Emerging Technology and
Mobility Options Operating
in City Right-of-Way
Response to Statement of Legislative
Intent 35-3-A-1-2019

June 2019

 CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE......................................................... 3
2.0 OVERVIEW........................................................ 4
2.1 Guiding Principles....................................... 4
2.2 What are “new mobility options” and
“emerging uses in the right-of-way”?.............. 4
3.0 SURVEY OF ANTICIPATED EMERGING
MOBILITY OPTIONS............................................... 5
3.1 From Bikes to Bots...................................... 5
3.2 Electric-Assist Bicycles............................... 7
3.2.1 E-Bike Class 1...................................... 7
3.2.2 E-Bike Class 2...................................... 8
3.2.3 E-Bike Class 3...................................... 8
3.3 Electric Tricycles......................................... 9
3.4 Electric Scooters....................................... 10
3.5 Electric Skateboards................................. 10
3.6 Electric Personal Assistive
Mobility Devices (EPAMDs).............................. 11
3.7 Personal Delivery Devices......................... 13
3.8 Automated Transit Pods1 and
Delivery Shuttles............................................. 13
4.0 COMPARABLE CITIES’ EFFORTS
ON EMERGING MOBILITY.................................... 16
4.1 State of the Practice.................................. 16
4.2 Noteworthy Emerging Mobility
Strategy Innovations........................................ 16
4.2.1 Clear Definitions of Emerging
Mobility Devices and Vehicles and
Overarching Guiding Principles................. 16
4.2.2 Dockless Vehicles: Prohibitions,
Pilot Programs, Data, and Usage Rules.... 17
4.2.3 Personal Delivery Devices................. 19
4.2.4 Other Devices..................................... 19

5.0 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 20
5.1 Strategy Considerations............................ 20
5.2 Community Input....................................... 20
5.3 Next Steps.................................................. 21
5.3.1 Overview............................................. 21
5.3.2 Planned Action................................... 23
5.3.3 Potential Next Steps.......................... 23
5.3.3.1 Pilot Programs........................... 23
5.3.3.2 Policy and Legal
Framework Upgrade............................. 24
5.3.3.3 Education and Enforcement...... 25
5.3.3.4 Data Collection and Analysis..... 25
5.3.3.5 Design Standards and
Right-of-Way Allocation........................ 25
APPENDIX A – SURVEY OF CITIES...................... 28
Washington State Cities.................................. 28
West Coast Cities............................................. 29
Other U.S. Cities.............................................. 36
International Cities.......................................... 39
APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF
COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUP............................... 41
What are the benefits and opportunities?....... 41
What are the challenges and drawbacks?...... 41
Where should these emerging technologies
operate?........................................................... 42
How should the City manage emerging
technologies in the right-of-way?................... 42
Attendees......................................................... 43

 

 1.0 PURPOSE

2. An evaluation of other cities’ efforts
to address these emerging private
transportation investments; and
3. A strategy to integrate these options
into the transportation network in a safe
and sustainable manner, including the
possibility of utilizing bike lanes for these
modes of transportation.

As part of the 2019 Budget development process,
the Seattle City Council adopted a statement
of legislative intent (SLI) that asked the Seattle
Department of Transportation (SDOT) to prepare
a report on emerging technology and mobility
options operating in City rights-of-way (ROW).
Specifically, the Statement of Legislative Intent
35-3-A-1-2019 requested a report to include:
1. A survey of anticipated new mobility
options like scooters, “transit pods,” and
other non-motorized vehicles, that may
be coming to Seattle in the next three to
five years;

Council requested that SDOT report to the
Sustainability and Transportation Committee
and the Central Staff Director by June 1, 2019.
This report is in response to the statement of
legislative intent.
 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   3

 2.0 OVERVIEW

In the past few years, an increasing number
of emerging mobility devices, services, and
technologies have been deployed and are using
the ROW—sidewalks, bike lanes, and street—and
more are on the horizon. While these devices
come in different forms, shapes, sizes, and
ownership—personal, shared, or commercial
fleet (not shared)—they share a common trait of
trying to meet (latent) demand for a quick and
cheap way to get around.
Here in Seattle, to be better prepared to capture
the potential benefits of the growing number of
“new mobility” options, SDOT produced the New
Mobility Playbook 1.0 in September 2017. While
the document does not explicitly define the types
of vehicles or devices, it does refer to already
allowed ride-share, car-share, and bike-share
platforms—sometimes referred to as “mobilityas-a-service” (MaaS) or “transportation-as-aservice” (TaaS). The document describes “new
mobility” as “new technologies and service
innovations … [that offer] more [transportation]
options and more convenience.”

to operate in the ROW, the City can use these
principles as a springboard to craft clearer, more
detailed definitions, policies, and regulations as
part of the evolving decision-making process.
Additionally, the City can make more informed
decisions whether and how to integrate (or not
integrate) these new mobility options into the
transportation system in a safe, equitable, and
sustainable manner.

2.2 WHAT ARE “NEW MOBILITY
OPTIONS” AND “EMERGING USES IN
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY”?
Broadly, “new mobility options” and “emerging
uses in the right-of-way” range from car-share
and ride-hailing services (like Lyft and Uber)
to on-demand micro-transit to bike share,
e-scooters, and other mobility devices like
delivery robots and autonomous vehicles.

2.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Personal vehicles that may carry one or two
passengers and run on charged batteries are
often referred to as “micro-mobility.” They
include e-bikes, e-scooters, e-skateboards, and
other relatively small and lightweight devices,
compared to a car.

As the City continues to consider allowing newer
mobility options—anticipated devices, vehicles,
and technologies in the next three to five years—

New mobility vehicles and devices offer mobility
solutions that can help move people and goods
and overcome “first-and-last mile” challenges.
“First-and-last mile” problems refer to both
movement of people and goods. For movement
of people, it often applies to getting to and from
transit stations, or the first-and-last shorter
segments of a much longer trip. From a logistics
perspective, the “first mile” refers to the
movement of goods from a reseller to a courier
service; and, the “last mile” refers to the final
segment of goods movement to the end user.
 

To guide emerging mobility innovations, the City
uses the following guiding principles:
•  Put People and Safety First
•  Design for Customer Dignity and Happiness
•  Advance Race and Social Justice
•  Forge a Clean Mobility Future
•  Keep an Even Playing Field
•  Maximize Public Benefit
•  Be Responsible Stewards of Public
Resources

4   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 3.0 SURVEY OF ANTICIPATED EMERGING
MOBILITY OPTIONS
Per the scope of Council’s request, for this report,
“new mobility options” and “emerging uses in the
right-of-way” refers to a subset of these terms
that is limited to:
•  Electric bicycles (e-bikes) and electric
tricycles (e-trikes)
•  Electric scooters (e-scooters)
•  Other emerging transportation options:
-  Electric skateboards (“boosted boards”)
-  Hoverboards, uni-wheels, and
onewheels
-  Personal delivery devices (PDD) or
delivery robots
-  Automated transit pods and goods
delivery shuttles
This report does not cover car-sharing, ridehailing, micro-transit, or aerial drones. Carsharing and ride-hailing already exist as services,
and the vehicles used in these services are
motorized. Micro-transit, defined as a phone
application-based transit service (not unlike
“dial-a-ride” transit service) is also motorized.
Aerial drones require airspace regulation, which
is beyond the scope of this report.

