bikes Archives - Transportation For America

Catching the e-bike wave

A man with dark hair and sunglasses rides a Capitol Bikeshare bicycle down a painted bike lane near a treelined sidewalk.

Electric bikes have enormous potential to deliver affordable, clean, healthy and space-efficient transportation to the masses, but the feds and too many other leaders are passing up this opportunity in favor of electrifying the status quo.

Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

The best selling type of electric vehicle in the U.S. is traffic-busting, space-efficient, healthy, and doesn’t require a drop of gas—but it’s not an electric car. Talk to anyone who owns an electric bicycle and you’ll get an earful on how practical, fun and life-changing these machines are. You have all the fun of being on a bike, but the power assist makes the hills flat and keeps you from breaking a sweat. E-cargo-bikes make carrying larger loads easy, replacing car-trips to the grocery store and helping to shuttle kids to school and activities. Maybe all this—and their relative affordability—is why, as both markets grow rapidly, e-bike sales continue to outpace electric cars.

The tsunami of e-bikes entering the transportation mix is great news for smart growth. E-bikes and other electric micromobility devices, like electric scooters, are relatively affordable and powerful transportation tools that, like regular bikes, also fit well in dense walkable places. Federal, state and local governments should catch this wave.

Safe infrastructure, parking and incentives

If we’re going to invest public dollars in electric transportation, e-micromobility is a place where we can get equity, environment and smart growth outcomes along with emissions reduction. How do we do it? It comes down to three overarching strategies: safe bike infrastructure, encouraging people to buy and use e-bikes, and creating parking solutions that work for this unique form of transportation.

1. Safe bike infrastructure

Unsafe streets are likely the biggest impediment to e-bike adoption. Safe streets for cycling have always made sense, but the enormous potential of e-bikes is one more reason to invest in these networks.

Piecemeal efforts with only paint are not enough. We need Complete Streets policies and standards, taking bike accessibility into account with every investment. These policies and standards need to be strong enough to build bike networks that are protected from cars and trucks and connected to destinations. This can and should be applied at every level of government.

2. Encouraging people to buy and use e-bikes

Many states and cities are rolling out e-bike purchase incentive programs to good effect. This makes sense. E-bikes deliver all the benefits discussed above, and they’re much more affordable than cars. For a typical public subsidy on an electric car, you could purchase an e-bike outright.

Because of their price tag, getting e-bikes and e-cargo bikes into the hands of families that can’t afford a car is a big transportation equity move. People for Bikes’ E-Bike Incentive Design Tool provides guidance for states and cities looking to launch a local program. At the federal level, Congress should pass the E-BIKE Act and help deserving families acquire e-bikes nationwide.

Bikeshare programs are also seeing a lot of success in delivering clean, healthy, space-efficient mobility while exposing more people to the magic of electric bikes. Bikeshare and electric scooter sharing programs are a great complement to public transit, as they can help close first- and last-mile gaps in people’s commutes and give people an additional option for getting around on nights or weekends when transit runs less frequently. Shared micromobility also provides access to these options for people who can’t afford their own e-bike or don’t have a place to store it. Governments at all levels should view shared micromobility as fundamentally a form of public transit and support it with public investment.

To support shared micromobility in the near term, we need a “dig once” approach to installing charging infrastructure for shared micromobility and EV charging infrastructure. That is, when we install charging infrastructure for cars, we should seek opportunities to co-locate car charging infrastructure with charging for shared micromobility. The North America Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA, a member of the CHARGE coalition that T4America co-leads) recently released a report on co-locating EV and micromobility charging which decision-makers should take heed of. While the Biden Administration’s Joint Office on Energy and Transportation talks a lot about multimodalism, Community Charging Grants in the infrastructure law’s Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) program currently only fund car charging. Really, all federally funded charging infrastructure should be built to charge bikes and scooters too.

3. Parking considerations

E-bikes are heavier and more expensive than regular bikes, and their batteries need to be charged. These differences mean that parking for e-bikes requires special consideration. E-bike parking, especially overnight, needs to be secure. Parking facilities in places like apartment buildings and workplaces need to have level entry, and can’t require the owner to lift the bike onto a hook. Accommodating space for cargo bikes is also becoming more important. Most e-bikes have removable batteries that can be charged in the home or at your desk, so charging in the bike room might not be entirely necessary. Local governments will have to develop bike parking standards that take these special considerations into account and JOET can assist by developing guidance.

