Cities Need To Rethink Micromobility To Ensure It Works For All

From e-scooters to bikesharing, micromobility solutions are being heralded as the future of transportation in cities around the world. Given that around 60 percent of all trips in the United States are five miles or less and that 46 percent of automobile trips are three miles or less, there is undeniable potential for smaller-than-car transportation to enable more convenient and more flexible local mobility while creating greener, more connected and less congested cities. McKinsey, for instance, estimates that by the micromobility market might reach $200 to $300 billion in the United States alone by 2030. 

Despite the excitement surrounding micromobility, however, a number of challenges exist that impede widespread adoption. The most discussed among these is the lack of supporting infrastructure that has led to concerns over safety and public frustration over dockless scooters deposited carelessly on streets, sidewalks and lawns. There are also some more basic issues around the profitability and longevity of major micromobility providers such as Bird, Spin, Lime and Jump given the low margin nature of their business models paired with high maintenance and repair costs. Considering the attention that groups—from industry groups to consulting firms to cities themselves—are directing toward addressing these particular obstacles, it is likely that more intelligent regulation and gradual industry maturation and consolidation will eventually mitigate the aforementioned issues. Once these problems are solved, however, municipal and industry leaders will face an even greater challenge: ensuring that micromobility deployments benefit all citizens, not just specific populations or districts.  

Indeed, micromobility in most cities is not very inclusive. Although polls show that ethnic minorities and lower income riders have a positive view of these services and rider surveys conducted by e-scooter companies like Lime suggest that ridership in some cities is fairly representative, city-sponsored studies from across the country reveal that the people who actually use micromobility solutions tend to be younger, upper income, single and male.

For example, a survey of thousands of Santa Monica and Los Angeles County residents revealed that 63 percent were between the ages of 18 and 34, 69 percent were male and more than half earned over $75,000 a year. Similarly, data from a Portland Bureau of Transportation survey of e-scooter riders suggests that riders are more likely to be young, male and single and that, while residents from predominantly black and underserved communities stated positive perceptions of e-scooters, far fewer have ever ridden one. Statistics from Washington D.C. echo these trends, suggesting that the adoption rate of Capital Bikeshare and dockless micromobility solutions among whites is over double that of blacks—45 to 22 percent. E-scooter injury data compiled by the Austin Public Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control further supports this characterization of micromobility users, demonstrating that nearly half of riders in e-scooter related injuries in Austin were between the ages of 18 and 29, 65 percent were white and 55 percent were male.

Unsurprisingly, this profile roughly aligns with the demographics of those who commute using good-old-fashioned mechanically-powered bicycles. According to Census Bureau data, bicycle commuters skew heavily young and heavily male, with a median income of $72,000. Although these characterizations are not necessarily universal or comprehensive, the bulk of the available information seems to reinforce the common stereotype of micromobility riders. 

Considering these data points, it is vital that municipal and industry leaders work to create micromobility infrastructure that fosters equity and inclusion. Such concerns are often at the forefront of mass transit debates, and it’s important we make them part of the micromobility conversation as well. To preempt these issues, some cities are mandating that micromobility providers deploy services to underserved communities and work with unbanked populations. While these measures are laudable, they are unlikely to be maximally effective unless we rethink the very definition of micromobility and upend some of the seemingly self-evident premises that have already been established. 

For instance, many discussions on micromobility assume that all such solutions are digitally-enabled and individually-scaled. Even the National League of Cities cites the ability to access micromobility services via a smartphone and their focus on individual users as key characteristics of micro modes of transportation. These assumptions are largely true of today’s micromobility solutions, but they can work to bias future investments and initiatives against the populations that are most in need of better mobility.

Case in point: although broadband access and smartphone usage has risen among underserved communities in the United States, Pew data reveals that nearly 30 percent of low income households still don’t own a smartphone and 44 percent don’t have broadband access. If future micromobility platforms assume all users have a smartphone and unlimited data, they will ostracize such communities.

Additionally, presuming that micromobility solutions must be designed for lightweight individual use will disproportionately benefit single men. Indeed, studies have shown that women make more stops on their commutes at schools, daycares and grocery stores. The micromobility solutions we know today are ill-equipped to handle children and grocery bags—and this is to say nothing of the many safety concerns that discourage women from riding e-scooters and bikes.

Many common micromobility vehicles—beyond being criticized by Americans with Disabilities Act advocates for blocking streets and sidewalks—also require a degree of physical dexterity that make them better suited for younger riders. Some of these shortcomings are due to micromobility companies attempting to make their products as small and lightweight as possible. Our urban mobility infrastructure, however, should not and cannot be just for the young, childless, single and male. 

To avoid these types of dangerous assumptions, transportation decision makers and influencers need to redefine micromobility entirely. A more encompassing understanding would include any smaller-than-car transportation solution designed for first mile, last mile and hyperlocal connectivity. This definition intentionally jettisons several assumptions.