3.1 FROM BIKES TO BOTS

For clarity and simplicity, the terms “emerging
mobility” or “micro-mobility” may be used
interchangeably to broadly refer to various
emerging devices, vehicles, services, and
technologies—from bikes to delivery robots—that
are the main subjects of this report.
•  Of these devices and vehicles, the
electric-assist bicycle (e-bike), either
as part of a bike-share operation or as
a privately-owned mobility option, is the
most common. An electric-assist tricycle
(e-trike) can be used for delivery and
freight. Other versions can be used for

personal mobility. These include a fullyenclosed recumbent-style e-trike and
“adaptive cycles,” which is a type of e-trike
that can be more readily used by people
who cannot ride a traditional bicycle.
  Seattle currently permits a free-floating
bike-share program that provides residents
and visitors an affordable, healthy way to get
around the city. The initial pilot started in July
2017 and launched with three companies.
The pilot tested the then brand-new
technology of free-floating bike share – bikes
that could be located and rented using a cell
phone app and did not require traditional
docking stations. Through September 2018,
Seattle bike-share users took over 2 million
total rides. Given the success of the initial
pilot, another iteration of the bike-share
permit now allows up to 20,000 bikes.
  The initial pilot was not without its
challenges. Learnings from the pilot include
needed improvements in parking—how
and where to park bicycles and more
designated bike parking locations. Additional
learnings include the need for better bikeparking reporting and monitoring tools,
faster response to illegally parked bicycles,
increased access options for people with
lower incomes, and ongoing use of data
and community-generated information
for continuous improvement of the bikeshare program. Many of these issues were
addressed in the current permit and Seattle
partners closely with cities across the
country to share best practices and new
ideas to ensure that free-floating bike-share
remains a positive addition to the City’s suite
of transportation options.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   5

 • Shared electric scooters (e-scooters)
are increasingly more common, having
emerged in over 80 U.S. cities, and, in
early- and mid-2018, with little to no
regulation and causing a fair share of
disruption. Although Seattle has yet to
launch a shared e-scooter program,
privately-owned e-scooters are increasingly
being operated on Seattle’s sidewalks, bike
lanes, and streets.
  In 2019, the City announced plans to
develop a scooter share permit pilot
program based on four non-negotiable
principles: safety, fairness to riders,
protection of the City (and taxpayers)
through full indemnification, and equity.
Over the next few months, SDOT will
work with stakeholders and community
members (including modal advisory
boards, disability rights groups, transit
agencies, residents, and businesses) to
gather input that will be used to shape the
pilot. The pilot framework will address
hours of use, where scooters can be used,
parking, helmet requirements, fines and
enforcement, speed, data collection, and
evaluation of a minimum threshold of
bikes to remain as part of our bike share
program.
•  Other emerging mobility devices are also
becoming more common.
- Privately-owned electric skateboards
or “boosted boards” are increasingly
being used on City streets.
-  Electric personal assistive mobility
devices (EPAMDs), in this report,
include two-wheeled “hoverboards,”
electric unicycles or “uni-wheels,”
one-wheeled skateboards or
“onewheels.” Also defined as EPAMDs,
but not discussed in this report
because they are not new, are Segways
or power-assisted, self-balancing
wheelchairs.

6   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

-  Personal delivery devices (PDDs) or
delivery robots have also recently
started operating on sidewalks in a
few places across the country. These
are usually operated as commercial
fleet of devices.
  The Washington State Legislature
recently passed a law that allows
these PDDs to operate on sidewalks.
The devices may not weigh more than
120 pounds (lbs) or exceed a speed of
6 miles per hour (mph). Devices must
yield to pedestrians and bikes at all
times. Cities retain the authority to
permit and/or disallow the devices
from operating, if desired.
-  Transit pods (low-speed automated
shuttles) are another type of emerging
mobility device operating in the rightof-way, though at a limited scale. Lowspeed automated shuttles are currently
being tested as transit circulators and
for grocery delivery. These vehicles are
also typically operated as a commercial
fleet of vehicles.
The various emerging mobility devices are owned
and operated in different ways. This requires
different regulatory approaches to how these
devices are managed and regulated, including,
but not limited to, where in the right-of-way they
are allowed to operate, at what speed, and, where
and how they can be parked or stored.  
Table 1 on the next page compares ownership
models with the various types of devices.
Table 2, at the end of this section, summarizes
descriptions of the various devices covered in this
report.

 TABLE 1: DEVICE OWNERSHIP MODELS

Private/Personal

Shared

Commercial Fleet
(not shared)

E-bicycle







E-tricycle







E-scooter





E-skateboard



EPAMDs (hoverboards, uni-wheels,
and onewheels)



Device

Personal delivery device/ delivery robot



Automated transit pod



Before taking a closer look at the definitions of
the various emerging mobility devices, here is a
brief note about helmet laws, which vary from
place to place, as do levels of enforcement. At
the state level, there is no law that requires
helmet use when riding a bicycle. The Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 46.37.530, (1)(a)(iii),
reads “…Persons operating electric-assisted
bicycles and motorized foot scooters shall
comply with all laws and regulations related to
the use of bicycle helmets.”

3.2 ELECTRIC-ASSIST BICYCLES

In Seattle and the rest of King County, the law
requires bicyclists to wear helmets when riding
on public property. Given that rule, people riding
motorized scooters in Seattle are required to
wear a helmet per state code. These City helmet
rules also apply to people riding EPAMDs.

Description: A bicycle with an electric motor that
assists the rider pedaling. The rider must pedal to
activate the electric motor.

E-skateboards are not currently addressed in City
code. They are improbably categorized as regular
skateboards. No law requires use of helmets
when riding a skateboard.

Electric-assist bicycles, or e-bikes, are similar to
regular bicycles but have an integrated electric
motor to help riders pedal. In some versions, the
e-bike uses a handlebar throttle independent of
the rider pedaling to provide electric-assisted
propulsion. Per Washington State law, electric
bicycles are categorized into three different
classes. They are generally categorized by speed,
and thus, where they are allowed to be ridden.

3.2.1 E-Bike Class 1

Top Speed: 20 mph; bikes can travel faster than
that speed, but the electric motor does not
provide assistance past 20 mph.
Laws: Class 1 e-bikes are generally treated like
regular bikes; they can be ridden on sidewalks,
multi-use trails bike lanes, and roadways.

Helmet laws for the different types of devices
and their corresponding ownership is a complex
discussion. Resolving helmet regulations and
enforcement is beyond the scope of this report. A
more thorough deliberation, at a later time, will be
necessary to clarify and solidify the City’s position
on how helmet rules are applied and enforced.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   7

 3.2.2 E-Bike Class 2

Description: A bicycle with an electric motor
that can both assist the rider pedaling or provide
power independent of the rider pedaling through
a throttle mechanism.
Top Speed: 20 mph; bikes can travel faster than
that speed, but the electric motor does not
provide assistance past 20 mph.
Laws: Class 2 e-bikes are generally treated like
regular bikes; they can be ridden on sidewalks,
multi-use trails, bike lanes, and roadways.

3.2.3 E-Bike Class 3

Description: A bicycle with an electric motor that
assists the rider pedaling. The rider must pedal to
activate the electric motor.
Top Speed: 28 mph; bikes can travel faster than
that speed, but the electric motor does not
provide assistance past 28 mph.
Laws: Class 3 e-bikes are allowed in bike lanes
and roadways. They are not allowed on sidewalks
or multi-use trails.

FIGURE 1: E-BIKES CAN CARRY CARGO OR CHILDREN

Source: Outdoor Sportswire. (https://www.outdoorsportswire.com/electric-bike-company-rolls-back-tariffs/)

8   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 3.3 ELECTRIC TRICYCLES

Description: Companies are also developing
electric-assist tricycles. These three-wheeled
pedal-assist vehicles can offer more stability
than a traditional bicycle. They can be used to
deliver light packages (like a UPS delivery trike)
or as an “adaptive cycle” that offers an additional
mobility option to people living with disabilities or
others who are not comfortable on a traditional
bicycle. Enclosed recumbent-style (rider seated
in a traditional “chair” position) versions are also
steadily becoming more common.

FIGURE 3: ENCLOSED RECUMBENT-STYLE E-TRIKE IN VANCOUVER, BC

Top Speed: 20 mph; these devices can travel
faster than that speed, but the electric motor
does not provide assistance past 20 mph.
Laws: Per City and State codes, these devices
are considered adaptive cycles. They are treated
the same as e-bikes. While some e-trikes may
be classified as Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes, and
may be ridden on sidewalks, multi-use trails, bike
lanes, and roadways, e-trikes are used primarily
in bike lanes and roadways, given their size.
FIGURE 2: DELIVERY E-TRIKE IN SEATTLE

Image courtesy of UPS

Images courtesy of VeloMetro Mobility, Inc.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   9

 3.4 ELECTRIC SCOOTERS

Description: An electric motorized foot scooter
has, typically, two or three wheels and that has
handlebars. It has a floorboard that can to be
stood upon by the operator. It is powered by an
electric motor.
Top Speed: Per state law, scooters may be
operated at a maximum speed of 15 mph on
a roadway. Local jurisdictions may specify
maximum speed if allowed on the sidewalk.
Laws: Per City code, scooters may be operated on
roadways, shoulders, and alleys, but are prohibited
on sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and public paths.