The bottom line

The investments needed for us to catch the e-bike wave are relatively modest compared to the pay-off. If we succeed, we’ll be sitting on top of the world! Following the strategies outlined above can help maximize the potential of this small but mighty form of electric transportation.

In our EV blog series, we’ve shared strategies in the zero-emission fleet transition which work in concert with smart growth. These strategies can both advance the EV transition and reduce the need to drive so much. They include electric carshare services, charger-oriented development, the NEVI program, equitable access to chargers, integrating smart parking policy with EV-charging, and electric micromobility. To learn more about reducing transportation emissions, check out our report Driving Down Emissions and go here to learn more about CHARGE, the coalition we co-lead on EV issues.

Electric vehicles aren’t good for equity, but we should try

An electric Smart car charges at a curbside charging station in DC

Electric vehicles, while vital for reducing emissions and meeting our long-term emissions reduction goals, are not a good strategy for improving existing inequities in transportation. But there are specific things we can and should do to make this transition more equitable than it otherwise would be.

Yesterday, in part one of this post, we chronicled why it’s going to be difficult or impossible for electric vehicle adoption to be a major force for improving equity, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it as equitable as possible. Here are some ideas for how:

E-bike incentives and infrastructure

Most daily trips on average are short, but many can still be just outside of the realm of capability for a lot of people to take by walking or biking, especially in hot climates that make it difficult. E-bikes are a game changing option for many people, increasing the ease, range, and comfort of biking trips while still delivering the public health, space-efficiency, and zero-emission benefits of bikes. They are way cheaper than electric cars and therefore cheaper to subsidize. Perhaps this is why e-bike sales have more-than doubled last year, and why e-bikes are projected to out-sell electric cars globally in the coming decade. For the cost of the incentive for a new electric car, you could outright buy an electric bike for someone. All this means we can help get more e-bikes into the hands of people for whom it can make a real impact on their access to opportunity, and reduce emissions. The e-bike incentive in the Build Back Better Act is a great start. To get the most out of this new option, we also need to invest in infrastructure where e-bike riders feel safe.

Fleet conversions

Cars for individual drivers sit parked most of the time, using up valuable space for parking—and not presenting as big and quick an emissions reduction. Transitioning institutional fleets to electric has a good return on investment, whether they are for carshare fleets that give low-car households access to a car when they need it, rental fleets that quickly rack up mileage, business fleets that are used by company personnel throughout the day, or diesel trucks and buses that produce more pollution. Incentives can also target non-profits that deliver valuable community services. We should also consider targeting high-polluting areas for specific and notable impacts, for example prioritizing truck conversions at ports adjacent to neighborhoods that bear the brunt of port pollution. If we’re going to subsidize electric vehicles, focusing on fleets first can build the EV market while delivering the most bang-for-the-buck on pollution reduction and benefits to impacted communities.

Deploying the right charging strategy in denser urban environments

A heavy bike sits to the side next to a hanging bike rack

One of the benefits of EVs for consumers is charging at home. If you plug in your car overnight, you never have to go to a charging station unless you’re taking a trip that exceeds your car’s range. Your car has a “full tank” every morning. But that only works if you have a dedicated parking space with access to your own electricity. In denser urban environments, many people lack a driveway or garage to charge an EV. Historically excluded communities are much less likely to have the kind of dedicated parking where overnight charging from your own outlet is possible.

Photo on left courtesy of @kiel_by_bike

We’ll need a comprehensive set of solutions to address this that won’t all fit in this blog post (and no one has all the answers for that yet). But there are two areas to focus on. First, we need building codes that require charging access in multifamily housing parking AND bike parking that accommodates level entry and charging for e-bikes that are much heavier. No one wants to lug a heavy e-bike up and down stairs. Second, we need a comprehensive policy on curbside charging that considers the vast complexity of managing curb space, which is something we have written about before, including:

Prioritizing carshare
Protecting current and future bike and bus lanes
Integrating chargers with public space and ensuring an uncluttered pedestrian environment including quality Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access
Ensuring deployment in historically excluded neighborhoods

Phasing out ICE vehicles through legislation

Much of the discussion around getting EVs into the hands of consumers has been around incentives and subsidies. This is an approach to benefit industry and wealthier new-car buyers. At this point, every major car company has electric models coming to the market soon. If we need to transition the fleet to electric, rather than offer subsidies to buyers who least need them, eventually we’ll need to consider both carrots and sticks. Why not follow the lead of California, which is moving to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, and set a date to phase out new internal combustion engine (ICE) cars by a certain date a few years from now?

