drafting permit requirements for approval through municipal channels.



Reviewing operator permit applications and short-listing operators for approval.



Siting and installing physical infrastructure such as designated parking areas or bike racks.

Monitoring real-time operator data feeds for compliance with permit requirements.



Coordinating with city maintenance staff to address parking and right-of-way issues.

Partnering with operators, local transport groups, and other community groups to encourage
ridership and education about the program.

© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175



Conducting an evaluation of the pilot, and establishing protocols for periodic evaluations of thesystem using historical data and user surveys.

The breadth of tasks included in this list indicates the level of capacity city staff will likely need to commit
to managing a new mobility system in order to sustain that system in the long term. Without thisprioritisation of staff time to management, the system could suffer from a number of unwanted
outcomes that ultimately degrade the quality of service for users. While small and mid-sized cities may
not have the capacity to commit staff for all of the tasks listed above, short term consultants could be
hired to provide support during the pilot phase or for particularly high-skilled tasks like data collection,verification and analysis. Or, cities could build these costs into operator fees required to receive a permit.
Seattle has built program administration costs, including 1.5 full-time staff positions, into its docklessbike share permit, which will be covered by a USD 250 000 annual vendor fee (Seattle Department ofTransportation, 2018b).
Infrastructure

Cities should consider the need to install additional infrastructure in line with the launch of a docklessbike share or other new mobility program, and the costs associated. In the case of dockless bike share,
more bikes available for use calls for more bike racks, particularly in cities that have adopted a “lock-to”
requirement as part of their public space management strategy. Throughout the course of a pilot
program, cities can use data showing where bikes are consistently parked to inform siting additional bikeracks. If cities have identified designated dockless bike parking areas as part of their public space
management strategy, there will be financial costs to implementing those (city staff time, materials,
signage, etc.) and potential political costs as well. Some cities are converting on-street parking spaces todockless bike share parking areas in neighborhoods where sidewalk space is limited, which could incurbacklash from drivers (National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2018).
For dockless bike share and scootershare systems, targeted investments in city bike lane network
expansion should also be considered. Studies show that bike share riders are particularly sensitive toriding in mixed traffic, and improving bike lane quality and connectivity can significantly expand where
people are willing to ride (National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2016). Cycling
infrastructure benefits all riders – not just bike share riders – and has been linked to increased daily bikeshare trips (Xu & Chow, 2018). Investing in cycling infrastructure could be a strategy to improve bikeshare system performance over time.

Evaluate system performance
Following the completion of any new mobility pilot, system performance should be evaluated based on
metrics established at the launch of the pilot. The evaluation will not only shed light on what was
successful about the pilot, but will identify areas that could be improved before the program is formally
implemented. Key performance indicators such as climate, health, safety and access with related metrics
under each indictor will help cities understand whether the new mobility service is contributing toprogress toward broader city goals. After the completion of its dockless bike share pilot in July 2018, theCity of Seattle released an evaluation report that included a measurement of system success based on
metrics such as total trips, percent of incorrectly parked bikes, usage by and outreach to underserved
communities, and public funding contributed, among others. The evaluation identifies equity, parking
enforcement, and disability compliance as areas needing improvement, and provides recommendations
to better address these areas in the formal permit (Seattle Department of Transportation, 2018a).

© OECD/ITF 201817

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Analysing success using a set of indicators can also provide empirical evidence from which to evaluate
funding designated to support the system, expanding service areas, or other system-level decision
making.

Develop new mobility ecosystems
Privately-funded, technology-enabled mobility services are contributing to a paradigm shift that cities
need to recognise and respond to – one in which people are demanding alternatives to single-occupancy
vehicle trips. As new modes continue to emerge, cities have the opportunity to be proactive, withsystems and institutional capacities in place to address market failures in real time, and adapt tomaximise benefits.
Some cities are already taking steps toward more holistic mobility ecosystems. San Diego is working toestablish a Mobility Board, which would combine its existing bicycle and parking advisory boards, withthe goal of bringing together city staff working on walking, biking, transit, and new mobility to makemore informed, system-level transportation decisions (San Diego City Government, 2018). The Board
would be responsible for decision making related to dockless bike share, dockless e-scooters, and future
emerging modes. This type of ecosystem approach to mobility planning can help to reduce logisticalchallenges that arise from addressing each mode individually, and can help to identify connections that
reduce inefficiencies and encourage action.

18© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Note
1

The General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) was designed to provide real-time system status data through astandardized API. The feed is updated periodically and edits can be suggested by the GitHub community. Moreinformation can be accessed at https://github.com/NABSA/gbfs/blob/master/gbfs.md.

© OECD/ITF 2018

19

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

References
Buehler, R. and A. Hamre (2013), Economic Benefits of Capital Bike share: A Focus on Users andBusinesses, University Park, PA: Mid-Atlantic Universities Transportation Center.
Chrisafis, A. (2018), Wheels come off Paris bike-share scheme after hi-tech upgrade. The Guardian, 4May.
Cohen, J. (2017),. Seattle Test Will Lead to Regulating Dockless Bike-Share. Next City, 21 December.
Fishman, E. and P. Schepers (2018), The Safety of Bike Share Systems, Discussion Paper, International
Transport Forum, Paris.
Hobson, J. (2017), Update on Emerging Mobility Services & Technologies Including Transportation
Network Companies. s.l.:San Francisco County Transportation Authority.
Insitute for Transportation and Development Policy (2018), Optimizing Dockless Bikeshare for Cities, New
York: s.n.
LimeBike, (2017). The Year End Report, s.l.: s.n.
Macon, A. (2018), Everyone Is Watching What Dallas Does With Bike Share. D Magazine.
Martin, E., A. Cohen, J.L. Botha and S. Shaheen (2016), Bikesharing and Bicycle Safety, San Jose, CA:
Mineta Transportation Institute Publications.
National Association of City Transportation Officials (2016), Equitable Bike Share Means Building Better
Places for People to Ride, New York: s.n.
National Association of City Transportation Officials (2018), Guidelines for the Regulation andManagement of Shared Active Transportation, New York: s.n.
Perkowski, J. (2017), Will China's Streets Soon Be Ruled By Bicycles?. Forbes.
Sharma, N. (2017), India’s Ride-Hailing Giant Ola Will Now Rent Out Bicycles. Bloomberg Quint, 3
December.
San Diego City Government (2018), s.l.:Rules Committee.
Seattle Department of Transportation (2018a),. 2017 Free-Floating Bike Share Pilot Evaluation Report,
Seattle: s.n.
Seattle Department of Transportation (2018b), Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit Requirements.
Seattle: s.n.
Shaheen, S.A., E.W. Martin,N.D. Chan, A.P. Cohen, and M. Pogodzinski (2014), Public Bikesharing in North
America During a Period of Rapid Expansion: Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends, and User
Impacts, San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute.
Taylor, A. (2018), The Bike-Share Oversupply in China: Huge Piles of Abandoned and Broken Bicycles. The
Guardian, 22 March.
Wiley, J. (2018), Vendors: JUMP Bikes [Webinar]. In Metrolinx Bike Share Webinar Series.

20© OECD/ITF 2018

OPTIMISING NEW MOBILITY SERVICES | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 175

Xu, S. and J. Chow (2018), A longitudinal study of bike infrastructure impact on bike-share system
performance. Washington, DC,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320273966_A_longitudinal_study_of_bike_infrastructure_im
pact_on_bike-share_system_performance.

© OECD/ITF 201821

Optimising New Mobility Services
This paper presents a policy framework intended to maximize thebenefits of dockless bike share through outcome-oriented system
planning that includes monitoring and enforcement of regulations.
Operational shortfalls of dockless bike share are categorised andseveral policy options for each category proposed. Finally, the paper
identifies lessons and best practices from the rollout of dockless bikeshare systems around the world.

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: 11/2018 | Photo credit: snkw147

All resources from the Roundtable on App-Based Mobility Services
are available at:www.itf-oecd.org/regulating-app-based-mobility-servies-roundtable