3.5 ELECTRIC SKATEBOARDS

Description: A skateboard with an electricpowered motor and small, handheld, wireless
controller, often called a “boosted board.”
Top Speed: Some of these devices can reach 2025 mph on flat ground.
Laws: Electric-powered skateboards are not
addressed in City or State code and are therefore
treated as skateboards, which must be ridden on
sidewalks. Riding in the roadway or bike lanes is
not allowed.
FIGURE 5: AN ELECTRIC SKATEBOARD OR “BOOSTED BOARD”

FIGURE 4: AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER IN AUSTIN, TX

Source: Ivan Alvarado/Reuters

 

10   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/05/boosted-boardsdual-generation-2-review/  

 3.6 ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE
MOBILITY DEVICES (EPAMDS)

Description: Electric personal assistive mobility
devices (EPAMDs) are either two wheels side-byside or one-wheel self-balancing electric devices.
They include hoverboards, uni-wheels or electric
unicycles, and onewheels. These devices are
closely related to Segway vehicles.
Top Speed: 20 mph on a paved level surface.

Laws: Per City regulation, EPAMDs may be
ridden on roadways, shoulders, sidewalks, and
alleys. They are not allowed in bicycle lanes or
on public multi-use trails. Where an arterial
street contains a sidewalk, EPAMDs must be
operated only on the sidewalk and not up the
roadway or shoulder. These devices are not
allowed on roadways or shoulders where the
speed limit is more than 35 mph.

FIGURE 6: A HOVERBOARD IN BERKELEY, CA

Source: Jim Wilson/The New York Times

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   11

 FIGURE 7: UNI-WHEEL

Image courtesy of Segway
FIGURE 8: A ONEWHEEL IN SEATTLE

Source: SDOT

12   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 3.7 PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES

Description: “Cooler-sized” robots with a
delivery compartment used to deliver packages
to residences and businesses. These devices
navigate along the sidewalk and crosswalks and
are currently in testing in communities across the
US, including in Snohomish County.
For safety and security, the robots are outfitted
with nine cameras that are always recording and
two-way audio to communicate with people they
interact with.
Top Speed: 6 mph
Laws: The State recently passed House Bill 1325
that regulates personal delivery devices. State
law limits these devices to sidewalks, crosswalks,
and other pedestrian areas. It also limits the
devices to a maximum speed of 6 mph and a
weight limit of 120 pounds.
FIGURE 9: A DELIVERY ROBOT IN WASHINGTON, DC

3.8 AUTOMATED TRANSIT PODS1 AND
DELIVERY SHUTTLES

Description: Several companies are beginning to
partner with cities to use low-speed automated
shuttles as automated transit circulators or
delivery vehicles. These vehicles cannot travel
faster than 25 mph and may be smaller and
narrower than a traditional compact vehicle. As
transit circulators, these devices can operate
without a driver and carry up to 12 people. As
automated delivery vehicles, they can carry
and deliver a small payload—about four to six
grocery bags.
Top Speed: 25 mph
Laws: State laws for low-speed vehicles require
they travel in the roadway, and they are not allowed
on state highways or streets with speed limits
higher than 35 mph. Although some can physically
park perpendicular to the curb, they are only
allowed to do so when appropriately signed as
angled parking. Note, the vehicles shown here may
not meet the “low-speed vehicle” weight threshold
defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). The nontraditional design
of these vehicles (e.g., no steering wheel, no brake
pedal, and non-standard seating arrangements)
does not comply with current NHTSA rules, and
they would need an exemption or waiver to legally
operate in the right-of-way.

The automated “transit pods” and goods delivery shuttles
described in this document do not meet the definition of
neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) in Washington state
code due to their size. NEVs include electric golf carts and
similar vehicles and are currently human-operated, typically in
campus settings like universities and retirement communities.
Some pilots of automated NEVs have taken place (e.g., at
Santa Clara University in 2016), but most automated shuttle
pilots with transit or goods delivery use cases are using larger
vehicles that don’t qualify as NEVs (see Low-Speed Automated
Shuttles: State of the Practice for a summary of the over 250
domestic and international pilots that have made use of these
emerging vehicle models).
1

Image courtesy of Starship Technologies

 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   13

 FIGURE 10: A TRANSIT POD BEING TESTED IN DENVER

Connects commuter transit station and park-and-ride with nearby employment offices. Image courtesy of EasyMile
FIGURE 11: AN AUTOMATED DELIVERY VEHICLE BEING PILOTED IN SCOTTSDALE, AZ

Image courtesy of Nuro

14   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EMERGING MOBILITY DEVICES FOR THIS REPORT

E-bike,
Class 1

A bicycle with an electric motor
that assists the rider pedaling.
The rider must pedal to activate
the electric motor.

20 mph

A bicycle with an electric
motor that can both assist
the rider pedaling or provide
power independent of the rider
pedaling through a throttle
mechanism.

20 mph

E-bike,
Class 3

A bicycle with an electric motor
that assists the rider pedaling.
The rider must pedal to activate
the electric motor.

28 mph

E-trike

Three-wheeled pedal-assist
vehicles.

20 mph

E-scooter

An electric motorized foot
scooter that is designed to be
stood upon and generally has
10-inch or smaller wheels.

20 mph

A skateboard with an electricpowered motor and small,
handheld, wireless controller,
often called a “boosted board.”

20 mph

Electric Personal
Assistive Mobility
Device (EPAMD)

Devices with either two wheels
side-by-side or one-wheel
self-balancing electric devices;
include hoverboards, uniwheels or electric unicycles,
and onewheels.

20-25 mph

Personal Delivery
Device (PDD) or
Delivery Robot

“Cooler-sized” robots with a
delivery compartment used to
deliver packages to residences
and businesses.

6 mph

Automated
Transit Pod

Low-speed automated shuttles 25 mph
as automated transit circulators
or delivery vehicles.

E-bike,
Class 2

E-skateboard















Multi-Use
Trail

Top Speed

Roadway

Description

Bike Lane

Device

Sidewalk

Allowed



Generally treated like
regular bikes. Can travel
faster than 20 mph, but
the electric motor does not
provide assistance past
20 mph.



Generally treated like
regular bikes. Can travel
faster than 20 mph, but
the electric motor does not
provide assistance past
20 mph.



Same as e-bikes classes
under state and local code



Comments

Can travel faster than 28
mph, but the electric motor
does not provide assistance
past 28 mph.
Can travel faster than 20
mph, but the electric motor
does not provide assistance
past 20 mph.
Also allowed on shoulders
and alleys.



Electric-powered
skateboards are not
addressed in City or State
code; treated as a regular
skateboard.



Also allowed on shoulders
and alleys. Where an
arterial street contains a
sidewalk, EPAMDs must
be operated only on the
sidewalk.



Robots have multiple
cameras that are always
recording and two-way
audio communication
capability.





Not allowed on streets with
speed limits higher than
35 mph.