Workforce training and support

As with any major change in how we do things, some jobs will disappear and others will be created. We’ll need programs to support mechanics and other workers impacted by the EV transition. For example, programs supporting the EV transition should incorporate training for mechanics who work on cars, trucks and buses so they can transition to working on electric vehicles. Likewise, we also need to provide workforce education, training, and certification for electricians installing and maintaining EV charging infrastructure. Training for new manufacturing jobs should target deployment of jobs and job training programs so that frontline communities are prioritized and have an opportunity to benefit from manufacturing jobs. Finally, policies should require prevailing wages for jobs installing publicly funded charging infrastructure and/or union representation for publicly subsidized manufacturing jobs. The Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE), with which we’ve worked this past year, has done a great job thinking about workforce considerations as part of their policy recommendations.

EV advocates can and should do what they can to address equity in the EV transition, but they need to recognize that the strategies for doing this are by their very nature afterthoughts. EVs are a GHG reduction strategy, not an equity strategy. Investing in transportation options like public transit, walking and biking, and meeting the demand for new (attainable) housing in locations where people naturally drive less is the way to truly address transportation equity as part of an overall GHG reduction strategy.

If you’re interested in digging deeper into equity and electrification, EVNoire and Forth, two partners we work with in the EV space, are hosting the E-Mobility Diversity Equity and Inclusion Conference next Wednesday and Thursday, November 17 – 18.

Walking through questions about our new Playbook for Shared Micromobility

With the help of representatives from two cities, T4America staff a few weeks ago walked through our new Playbook for effectively managing shared micromobility services like dockless bikes, electric scooters, and other new technologies.

Flickr photo by Daniel Lobo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/daquellamanera/38503203635/

Almost overnight, shared scooters and bikes have rapidly proliferated in cities across the country. T4America’s new Playbook for Shared Micromobility is helping cities find their footing. We walked through the new guide a few weeks ago in an online presentation. (Watch the full presentation here)

Our sincere thanks especially to Francie Stefan (Santa Monica) and Josh Johnson (Minneapolis) for their time and especially for openly sharing about their experiences and lessons learned so far. Here’s a collection of some of the questions we weren’t able to answer during the presentation, compiled from T4America staff with input from our guests. Any mistakes or errors are T4America’s alone.

GEOFENCING

Is constituent/resident input considered when forming geofencing?

Cities should engage constituents including residents, employees, businesses and visitors when considering the boundaries for operations as well as any specific areas where operations would need to be controlled in a different way, including restrictions on operations, specific parking areas, or speed differentials. Cities and operators together will need to work together to ensure an appropriate level of engagement, communication, and education around these areas.

In Minneapolis, public input was actually the primary consideration for 2018’s geofencing (of two areas), based on feedback received via our 311 system. Going forward in 2019, Minneapolis’ intention is to tie the monitoring interface with daily mapping of 311 complaints and try to more quickly react or anticipate where it is needed.

We have a policy in our city that does not allow any e-bikes or pedal assist bikes on any of our greenways or trails. How can geofencing help us avoid constant issues with e-bike use on the greenways?

At least thus far, geofencing technology for many devices has not always been precise enough for detailed enforcement. Improved equipment could address much of the issue but is not widespread. But geofencing can help alert riders to operating restrictions in specific areas. Larger areas with buffer zones around them like a trail system may be large enough to enable geofenced speed reduction, parking prohibition, or other tools. Robust communications by the city and in-app by operators can help deter riding or usage in restricted areas.

How well did the geofencing technology work? In Santa Monica, specifically in restricting devices from working in specific areas (Santa Monica city vs Santa Monica College).

The geofencing is working well in larger areas like the Marvin Braude Beach Bike Path. That zone is wide enough to enable effective location-based speed reduction down to 5 mph for all scooters. The city works regularly with the operators to ensure that all versions of the devices are set up to reduce speeds, and to ensure that parking limitations are in place.

FEE STRUCTURE

Good protected infrastructure is very important for shared micromobility users, but it’s also a vital element of more sustainable and equitable cities, whoever ultimately owns the vehicles. What is the fair share for micromobility providers to pay, given that more active transportation is already an element of most T4A cities’ transportation goals?

