This section summarizes the impacts of shared micromobility (station-based and dockless) on modal use, the environment, health, and safety. Table 6.1 below provides a summary of impact studies.
Environment
The impacts of shared micromobility on the environment can vary based on a variety of factors. Several studies indicate that shared micromobility reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by replacing personal vehicle trips. However, total energy use for bicycle and scooter rebalancing may affect net environmental impacts
of shared micromobility programs. Additional environmental considerations may include lifecycle
impacts associated with recycling devices and batteries.
Mode Use
Mode replacement of shared micromobility systems appears to vary by service model, device, and location of the study. However, studies are limited for some forms of shared micromobility, such as dockless bikesharing. Table 6.1 below summarizes modal impacts due
to station-based bikesharing, dockless bikesharing, and dockless scooter sharing
Health
Few studies in the U.S. have examined the health impacts of shared micromobility. A study
of station-based bikesharing in Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis-St. Paul indicates an increase in physical activity. A four-month pilot program of standing electric scooter sharing in Portland found that scooter sharing attracted
new people to active transportation. For example, 42% of scooter users had never bicycled before the pilot (Portland Bureau of
Transportation, 2019).
Safety
Studies indicate that shared micromobility users often do not wear helmets. However, uncertainty exists if these modes are more dangerous than other modes of transportation. Recently electric standing scooters have gained
publicity for an increase in scooter-related emergency room visits. More research needs to
be conducted to better understand risky riding behavior, speeds, and riding locations that can
contribute to injury for electric standing scooters.
Table 6.1 Summary of Shared Micromobility Impacts in the U.S. Study Name
Location Authors, Year Mode Use Environment Health Safety
Station-Based Bikesharing
Capital Bikeshare Member Survey Report Washington,
D.C.
LDA Consulting, 2013
After joining bikesharing:
- 54% of respondents started or ended a bikesharing trip at a Metrorail station in the last month
- 50% drove a car less often - 60% used a taxi less often
- 61% ride Metrorail less often and 52% ride a bus less often
- 52% decreased walking*
After joining bikesharing:
- ¼ of respondents reduced their driving miles
- On average, driving was reduced by 198 miles per year
45% of respondents never wear a helmet
Bikeshare’s impact on car use: Evidence from the Unit- ed States, Great Britain, and
Australia Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis-St. Paul Fishman et al., 2014 Washington, D.C.:
- 45% replaced public transit - 31% replaced walking - 7% replaced driving a vehicle - 6% replaced personal bicycle - 6% replaced taxi
- 4% generated new trips
Minneapolis-St. Paul:
- 20% replaced public transit - 37% replaced walking - 19% replaced driving a vehicle - 8% replaced personal bicycle - 3% replaced taxi
- 8% generated new trips**
Estimated car travel reduction per bike of:
- 153 mi (247 KM) in Washington, D.C. - 83 mi (135 KM) in Minnesota
Bikeshare’s impact on active travel: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain,
and Australia
Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis-St. Paul
Fishman et al, 2015
Bikesharing trips replaced sedentary modes by:
- 42% in Minneapolis-St. Paul. - 58% in Washington, D.C.***
Bikesharing trips replaced sedentary modes by:
- 1.4 million minutes in Minneapolis-St. Paul - 13.8 million minutes in Washington, D.C. Prevalence of bicycle helmet
use by users of public bike- share programs.
Boston and Washington, D.C
Fischer et al., 2012
Bikesharing users are four times less likely to
wear a helmet than
personal bicycle riders
Are bikeshare users different from regular cyclists?
Washington, D.C.
Buck et al., 2013
For annual members:
- 45% replaced public transit - 31% replaced walking - 7% replaced driving a vehicle - 6% replaced personal bicycle - 6% replaced taxi
- 4% generated new trips
For short-term users:
- 53% replaced walking - 35% replaced public transit - 5% replaced taxi
- 2% replaced personal bicycle - 2% generated new trips - 2% other
- 1% replaced driving a vehicle
94% of short-term sub- scribers did not wear a helmet, compared to 63% of long-term subscribers
Table 6.1 Summary of Shared Micromobility Impacts in the U.S., Cont’d Study Name
Location Authors, Year Mode Use Environment Health Safety
Dockless Bikesharing
Electric Bikesharing in San Francisco: An Evaluation of JUMP Electric Bikesharing
during an Early Pilot Deployment
San Francisco, CA
Shaheen et al., forthcoming
- 10% replaced driving a vehicle - 14% replaced transportation
network company trip (TNC, e.g., Lyft, Uber)
- 26% replaced public transit - 8% replaced walking
- 24% replaced personal bicycle - 4% replaced a motorcycle or scooter - 1% replaced scooter sharing - 5% other+
Dockless Scooter Sharing
2018 E-Scooter Findings Report Portland Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2019 - 37% replaced walking - 19% replaced driving a vehicle - 15% replaced a taxi or TNC - 5% replaced personal bicycle++
Estimated e-scooters prevented automobiles from emitting 122 metric tons of carbon dioxide during the four-month pilot, equivalent to removing nearly 27 average passenger vehicles from the road for a year.
E-scooter sharing attracted new people to active transportation. Before the scooter sharing pilot, 42% of users reported never bicycling.
Scooter-related emergency room visits increased from <1 a week to 10 a week during the pilot.
- 83% did not involve another mode - 13.6% involved a motor vehicle - 3% involved a pedestrian
- 90% of riders did not wear helmets. However, most electric scooter injuries were not serious enough to warrant emergency room visits.
Bikeposhare’s impact on active travel: Evidence from
the United States, Great Britain, and Australia
Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis-St. Paul
Fishman et al, 2015
Of 249 studied patients with scooter-related injuries: - 31.7% had fractures - 40.2% had head injuries - 27.7% had soft-tissue injuries - 4.4% wore a helmet
- 8.4% were non-rider pedestrians - 10.8% were younger than 18 The cause of injury: - 80.2% fell
- 11% collided with an object - 8.8% were hit by a moving vehicle
or object
* Respondents asked if they had changed their use of any five non-bicycle types of transportation.
** Thinking about your last journey on bikeshare, which mode of transport would you have taken had it not existed?
*** Respondents asked what alternative mode they would typically have used for that trip before bikesharing was introduced. + If JUMP were not available, how would you have made this trip instead?
Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Shared Micromobility | 75
Policy Considerations for Shared
Micromobility
Micromobility has the potential to offer communities an array of individual and
community benefits such as: increased mobility, greater environmental awareness, and increased use of active transportation and non-vehicular modes. With careful planning and policy implementation, it also has the potential to enhance accessibility and quality of life in cities. This section reviews the most common shared micromobility policies and practices with respect to: 1) rights-of-way and curbspace management, 2) data sharing, 3) planning and expansion, and 4) equity standards and programs.