 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   15

 4.0 COMPARABLE CITIES’ EFFORTS ON
EMERGING MOBILITY
4.1 STATE OF THE PRACTICE

Along with potential benefits and opportunities,
emerging mobility devices also present potential
constraints and conflicts. Collectively, these will
force cities, including Seattle, to more holistically
consider allocation of the right-of-way to address
emerging mobility options.
Cities nationwide have begun to address
emerging mobility devices and technologies
primarily through three channels (not necessarily
in this order and sometimes iteratively):
•  Determine if, where, and how the devices
should be ridden and parked
•  Make necessary updates to City or State
code to reflect these new devices
•  Develop pilot programs to test and better
understand the mobility implications of
these emerging mobility options
No one city has fully figured out how to
comprehensively address emerging mobility.
Hence, for many cities, figuring out the right set
of rules has been through experimentation—
using pilots and demonstration projects—and
sharing experiences with other cities to find the
best set of rules specific to their city.
For this report, we reviewed the emerging
mobility policies and practices of over 20 notable
comparable cities in the United States and a few
international cities. Most of the current literature
and legislation focuses on shared mobility (e.g.,
shared bikes and e-scooters). Increasingly,
though, other commercial mobility platforms
are undergoing pilots, especially for goods
movement and delivery. Regulations over use and
management are still somewhat limited; however,
these devices demand space in the right-of-way
and require appropriate regulation.
16   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Emerging mobility devices, from bikes to robots,
present a complex set of considerations for
how to manage the right-of-way. The following
is a summary of noteworthy emerging mobility
innovations in different cities. Highlighted are
the insights or main learnings from these cities,
organized from general emerging mobility
strategies to specific devices or vehicle type. A
more detailed city-by-city evaluation can be found
in Appendix A.
 

4.2 NOTEWORTHY EMERGING
MOBILITY STRATEGY INNOVATIONS
4.2.1 Clear Definitions of Emerging
Mobility Devices and Vehicles and
Overarching Guiding Principles

Few jurisdictions have dedicated emerging mobility
programs. Leading among them is the San
Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)
in partnership with the City of San Francisco.
•  Dedicated program – The SFCTA has a
dedicated emerging mobility program that
has produced clear definitions of emerging
mobility devices, services, and technology.
•  Set of guiding principles – They also adopted
a set of clear guiding principles that serve as
framework for evaluating emerging mobility
services and technology. It helps with
identifying ways to meet city goals, shape
future studies, policies, and programs. The
ten guiding principles address:
  1. Collaboration
  2. Safety
  3. Transit
  4. Congestion
  5. Sustainability
  6.  Equitable Access
  7. Accountability
  8. Labor
  9.  Disabled Access
 10.  Financial Impact

 Because these principles encompass all emerging
mobility options (including transportation network
companies and automated vehicles), individual
principles may not apply to all types of devices,
services, and technology. Collectively, they provide
a framework for achieving success in working with
commercial service providers of these emerging
mobility services.

4.2.2 Dockless Vehicles: Prohibitions,
Pilot Programs, Data, and Usage
Rules

•  Prohibitions – New York City does not
allow the use of e-scooters on its streets
or sidewalks. London also does not allow
e-scooters on public streets or sidewalks or
other public spaces like parks, plazas, and
multi-use paths.
•  Pilot programs for continuous improvement
of policy and regulation – Like Seattle’s
approach to piloting bike share, many cities
have employed pilot programs to test shared
fleets of e-bikes and e-scooters. Pilots are
specifically used to test regulations and
approaches to integrating transportation
services. Findings from pilots are then
used to inform the creation of policy and
regulations.
•  Data gathering and community engagement
to gain deeper insights and understanding
of issues and opportunities – Baltimore,
Portland (OR), and Austin have completed
the most thorough and thoughtful pilots
with lessons for Seattle. The e-scooter
pilot program reports from Baltimore and
Portland include excellent approaches to
community engagement and data-gathering.
In addition to data gathered by contracted
companies, Baltimore and Portland
conducted community and user surveys,
held focus groups, and hosted meetings for
community feedback.

  In focus groups, Portlanders expressed
enthusiasm about e-scooters and concerns
about racial profiling in policing. Most
community concerns about e-scooters were
about inappropriate sidewalk use.
  Austin created rules for micro-mobility
companies that give the City’s department
of transportation access to data, similar to
the mobility data specifications that Seattle
employs for bike share. Austin is able to
share the data publicly, including maps and
a dashboard of micro-mobility use. Austin
also addresses user privacy in its rules
for micro-mobility companies, including
a prohibition on selling user data to third
parties. Finally, Baltimore and Austin have
transparent procedures for integrating
some emerging mobility devices into their
existing transportation system and the
existing right-of-way.
•  Outlining future work plan or next steps
for creating policies and regulations –
Baltimore created the Dockless Vehicle
Committee, comprised of City staff from
departments of transportation, police,
law, sustainability; a councilmember;
a mayor’s office representative; and
representatives from several interest
groups, including the bicycling advisory
committee, the downtown partnership, and
waterfront partnership. The City assigned
the committee a work plan to begin taking
steps to address issues and craft policies
for dockless vehicles in the city. Similarly,
Austin outlined in a memo to the mayor and
city council their steps for creating rules
surrounding e-scooter usage, including
resident input.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   17

 •  Controlling where and how bikes and
scooters can operate – Most cities
reviewed in the survey only allow shared
e-bikes or e-scooters in bike lanes, with
some variations and exceptions. Some
cities, like San Diego and Washington,
DC, restrict usage in certain districts or
automatically slow down devices to 2 mph
and alert riders in “no ride zones,” either
through the phone app or a signal device on
the e-scooter.
  In January 2019, Denver changed their
rules for where e-scooters may operate.
The new regulations state e-scooters
should operate primarily in bike lanes.
Where there is no bike lane, e-scooters
may operate on the far right side of the
road, but only if the speed limit of that road
is no more than 30 miles per hour. Denver
worked with operators to ensure that the
new rules are reflected in communications
and guidance to users within the city.
•  Managing parking clutter – Austin and
Santa Monica have installed marked
parking “drop zones.” They include
designated parking areas on the sidewalk
and in-street parking corrals. Some
companies have placed sensors—from GPS
to cameras, or both—in their devices to
help users park in proper locations. Some
companies have also required users to take
a picture of how they parked the device in
order for the company to track patterns of
good and bad parking behavior.

•  E-trike pilots and limited testing approach
– Beyond bicycles and scooters, electric
tricycles are also increasingly using the
right-of-way. In Vancouver, BC, shared
enclosed electric-assist tricycles are being
piloted at the University of British Columbia
campus. In Seattle, UPS is piloting an
electric pedal-assist cargo tricycle for
deliveries in areas where it’s difficult for
trucks to access or find parking. E-trikes
are classified like e-bikes, thus are allowed
to operate where the different classes of
e-bikes are allowed to operate. But given
that they are substantially bigger than a
typical e-bike, e-trikes operate primarily in
a bike lane or in a vehicle lane.
•  Enforcement – Like bike helmet laws in
Washington State, regulations that apply
to micro-mobility devices vary from place
to place and are enforced unevenly. In
Portland, the new set of rules for their
second e-scooter pilot enable the City to fine
violators $50 for riding on the sidewalk and
$15 for parking illegally. In Paris, the City
imposes a €135 (about $151) fine for riding
on the sidewalk and a €35 (about $39) for
blocking the sidewalk with a parked scooter.
  In Santa Monica, police have strongly
enforced right-of-way laws. On a popular
beach bike path, but prohibited for
e-scooters, police have regularly stopped
violators and gave them a choice: give up the
scooter or get a ticket. In one week in 2018,
police stopped 196 people riding scooters
and issue 92 tickets for various violations.
  Where e-scooters have seemingly invaded
cities overnight—from San Francisco to
Denver to Paris to Santa Monica, among
many others—the cities’ enforcement
departments have removed and impounded
illegally parked e-scooters blocking
sidewalks, ramps, building entrances, and
bus stops.

18   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 4.2.3 Personal Delivery Devices

•  Setting preliminary usage
regulations – Though not as prevalent as
e-bikes or e-scooters, personal delivery
devices (PDDs) are appearing in more
state and city codes. Currently, Virginia,
Idaho, Wisconsin, Arizona and Ohio have
regulations defining and setting preliminary
usage restrictions for PDDs. Washington,
DC, code Chapter 15C includes a definition
of a PDD and establishes regulations
for operations (limited to sidewalks
and crosswalks connecting sidewalks),
licensing, and running a pilot program.
The operation restrictions notably regulate
speeds, maximum weight limits, and
braking technology.
•  Embrace the technology approach – The
largest delivery robot pilot is currently
underway in Milton Keynes, England, a
city of about 250,000 people just outside
London. Starship Technologies started
testing hundreds of delivery robots in the
city in late 2018 in the first full-scale use of
the technology. Findings from this pilot are
expected in 2020.