First, it doesn’t assume that micromobility must always be digitally-enabled. The digitalization of infrastructure is imperative, but our transportation systems must work to align with the realities of citizens and evolve in lockstep with them.

Second, it doesn’t assume that micromobility must be for individual riders. Making micromobile transportation more family friendly will require vehicles that can accommodate small groups, not just a single rider.

Third, it doesn’t assume that micromobility vehicles will always be lighter than cars or have a lighter maximum weight capacity than cars. It simply assumes that micromobility solutions are smaller in size than cars. Abandoning the notion that micromobility needs to be individualized and hyper-lightweight encourages the inclusion of future technologies that bridge the gap between micromobility, micro-transit (which the Department of Transportation defines as “IT-enabled private multi-passenger transportation services” like vans or buses) and mass transit. Such technologies might include autonomous micro-vehicles with wheelbases the size of a Smart Fortwo that roam cities responding to predicted demand and serving as hailable transportation pads for small groups.

Fourth, this definition doesn’t assume that micromobility services always have to be shared use. As a growing number of people purchase their own e-scooters and e-bikes, cities and developers will have to contend with an increasing amount of privately owned micro-vehicles that will increase traffic and parking requirements. The growth of private micromobility seems inevitable, and cities will have to take this shift into account when considering how to achieve equitable and inclusive service distribution.

Finally, it distinguishes first mile, last mile and hyperlocal objectives to account for a more diverse set of use cases. Journeys that require first and last mile options are, by definition, multimodal, i.e. they involve multiple forms or modes of transportation. Multimodal trips are of particular importance for underserved households. The infrastructure needs of these users may vary greatly from those of riders who use e-scooters to go from place to place within a single neighborhood on the weekends, which is when most e-scooter rides occur according to National Association of City Transportation Officials data. Additionally, the transportation mode used on the first mile may not be the mode used on the last, and thus it’s important to consider how micromobility fits into each specific cities commute patterns and not assume that people’s journeys are symmetrical or homogenous. 

Another issue hindering inclusive micromobility is the tendency for cities to let technology drive infrastructure decisions rather than social and economic needs. Tremendous attention is paid to the requirements of specific micromobile technologies like e-scooters and e-bikes. How wide do dedicated lanes need to be? What types of docks are needed to accommodate them? What rules need to be implemented to ensure courteous behavior? These questions, while important, over-focus on the exigencies of particular technologies. The types of micro-vehicles saturating cities today may only be popular for a short period of time. It’s imperative that cities don’t lock themselves into a form of transportation that will be outmoded in a few years. Taking a systems-level approach is not only wiser from a long-term planning perspective, but it’s also more inclusive. Instead of deploying an e-scooter pilot because e-scooters are popular as many cities are doing, municipal leaders should first determine what the specific social and economic gaps in their cities and then identify how micromobility can address them. After this more strategic framework is complete, cities can choose (or develop) a specific technology or service to respond to fundamental needs, not just stated demands.

Lastly, to reach a broader, more inclusive rider base, micromobility service providers may have to rethink their business model for underserved areas. Companies like Bird and Lime already offer discounted rides to qualifying lower income users, but these measures alone are unlikely to dramatically impact access to mobility for underserved populations. Beyond these tactical discounts, cities and providers might have to fundamentally rethink the entire monetization strategy for shared micromobility services. In addition to discounting trips for specific populations, one alternative model might be to subsidize the cost of ridership in specific neighborhoods through on-vehicle advertising revenues. This could help local businesses drive awareness while encouraging riders from across a city to visit specific neighborhoods, importing economic value into target communities. This would help harness the power of mobility to connect different people across different places while creating a sustainable and scalable revenue stream for providers. This same model could also be applied to specific times or routes to further increase accessibility for specific populations and incentivize particular behaviors. Another avenue worth exploration is corporate sponsorships. Micromobility has the capacity to help employers ensure workers with transportation challenges make it to work consistently and on-time. This has material value for employers, who could sponsor micromobility access and offer it to employees as a benefit. These types of commuter benefit programs are commonplace and are frequently given out by companies whose employees depend heavily on mass transit. Any call for companies to modify their revenue model is likely to be met with healthy skepticism. The aforementioned ideas would have to be further vetted, but the takeaway is that there are creative models offering financial sustainability and foster equity transit that transit agencies and micromobility providers. 

Micromobility fills an important gap in the urban transportation tapestry and has tremendous potential to not only make city life more convenient but more equitable and inclusive as well. It’s incumbent upon civic and industry leaders to abandon the narrow, technology-driven understandings of micromobility and embrace a broader, humanity-first vision necessary to ensure that the micromobile future includes all and works for all.