Unfortunately there is not a clear cut answer at this point, however Minneapolis is exploring a research project to determine the fair share across all shared modes. In the meantime, we are thinking about the infrastructure portion of fees related to costs of improving the existing system to more comfortably accommodate new modes through added bike lane protection (delineators), markings/signage, and additional striping for parking zones.

Santa Monica adopted an interim fee that was calculated based on the PROW square footage used by devices. The study looked at the average footprint of a device in the PROW when stationary (bike/scooter/vertical/horizontal), and then applied the per-square foot fee used for outdoor dining in the PROW. The staff report for fee adoption can be found here.

Do you see cities moving from a fee structure to a subsidy structure for these services? Shifting to a higher penalty for SOVs and rewards rather than fees on lower-emission modes.

Given the ongoing debate in cities across the country and how to appropriately tax and levy fees on everything from TNCs to micromobility operators to freight and urban delivery to private vehicle use, it’s still unclear how to best assess the impacts of various transportation users and service providers on our shared infrastructure. Ultimately, T4A would like to see fair user fees supported across all modes that truly represent the positive, and negative, impacts of each user and use case.

What is a reasonable cost that cities can expect to spend as a result of allowing dockless vehicles/shared micromobility to operate in their cities? (Including everything that goes into it: reviewing permitting applications, dealing w/ picking up rogue vehicles if the operator does not, etc.)

These new services are in their infancy and the exact costs that are being borne by cities to administer and manage them are not yet clear. In developing an overall fee structure, cities will need to think holistically to calculate the full and actual costs—including everything from staff time to software management platforms to daily operational needs to outreach and engagement. While cities can take some cues from each other, these costs also vary from city to city given the nature of their regulations, labor costs and other local factors. Conducting a cost analysis study can help determine the true costs.

FLEET SIZE

Should there only be a single operator per community or can there be competition in this arena? Also should a cap be set for the industry or individual operator?

It’s still unclear what an appropriate number of permits or overall fleet size should be as it relates to population, density or other community factors that will appropriately serve individual communities and the city as a whole—while still creating an attractive and profitable market for operators. Between permit caps and fleet size caps, cities should probably focus more on managing the overall fleet size effectively to create a program the whole community can benefit from. Cities should use dynamic, performance based caps that establish clear, utilization-based formulas for the expansion of operator fleets.

Minneapolis is also thinking about—in terms of the differences among companies—whether it’s a different product (such as a sit down scooter) or potential differences in operating structure (vendor hiring practices, fleet activities, etc.) and also how closely vendors align with city goals for transportation and mobility. With rapid growth and continued consolidation in the scooter industry, there is also the idea of maintaining continuity of service, should a vendor be acquired or leave the market.

How did the City of Santa Monica decide on their initial fleet size for providers?
In Minneapolis, any hints on the actual ratios of people/scooter you’re examining? Any preliminary findings you can share on those numbers? Formulas?

Santa Monica interviewed eleven operators before crafting the the scope of the pilot program and Administrative Rules. One of the questions asked was regarding the optimal number of devices with which to start operations of a fleet that would serve the whole city. Answers all hovered around 500 devices, and there was interest in flexibility. That informed the starting point for the pilot program. The city has owned a 500-bike bikeshare fleet since 2015, and it has worked well for the city’s size and layout.

In thinking about ratios of people per scooter, Minneapolis has been discussing and comparing with a variety of other cities, and comparing that to last year’s results based on the population that was generally served by the distribution of scooters. Minneapolis is also talking to some of the vendors who’ve expressed interest in Minneapolis to see how they determine ideal fleet size. Those calculations are still being firmed up but Minneapolis is hoping to use 2019 as the starting point to establish the idea and then evaluate performance from there.

INFRASTRUCTURE

I would love to hear more about the Minneapolis idea of dedicated fees to advance protected bike infrastructure! Did you set up designated parking areas for scooters anywhere? Does the $1/day PROW fee fund something related to streets (or even active transportation infrastructure?)?

Minneapolis has set aside the fees from the 2018 pilot and is thinking about establishing some testing of this idea in 2019 in places with low-hanging fruit such as adding delineators on bikeways (with no current protection) which connect equity focus areas to core parts of the city. Minneapolis is also looking at testing lane markings and dedicated parking, particularly in dense areas with narrow sidewalks. Equally important to this effort will be communication of how and why this is being done.

EQUITY

Were these set up with any particular group in mind? Are these focused on ensuring the best interest of the broad public and of special-needs group?