4.2.4 Other Devices

•  Tailor regulations to ensure pedestrian
safety – Electric-powered skateboards and
other privately-owned electric personal
assistive mobility devices (EPAMDs), like
hoverboards, electric uni-wheels, and
onewheels, are also increasingly becoming
a popular form of personal mobility. These
devices can reach speeds up to 20 mph,
and users ride them on the sidewalk, in
bike lanes, and in the street, depending
on their speed of travel and the available
infrastructure. They may cause conflicts on
sidewalks when ridden above 3 mph.

  Rules for these devices vary from city to
city. Some cities ban them altogether,
some prohibit them from specific high
pedestrian-traffic business districts, and
others allow them on sidewalks so long as
they yield to pedestrians.
•  Very limited pilots – Other emerging
transportation technologies are automated
“transit pods” and goods delivery shuttles.
The City and County of Denver is testing this
technology in partnership with the Regional
Transit District. The pilot project, called
61AV, is currently underway and allows an
automated “transit pod” to circulate on a
fixed route to connect a commuter transit
station to nearby employment offices.
  In Scottsdale, AZ, the City allowed a pilot
using an automated delivery vehicle larger
than a personal delivery device. Robotics
company Nuro and Fry’s Food grocery
stores (owned by Kroger) partnered to test
self-driving delivery vehicles to deliver
groceries. The pilot was limited to one zip
code in the city and Kroger ended the pilot
in mid-March 2019. Findings from the pilot
are not yet published, and a release date
has not yet been announced.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   19

 5.0 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS

It is critical for cities to fully define emerging
mobility devices and technologies to eliminate
confusion in regulation and use of the devices.
For example, until January 2019, a state law
in Colorado classified electric scooters as
“toys,” which allowed them to be used only on
sidewalks. In the United Kingdom, legislators
are considering revising the Highway Code to
allow testing and use of electric scooters. These
examples result from having vague or nonexistent
definitions of new micro-mobility technology.
Seattle currently has definitions for e-bikes and
could benefit from an upgraded set of definitions
for the other emerging mobility devices. We
could apply a similar tiered system based on the
electric assistance power, top speeds, size, and
general application, which would distinguish
them from motorcycles, non-powered bicycles,
and non-powered scooters.
With clarity in definitions of what these emerging
mobility devices are, the City must next define
where these devices can be used and parked.
Many cities and states do not explicitly mention
e-bikes, e-scooters, EPAMDs, and other emerging
mobility devices in regulatory ordinances
concerning sidewalks, bike lanes, and streets.
By their nature, many of these “dockless” devices
are parked on or near sidewalks after users
complete their trips. This can present safety and
accessibility issues, as those who are elderly or
mobility impaired may have their paths blocked
by improperly parked devices. Various cities and
states regulate the distance from the curb to the
edge of the pedestrian clear zone where these
devices can be parked, with some providers asking
users to submit photos of correctly parked devices.
20   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

As the City considers regulating use of these
emerging mobility devices in the right-of-way,
we need to holistically consider the allocation
and management of the right-of-way and how to
manage commercial operations of these devices.
In contrast to many other cities, Seattle’s ROW
is relatively narrow, with much competition for
limited space—in the travelway, flex zone, and
pedestrian zone. The City’s Comprehensive Plan,
“Seattle 2035,” defines six essential functions for
the ROW:
1. Mobility
2.  Access for People
3.  Access for Commerce
4. Activation
5. Greening
6. Storage
Within the mobility function, however, formal
guidance is lacking on how to prioritize amongst
traditional modes of autos, transit, pedestrians,
bicycles and freight; emerging mobility modes
further necessitate the need for this exercise.
 

5.2 COMMUNITY INPUT

As part of our efforts to investigate potential next
steps to address emerging mobility options, we
not only investigated best practices from other
cities, we listened to transportation stakeholders
here in Seattle. In March 2019, SDOT convened a
focus group to listen to representatives from the
Bike Advisory Board, Pedestrian Advisory Board,
Transit Advisory Board, Commission for People
with disAbilities, Disability Rights Washington,
National Federation of the Blind, Seattle
Neighborhood Greenways, and Washington Bikes.
(Invitations to participate were sent to the Freight
Advisory Board and the Planning Commission, but
they were not able to send any representatives.)

 4.  How should the City manage emerging
technologies in the right-of-way?
 
  The focus group generally agreed that the
City’s highest priority should be safety for
all users, and the City can only do that
by allocating right-of-way for all users to
have enough room to be safe. This is the
opportunity for the City to rethink the rightof-way to accommodate movement for all
users while also ensure enough space for
access, sidewalk cafés, goods delivery,
utilities, etc. The City can do this with a
focus on equity, including, among other
actions, emphasizing that the right-of-way
is for everyone. The City would also need
to ensure better parking requirements,
employ curb-space management, follow
best practices from other cities, and
use data to learn and help continuously
improve these new mobility services.

The focus group addressed four main questions:
1.  What are the benefits and opportunities?
 
  The responses addressed potential for
helping reduce pollution; potential to
increase overall safety by reducing car
use; potential to increase equity, more
travel options for all ages; potential for
improved access to transit; and potential
for opportunity to rethink allocation of the
City’s right-of-way for safer movement and
staying (non-movement) activities.
2.  What are the challenges and drawbacks?
 
  The focus group noted issues primarily
about limited space for all of these new
devices. The group had deep concerns
about safety, speed, and likely conflicts on
the sidewalks with pedestrians and people
with disabilities. And of course, parking—
illegally parked devices that block the
pedestrian zone and create clutter in the
public realm.
3.  Where should these emerging
technologies operate?
 

The response ranged from “absolutely
not on sidewalks” to “allow on sidewalks,
maybe, in some cases” to “only in bike
lanes” to “regulate by speed”—devices at
slower speeds (about 3 mph) may operate
on sidewalks, faster devices should be
in the bike lane. The group, however,
generally agreed that these devices
and pedestrians have limited space to
work within the existing right-of-way.
Considering micro-mobility and where they
should operate presents an opportunity
to rethink, reallocate, and modify the
right-of-way to have dedicated space for
these devices—create a “low-intensity
travel lane” or multi-modal “go” lanes to
accommodate bikes and a select set of
these micro-mobility devices.

 
 

See Appendix B for a more complete
summary of the focus group meeting.

5.3 NEXT STEPS
5.3.1 Overview

Emerging mobility devices and technologies
hold the potential to help us manage congestion,
reduce carbon emissions, provide affordable
mobility options, and achieve equitable outcomes.
To realize the potential benefits of emerging
mobility devices and minimize negative impacts,
however, we must consider right-of-way
management more holistically—from allocation of
ROW, to curb and sidewalk management, to street
design and enforcement—not only for mobility but
also in consideration of other essential functions
in the right-of-way.
The roadmap outlined in this report to address
emerging mobility needs encompasses both a
significant planned action (shared e-scooter pilot
program) and series of potential actions that
have yet to be resourced. The range of activities
could include experimentation through pilot
programs; policy and legal framework upgrades;

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   21

 education and enforcement; data collection and
analysis; and updates to design standards and
consideration of right-of-way allocation.
In doing so, we can better meet user needs by
defining expectations for where and how these
devices operate on our sidewalks, bike lanes and

streets, and how we will collaborate with service
providers to ensure success in deployment and
integration into Seattle’s transportation system.
Table 3 summarizes the set of potential next steps.

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
Category

General Findings

Potential Next Steps

Pilot Programs

Pilot programs allow the City to gather data
and evaluate the benefits, opportunities, and
challenges of any new product or service. They
give the City time to test and iterate appropriate
regulations, educational efforts, and fees. Pilot
programs also send a clear signal to the market
that we are open to embracing these new
technologies, so long as these emerging mobility
services and technologies comply with the City’s
multi-pronged transportation goals regarding, but
not limited to, safety, equity, and sustainability.

•  Prioritize equity within pilot program framework
and establish appropriate indemnification
requirements.
•  Carry out partnerships and collaborate with
commercial business operations.
•  Conduct pilot programs to test emerging
mobility options before launching any largescale permit program.
-- Develop a shared e-scooter pilot program
(underway).

