GOVERNANCE & INTEGRATION
ITF Report: Micromobility
CITIES, DON'T SCOOT AWAY FROM EQUITY!
Micromobility could be instrumental for bridging existing accessibility gaps and solving first-last mile problem for underserved urban communities, yet some people still may be left behind. Is the sector at risk of excluding rather than including a wide sector of society as it continues to grow? And what can cities do to align regulations for the industry with their equity objectives? Tatiana Samsonova provides the answers to the questions
© Pixabay
Through their responsive nature, new mobility technologies have the potential to reduce existing inequities. Shared e-scooters and bikes have emerged as a promising solution to promote equitable access. These services, however, still face several barriers to widespread adoption. Despite the flurry of innovation, options tailored for people with disabilities is still work in progress. Gender inclusiveness also remains an issue. Data on ridership reveals that in most European cities the people who actually use micromobility tend to be younger, upper income, single and male.
That said, according to Populus’s data, lower-income groups tend to be the most enthusiastic about the idea. This enthusiasm, however, does not always translate into access. In many cities, low-income resident may simply not get around it, or come up against barriers to entry, like not owning a cell phone or a credit card. The ways around these barriers already exist, so, in theory, we can make it work. However, to ensure that new mobility services successfully promote equitable access, policymakers should help mitigate barriers such as cost of use, service availability and physiological challenges.
Filling the gaps
The good news? If done right, micromobility could be a powerful tool in the struggle to increase access to opportunities for underserved disadvantaged communities - an important objective for many cities. We have (yet another) potential solution to vexing first-last mile problem. The question remains: realistically, can it be solved solely on the backs of micromobility companies, without any support from the governments? After all, the gaps in access to public transport are largely a problem of city’s making. They result from past planning decisions and investments that prioritised car travel at the expense of other modes. For micromobility operators, closing such gaps implies making vehicles available in neighborhoods where operations are often unprofitable. And most operators of shared micromobility are for-profit businesses, often backed by venture capital firms that do not necessarily prioritise public policy objectives as highly as a city government would.
Without policy guidance and support, cities cannot expect that these services will be consistently deployed in underserved communities or will enable access to residents that lack a smartphone or bank account. For all these reasons, partnerships and collaboration with companies is essential to integrate micromobility with public transport, and to support continued business growth while providing options that work for everyone.
What’s more, if shared micromobility is really meant to address first-last mile problem, cities need sufficient availability of vehicles so that e-scooters and bikes become a reliable mode of transport. Restrictive fleet caps traditionally applied to address oversupply of micro-vehicles on the streets risks hindering operators from providing equitable service to all parts of a city. Aware of equity concerns, cities like Seattle and Washington, D.C. have used a more flexible approach and raised minimum number of scooters the companies can deploy daily. In return, micromobility companies are required to place a certain percentage of their fleets in designated ‘equity areas’ or areas that have lower incomes.
Dedicated bike lane in Seattle © Seattle Department of Transportation
‘Micromobility? A little outside of my budget’
Shared micromobility is expensive, especially when compared to subsidised public transport. So, how can we expect micromobility to solve first-last mile problem on its own, if people cannot afford to use it? Micromobility companies tend to agree that it is fair to serve all neighbourhoods in the city — but unlike public transit services, they are not receiving government subsidies. The costs of running the service are too high, and on top of that, cities often charge companies the same high fees in communities of concern that they charge elsewhere. Eliminating fees may be difficult, but not impossible. For instance, some cities, like Los Angeles, are already significantly reducing fees for micromobility service providers that commit to operate in historically underserved communities. What’s more, for decades cities have been subsidising public docked bike-sharing. Not to mention, vast sums spent on highway widenings and other hidden subsidies for car use that inevitably locked-in car-dependency and unsustainable travel patterns. Micromobility could be an important part of the equation to break free from this trend, change behavior and transition to low-carbon more equitable urban mobility. So, why not consider providing public support for operations where people need it, and where actual benefits of widespread adoption exceed the costs?
Let’s just (re)build it for the future
Barriers to use go further than price only. Essentially, the uptake of these services depends on available safe infrastructure. Micromobility companies cannot change current allocation of road and parking space to accommodate for these new modes — but cities can. Most obviously, protected bike lanes that allow riders feel – and be – safe when on an e-scooter or a bike to and/or from a station can be transformative for equity. Micromobility parking and charging stations adjacent to major stops is also an essential component for further physical integration with public transport.
Covid-19 has been a challenging time for the transport sector, however it provides an opportunity to ‘respace our cities’. By building dedicated cycling infrastructure, and reducing the cost of operations for shared micromobility, cities can support sustainable operations in the long term and make transport system more resilient for the future. This will help achieve cities’ goals to reverse car dependency, encourage multimodal travel and ensure that we are on a sustainable pathway out of the pandemic.
Temporary cycle lanes emerging in the wake of Covid-19 © REUTERS/Peter Nicholls
The conclusion? Cities can be powerhouses for change. Offering incentives for broader availability of micromobility and integrating shared e-scooters and bicycles into the urban mobility mix can help improve access for citizens whom the current transport system fails. There is uncertainty and responsibility, but there is also opportunity.
Read more:
- Micromobility, Equity and Sustainability – ITF (2021)
- Anyone Feel Like Saving Electric Scooters? – Bloomberg CityLab
- 3 Ways Cities Can Leverage Micromobility Services for Good – The CityFix, WRI
Tatiana Samsonova is Policy Analyst at the International Transport Forum/OECD
You can contact her at: tatiana.samsonova@itf-oecd.org