The was developed as a result of a collaboration between Transportation for America and the participant cities in T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative as well as industry stakeholders including Lime. T4A conducted additional research and held conversations with cities across the country developing regulations and managing pilot programs. The Playbook also builds on the effort by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and their member cities to develop their Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation.

DATA

How do you think about requiring operators to provide public feeds in GBFS format so real-time info is visible to the public and trip-planning apps? These feeds were missing in some early pilot programs, but cities like DC require them from new mobility operators, which are already commonplace for existing systems like Citi Bike, Breeze bikeshare and Nice Ride MN.

This is perhaps a notable difference between a publicly owned and operated system (often through contract) and a service that’s privately owned and operated. Systems owned and managed by public entities (such as those listed in the question above) have mostly been making their data publicly accessible. But, while some cities are requiring data be provided by (private) dockless operators, not many have required it to also be publicly available. So far, private operators have typically been comfortable sharing data with regulators for enforcement and operations, but have been opposed to being required to share their data publicly to the benefit of other private sector companies.

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Are there recommendations for the most effective performance metrics?

Great question! We include a list of potential metrics that cities can use to measure performance in the playbook. But, given that we’re still very early in the development of these services, it’s not clear yet which metrics may be best. And, since each city will likely have different goals and outcomes that are most important to them, it will be important for each city to determine which metrics best track the outcomes or impacts they’re most interested in.

Relatedly, that type of ethos governed our overall approach to the playbook. T4America wanted to provide a framework that any city could use to advance their specific goals, while also recognizing that cities will bring vastly different big-picture goals to the table. Some cities might be more committed to shifting more trips to cleaner modes, for example. The important thing is for cities to understand how measuring performance is (and should be!) connected to accomplishing specific goals, and then to find the metrics that best get them where they want to go.

Question for Minneapolis: How would your population density-based distribution requirement work?

This idea is still being explored in Minneapolis, but essentially it would be establishing a goal ratio of people per scooter, based on population and including commuters as well as students (where applicable) to try to include the groups using scooters regularly. That would then be used to establish some distribution minimums or maximums, to ensure broader distribution and availability. Minneapolis essentially allowed the market to determine distribution in 2018, and we are thinking about how we can make it more equitable and position it as an option for all in 2019 and beyond.

GENERAL

For cities that have conducted RFA/review processes for selecting operator companies, what criteria is used (metrics, performance measures, etc.) have been used to rank, evaluate, and determine which company is most competitive and also the best fit for both the city and the overall community?

Last summer, the San Francisco San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) created its Powered Scooter Share Permit and Pilot Program. Their application process invited proposals that prioritized the city’s concerns around safety, equity and accountability and they rated everything from public safety and user education to equitable access to collaborating with the city. You can find the details, applications and their public review on their website.

The RFA process for Santa Monica is documented on the pilot project Application & Selection Process website.

The enabling ordinance for the pilot project specified some of the selection process, including “Each qualified applicant shall be evaluated based upon objective criteria including: experience; proposed operations plan; financial wherewithal and stability; adequacy of insurance; ability to begin operations in a timely manner; public education strategies; relevant record of the applicant’s or officers’, owners’ or principals’ violations of Federal, State or local law, or rules and regulations; and any other objective criteria established by Administrative Regulation.”

Minneapolis : How is your ridership in winter versus summer?

Minneapolis didn’t get much snow or ice in November prior to the end of the pilot last year, however temperatures did drop in the last 3-4 weeks of the pilot, which caused a steady decline from roughly six trips per scooter per day to about three trips per scooter per day by the last week. At the peak in early summer, we were seeing about seven trips per scooter per day.

Is Santa Monica’s eScooter industry review publicly available? If so, could you share it?

All available program documents are posted here.

What is a typical day-in-the-life of your Code Enforcement Officer?

Code enforcement tasks are both in the field investigating issues and documenting conditions, as well as in the office responding to phone calls, e-mails, and submitted complaints. Time is split roughly 50/50 between field and office, inclusive of work entering reports and evidence into a document management system in the event that a complaint ends up in a hearing. Code staff investigate complaints in the field, and if confirmed will follow up with additional investigations which may lead to citations from violated municipal codes. Once a complaint is confirmed, code staff investigate the problem daily or even weekly until the problem is resolved.

—

Thanks again to our guests for their time. View the full Playbook at playbook.t4america.org