Policy and Legal
Framework
Upgrade

The City’s policies and legal framework do not
clearly address newer emerging mobility devices.
A deeper dive review of the Seattle Municipal Code,
SDOT policies, and state laws, can help to clarify
which regulations need to be upgraded.

•  Prioritize equitable outcomes and fairness
within policy and legal framework.
•  Review and upgrade regulations.
•  Refresh City’s existing principles.
•  Clearly define where emerging devices can
operate and legally park.
•  Revisit modal priority to inform regulations.

Education and
Enforcement

Education and enforcement efforts are important
and essential to safe operation of any device. Clear
guidance on regulations and operations that can
be easily communicated are key to a successful
campaign.

•  Prioritize proper training for law enforcement
related to emerging mobility; ensure equity in
enforcement.
•  Introduce clearer wayfinding and signage
(including digital information).
•  Increase training and education of authorities
on the street to help users of emerging mobility
better understand the evolving rules and
regulations.

Data Collection
and Analysis

Data is paramount to measuring and
understanding how, when, where, and for what
kind of trips people are using different types of
emerging mobility devices.

•  Collaborate with commercial service providers
to gather data and gain insights from that data.
Use data to better understand deployment
needs and modify regulations and perhaps even
ROW design accordingly.
•  Use existing City protocols to gather data about
privately-owned devices.

Design Standards
and Right-of-Way
Allocation

Micro-mobility devices and technologies are
•  Consider designation of low-intensity travel
currently operated and allowed throughout the city.
lanes in strategic locations.
It is not completely clear, however, where newer
•  Integrate emerging mobility devices into street
devices like e-scooters, EPAMDs, and personal
design guidelines
delivery robots are allowed. How the City chooses
•  Manage the sidewalk
to accommodate where and how emerging
-- Allow limited use of select devices on
mobility—existing and future devices—should be
sidewalks.
used has implications for the design and allocation
-- Provide marked parking spaces or zones.
of right-of-way.

 
22   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 5.3.2 Planned Action

Over the next few months, SDOT will work
with stakeholders and community members
(including modal advisory boards, disability
rights groups, transit agencies, residents, and
businesses) to gather input that will be used to
shape an e-scooter the pilot. The pilot framework
will address hours of use, where scooters can
be used, parking, helmet requirements, fines
and enforcement, speed, data collection, and
evaluation of a minimum threshold of bikes to
remain as part of our bike share program. Four
non-negotiable principles will ground the pilot:
safety, fairness to riders, protection of the City (and
taxpayers) through full indemnification, and equity.

5.3.3 Potential Next Steps

Beyond the e-scooter pilot, SDOT is not currently
resourced or programmed for additional next
steps. If, however, the City is to move ahead with
allowing other emerging mobility devices, services,
and technologies to operate in the right-of-way,
based on the best practices survey and community
focus group, potential next steps include:
•  Pilot Programs
•  Policy and Legal Framework Upgrade
•  Education and Enforcement
•  Data Collection and Analysis
•  Design Standards and Right-of-Way
Allocation
These potential next steps can help shape a
well-aligned yet dynamic strategy for addressing
emerging mobility in Seattle. Not unlike in other
cities, the process to get to a more solidified
strategy requires flexibility and willingness for
continuous improvement in policy and regulation
of emerging mobility.

5.3.3.1 Pilot Programs
Pilot programs allow the City to gather data
and evaluate the benefits, opportunities, and
challenges of any new product or service. They
give the City time to test and iterate appropriate
regulations, educational efforts, and fees. Pilot
programs also send a clear signal to the market
that we are open to embracing these new
technologies, so long as these emerging mobility
services and technologies comply with the City’s
multi-pronged transportation goals regarding, but
not limited to, safety, equity, and sustainability.
•  Partnerships and Collaboration with
Commercial Business Operations –
Working with emerging mobility providers
is not only a good idea in this constantly
evolving industry, it’s a necessity. Emerging
mobility services and technologies
operating commercially in the City
(e.g., shared mobility, delivery, etc.) are
anticipated to continue growing and
evolving for the foreseeable future. The
City, using guiding principles, can and
should work with businesses to shape and
achieve successful deployment of emerging
mobility services and technologies so they
meet our goals for equity, affordability,
and sustainability. Setting proper
expectations and communicating them to
the market can better prepare both the
City and micro-mobility enterprises to
meet common goals and achieve success.
This includes protection of the City—its
taxpayers—through crafting appropriate
indemnification requirements in any pilot
or permitted use of emerging mobility
in the ROW. Ultimately, if done properly,
Seattleites would be, and should be, the
main beneficiaries of the deployment
of emerging mobility services and
technologies.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   23

 •  Pilot Program Design – Pilot programs
are an effective means of testing emerging
mobility options and should be enacted
before launching any large-scale permit
program. They provide a means to establish
a dialogue with potential vendors who want
to commercially operate in the City before
devices proliferate.
  Based on the results and experiences of
Seattle’s bike share pilot, other cities’ pilot
programs, guidelines from the National
Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO), and Transportation for America,
any pilot we carry out should include
requirements and protocols for:
-  Safety and Alignment with Vision Zero
-  Equity and Equitable Access
-  Communication and Stakeholder
Engagement
- Parking
-  Data-sharing, Security, and Privacy
-  Fees and Revenues
-  Collaboration with Service Providers
-  Congestion Impacts
- Sustainability
- Labor
  SDOT will develop a permit pilot program
for shared e-scooter over the next several
months. The permit pilot will follow the
above recommended requirements and
protocols, and pay special attention to
crafting insurance and indemnification
requirements that meets the City’s needs.
This may entail, but is not limited to,
reviewing in more detail the insurance
and indemnification requirements of
comparable cities (i.e., San Francisco,
Oakland, Los Angeles, and Portland) and
coordinating with the City’s legal counsel
to determine the appropriate level of
indemnification.
•  Use Technology and Digital Infrastructure
to Regulate Speed Based on Location –
Technology and digital infrastructure exist
24   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

that can regulate speeds by location for
many shared and commercially operated
devices. The best example of this is
geofencing, which uses the GPS systems
installed in the emerging mobility devices
to regulate their speeds depending on
location. For example, an electric scooter’s
top speed can be limited in areas without
bike lanes or in high traffic areas. By
limiting services and speeds by region,
dockless devices can be managed to help
prevent injuries. There are proposals
for geofencing in several jurisdictions,
including San Diego and San Jose.
5.3.3.2 Policy and Legal Framework Upgrade
•  Review and upgrade regulations – Data
collection findings can aid in policy
development to regulate where new
emerging mobility devices can operate and
be stored. This includes revisiting existing
Seattle Municipal Code and SDOT policies
and potentially developing new legislation,
possibly at the state level.
•  Refresh City’s existing principles – The
City’s existing New Mobility Playbook 1.0
(2017) has a good set of base principles.
Since 2017, emerging micro-mobility
devices, mostly e-scooters and EPAMDs
but increasingly delivery robots, are having
or will have more and more impact on
sidewalks, bike lanes, and streets than was
envisioned in the Playbook.
•  Operation and parking – Clearly define
where emerging mobility devices are
allowed to operate and where they are
allowed to park.
•  Revisit modal priority to inform
regulations – Consider allowing emerging
mobility devices to operate in existing
bike lanes if they are traveling faster than
what would be safe on the sidewalk or
walking speed, around 3 mph. Evaluate the
effectiveness of basing modal priorities on
prevailing safe speeds for sidewalks, bike
lanes, and streets.

 5.3.3.3 Education and Enforcement
Education and enforcement efforts are important
to the focus group attendees and are essential
to safe operation of any device. Clear guidance
on regulations and operations that can be
easily communicated are key to a successful
campaign. Questions include “how will the
rules be communicated?” and “who will enforce
the rules?” and “how will they enforce them?”
Education opportunities include:
•  Wayfinding and signage
-  Clear information and signage of what
devices may operate in the right-of-way
>  Physical signage in the ROW
>  Digital information through
streaming, real-time data
-  Adapt multi-use “trail courtesy” yield
signage for urban sidewalk context
FIGURE 12: A TRAIL COURTESY SIGN COMMONLY DISPLAYED ON
MULTI-USE TRAILS

•  Training and education of authorities on
the street
-  Seattle Police Department
-  Street Ambassadors
-  Other partner agencies or
organizations

5.3.3.4 Data Collection and Analysis
•  Data collection – Data collection is key
to understanding how emerging mobility
devices are currently being used around
the city, and allow the City to establish
baseline usage and inform future policy
decisions. SDOT recommends enacting a
comprehensive data-collection strategy
measuring how, when, where, and for what
kind of trips people are using different types
of devices. Require data as part of the pilot
-  Commercial services – Collaborate
with service providers to gain insights
from the data that they collect. Use
data from service providers to better
understand deployment needs and
modified regulations for specific
service areas or districts, ranging
from restrictions of use or additional
service requirements.
-  Private-vehicles – Use existing data
collection protocols the City uses, e.g.,
camera studies or public life surveys.
5.3.3.5 Design Standards and Right-of-Way
Allocation
Micro-mobility devices and technologies are
currently operated and allowed throughout the
city. These include shared bikes and e-bikes. They
also include privately-owned devices comprised
of e-scooters, e-skateboards, hoverboards, uniwheels, and other EPAMDs that are also using the
right-of-way. The following set of next steps can
help clarify implications for the right-of-way, and
where and how these devices, including newer
devices in the coming years, should be used.
•  Consider designation of low-intensity
travel lanes in strategic locations –
Repurpose a flex-lane or vehicle travel
lane (or a portion of it) into a “low-intensity
travel” lane or multi-purpose, micromobility lane. This could give more room for
a variety of devices, from bikes to robots,
with little to no impact (if in the street) on
the pedestrian clear zone.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   25

 •  Integrate emerging mobility devices into
street design guidelines – Evaluate design
implications and update SDOT’s streets
design guidelines (Streets Illustrated) as
appropriate, to acknowledge these emerging
mobility devices and how they may affect the
design of future sidewalks or bike lanes.
•  Manage the sidewalk – Allow limited use
on sidewalks of select devices.
-  Regulating sidewalks to disallow
bicycles, scooters, and other emerging
mobility devices would be favored by
some segments of the population.
Pedestrian-priority advocates
argue that sidewalks should only
be for people walking and for those
with disabilities. Disallowing these
devices on sidewalks could increase
pedestrian comfort and reduce these
perceived risks.
-  However, forcing these devices to
operate only in the bike lane or roadway
does carry some concerns, including:
>  Introducing a different set of
conflicts between these devices,
bicycles, and much heavier and
faster motor vehicles. This would
not only potentially reduce the use
of these devices but also increase
the chances of death and serious
injury for vulnerable users.
>  Increasing existing inequity in our
transportation system. Currently,
many neighborhoods with a
higher proportion of low-income
communities and communities
of color lack bicycle lanes. In
these areas, riders would thus
be required to operate in the
roadway—in the same space with
cars, trucks, and buses. This
could inadvertently make using
these devices illegal in these
neighborhoods: riders will
most likely choose to ride on
the sidewalk, where it feels safer
to ride.
26   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

>  Nationwide studies show that
traffic laws are inequitably
enforced against people of color.
Additional laws and restrictions
regulating where these devices
can be ridden increase the
likelihood of police interactions
with people of color and the
potential for negative outcomes.
•  Provide marked parking space or zones
-  Repurpose car parking spaces,
especially those close to intersections,
into parking for bikes, scooters, and
other emerging mobility devices, and/
or load zones for delivery devices while
enabling pedestrians to be seen. When
located close to an intersection, the
corrals do not remove legal car parking
and also increase pedestrian safety
by expanding pedestrian visibility and
shortening crossing distances. As part
of the bike share program, Seattle is
dramatically increasing the number of
bike corrals citywide and is pioneering
a new design that includes more space
for free-floating bikes, cargo bikes,
family bikes, and other emerging
mobility devices.
-  Provide marked parking spaces in
the furnishing zone of the sidewalk.
For example, Seattle piloted marked
areas for bicycle parking in 2018 and is
including larger open space in all new
bike corrals to accommodate shared
mobility options.

 FIGURE 13: A BIKE-PARKING BOX PAINTED ON THE SIDEWALK IN SEATTLE.

Source: SDOT

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   27

 APPENDIX A – SURVEY OF CITIES
Similar to what Seattle has done with its bikeshare pilot program, most cities also have
conducted or are conducting pilots for various
emerging transportation technologies, from
shared mobility to personal delivery robots.
Regulation of private and personal mobility
devices, however, have been somewhat limited to
existing rules and regulations for similar devices,
like Segways and skateboards. For Seattle,
clearer regulation of these personal mobility
devices would enable better management of the
right-of-way, and overall, a safer experience for
all using the sidewalk, bike lane, or street.
This section summarizes the findings from the
survey of notable comparable cities and how
they are addressing emerging transportation
technologies in the right-of-way.
Cities across the country have embraced,
managed, and regulated these emerging
technologies in different ways. For this report,
we’ve categorized notable comparable cities into
four geographies:
•  Washington State cities
•  West Coast cities
•  Other U.S. cities
•  International cities

WASHINGTON STATE CITIES
Tacoma

Starting in late 2018, the City of Tacoma allowed
dockless bike and e-scooter share to operate
via a 60-day permit. Two vendors took part in
the pilot program which included e-bikes and
e-scooters. After the pilot only one vendor
extended their permit to late 2019 and only
included e-scooters. The permit outlines per

28   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

vehicle fees, data sharing, fleet size, benchmarks,
survey requirements, and other additional details.
In Tacoma, e-bikes are allowed in bike lanes,
and anywhere bicycles are allowed (including
sidewalks). In contrast, e-scooters can operate on
roadways, shoulders, sidewalks, and alleys, but
not on bicycle lanes, pedestrian paths, park trails,
or school fields or playgrounds. Helmets are
required to operate either vehicle.

Spokane

The City of Spokane is developing a Shared
Mobility program that will make available rental
bikes and scooters throughout the city. The City
of Spokane established a pilot program to trial
dockless e-scooters, e-assist bikes, and regular
bikes for a 74-day period in 2018. Afterward,
the city commissioned a report to analyze the
findings. The report found that the majority of
trips taken were on e-scooters, and most users
used the sidewalk.
The City is preparing to allow shared mobility to
become a more permanent program. In order
to do so, the municipal code has been updated,
operational permit requirements are under
development, and a request for proposals has
been issued to shared mobility operators who
have expressed interest to work in Spokane.
The City Council recently approved ordinance
amendments that:
•  Allow application-based rental programs
to promote helmet use through education,
advertisement, and/or reduced fares
instead of the requirement to directly
provide a helmet with every rental
transaction.

 •  Allow motorized scooters to operate
downtown but restrict them from
sidewalk use. Adjustments to roadway use
requirements will allow motorized scooters
to operate in the downtown roadways and
bicycle lanes.
•  Allow motorized scooter users to wear a
bicycle helmet, as opposed to the former
requirement to use motorcycle helmets.
In addition, the city has asked companies that
provide e-bikes and e-scooters through apps to
automatically slow the vehicles down from their
maximum speeds in certain areas of the city, such
as Riverfront Park.

WEST COAST CITIES
Vancouver, BC

Two bike share services operate in metropolitan
Vancouver, British Columbia. The City of
Vancouver’s public bike share system, Mobi by
Shaw Go, launched in summer of 2016. It’s a
station-to-station (“docking station”) type system
with services focused in the city of Vancouver.
A second operator, U-Bicycle, is a free-floating
system focusing its service in three neighboring
municipalities.
E-scooters are not yet allowed in Vancouver.
Due to laws that vary widely between provinces,
and different transportation options already
available in Canadian cities, different types of
devices may be ideal for these cities. For example,
rentals of Vespa motorized scooters (essentially
mopeds) are already common in BC. E-bikes and
e-scooters don’t offer as much of an exciting new
alternative as they do in US cities. When micromobility companies arrive in Canada, they may
offer vehicles more like the Veemo – an enclosed,
electric-assist tricycle – to attract a new audience
or market. “Veemos” are being tested on the
University of British Columbia campus.

Portland, Oregon

In 2018, from July to November, the city
conducted an e-scooter pilot to collect data and
get a better sense of the challenges and potential

benefits of these devices. The e-scooter pilot
was intended to give Portlanders access to a
new transportation option while also testing this
device’s ability to support the city’s transportation
policies and values. The pilot set a framework
for e-scooter companies to align their business
with four major city objectives: 1) reduce traffic
congestion by shifting trips away from private
motor vehicle use, 2) prevent fatalities and
serious injuries on city streets, 3) expand access
to opportunities to underserved Portlanders, 4)
reduce air pollution, including climate pollution.
With regard to insurance requirements and
indemnification, the e-scooter pilot permit
application required applicants to have a
minimum of $1 million of general liability per
occurrence and $2 million in aggregate for
covered claims related to bodily injury and
property damage. The indemnity clause in the
permit application states, “The Permittee shall
agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the City
of Portland and its elected officials, officers,
employees, and agents harmless from and
against all claims arising from, in whole or
in part, the Permittee’s operations under its
permit.”
The city released its e-scooter findings report
in January 2019. The report highlights that
over 700,000 trips were taken during the pilot,
covering over 800,000 miles, on a fleet of about
2,000 scooters. The report generally concludes
that e-scooters have the potential to help
advance the city’s transportation goals, but with
some challenges to still overcome. Some of the
perceived challenges include: while e-scooterrelated injuries occurred, most did not warrant
emergency transport; high number of public
complaints of e-scooters on sidewalks and
improper parking impacting safety and comfort of
people walking or people with disabilities; effect
on reduction of air-pollution not yet clear, need
more data; and operators’ compliance with permit
requirements was mixed.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   29

 Generally, the positive outcomes of the pilot
outweighed the negative impacts. Given that, the
city’s transportation department recommended a
second pilot, starting in spring 2019, to be carried
out for one year. To help overcome the challenges,
the city is working with community members to
gather input to improve the permit requirements
and how to better administer the next e-scooter
pilot. The city’s transportation department
anticipates that this second trial run would give
the city more time to collect data and figure out
ways to better address the issues and challenges
observed in these pilots.
Additionally, the city’s transportation department
is carrying out more opportunities for the
community to learn about the proper use of these
new mobility devices in the right-of-way.

The following rules apply to e-scooters in Portland.
Oregon state vehicle code:
•  No sidewalk riding – Using an electric
scooter on the sidewalk and in crosswalks
is prohibited. People using electric scooters
are allowed on Portland city streets, multiuse paths and in bike lanes.
•  Helmets are required – People using electric
scooters are required to wear a helmet.
•  Minimum age – Youth under age 16 are
prohibited from riding electric scooters.
•  Yield to pedestrians – People using an
electric scooter are required to yield to
pedestrians.
City code:
•  No riding in Portland Parks. Motorized
wheeled devices are prohibited in Parks,
except on Park roads, or in designated
vehicle parking areas, or by permit. Multiuse Paths in Portland Parks include:
Waterfront River Trail, Eastbank Esplanade,
Springwater Corridor.

FIGURE A-1: INSTRUCTIONS FROM PORTLAND’S EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON HOW THE CITY E-SCOOTS

Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation

 

30   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 San Francisco

The San Francisco County Transportation
Authority (SFCTA) has a dedicated program for
emerging mobility. Their work includes a detailed
inventory of different service and technology types
that comprise emerging mobility and a set of 10
guiding principles. The program has also recently
produced an evaluation report and a pilot strategy
for emerging mobility.
Some initial findings from their work (directly
from SFCTA):
•  Pilots and permits lead to better
performance
  Companies that have performed pilots with
San Francisco public agencies have provided
data and experience that has informed
development of permit systems for those
mobility types. The resulting permit systems
for bike share, scooter share, and microtransit have guided these mobility types to be
more aligned with the 10 Guiding Principles.
There are opportunities to strengthen and
harmonize the various permit programs.
In addition, the City does not yet have a
standardized process to proactively conduct
pilots and incorporate innovative service
types and new companies into the city’s
permitting and planning systems.
•  Inadequate data
  The City does not have adequate data from
enough emerging mobility companies to fully
evaluate how well emerging mobility services
are aligned with our Guiding Principles. Other
researchers have produced important studies
and findings about some emerging mobility
services, but more traveler trip data and
surveys are needed to characterize SF travel
markets and individual traveler choices.
•  Opportunities for equitable access
  Many emerging mobility services are
available during late-night hours, on
weekends, and/or in areas less well
covered by public transit. This may provide
opportunities to increase mobility for
people with disabilities and increase access
for people underserved by public transit.

•  Conflicts with public transit
  San Francisco is a Transit-First city, but
inadequate data means the City does not
have comprehensive information on how
the emerging mobility sector is impacting
transit ridership or our capital investments.
While some services play a useful first/lastmile connection role, no emerging mobility
companies have implemented design
features or policies that our methodology
identified as directly supportive of transit.
•  Impacts on safety
  With the exception of micro-transit
providers, operator training is inconsistent
among emerging mobility services; almost
no providers test operators following
training. As a consequence, many services
may exhibit roadway conflicts at curbs, in
transit-priority lanes and on sidewalks—
all of which may have significant impacts,
particularly on vulnerable roadways users.
Additionally, many emerging mobility
services may contribute to distracted
driving, which also decreases roadway
safety.
•  Impacts on congestion
  Because the City has inadequate data, it
does not fully understand how this sector
is impacting travel mode choice behavior
and congestion. The City does know that
many emerging mobility services rely on
city rights-of-way and curbs. The City and
the emerging mobility companies have
not consistently coordinated to develop a
robust curb management approach. Other
researchers have found mixed impacts.
For ride-hailing in particular, SFCTA’s own
“TNCs Today” study found that ride-hail
vehicles in San Francisco are concentrated
during times of day and neighborhoods of
the city where traffic is most congested. A
UC Davis study found that adoption of ridehailing is likely to result in a net increase in
vehicle miles traveled due to competition
with public transit. Other studies have found
that users of other mobility services chose
to drive personal vehicles less frequently.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   31

 Some recommendations based on their
evaluation:
•  Partner: Proactively Partner
  The San Francisco Metropolitan Transit
Authority (SFMTA) and the County
Transportation Authority should develop
a framework for emerging mobility pilots
that considers this study’s evaluation
results and encourages the city to
proactively partner with companies to
develop innovative solutions to address
unmet city transportation needs. This
framework should consider partnerships
with transportation companies, employers,
developers, and civic and neighborhood
organizations.
•  Measure: Collect Emerging Mobility Data
and Conduct Research
  San Francisco public agencies should
develop a data reporting and warehouse
strategy to coordinate and consolidate
existing data streams. Additionally, the
city should employ a travel decision study
to understand travel behavior. Such a
study could be combined with a mobile
application pilot that studies traveler
choices and factors that inform them.
•  Regulate: Regulate and Recover Costs
  The SFMTA should harmonize existing
permit programs related to emerging
mobility and create a framework for new
services. The emerging mobility permit
program should administer a permit fee
that considers the full cost to plan for and
regulate these services. Similarly, the city
should seek regulatory and/or impact fees
to mitigate effects these services have on
safety, city resources and investments, as
warranted by research studies. The permit
must also require a standard set of data
necessary to conduct ongoing evaluation
of these services and include standards
for equitable provision of services to
underserved areas and to people with
disabilities.

32   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

•  Bridge: Bridge Mobility and Access Gaps
  The city should develop a user study
to more clearly understand who uses
emerging mobility services and for what
purposes. This study should focus on
equity gaps for low-income users and
issues related to disabled access. The
SFMTA and the Transportation Authority
should also develop pilots to fill mobility
and access gaps, such as for paratransit,
late night transportation, school-related
transportation, and in areas less wellcovered by public transit.
•  Prioritize: Support and Prioritize Public
Transit
  The Transportation Authority and the
SFMTA should continue to support the
expansion of transit-priority facilities.
The Transportation Authority and the
SFMTA should collaborate in developing
a series of studies related to rights-ofway prioritization, vehicle miles traveled,
financial impacts, and cost-recovery. To
support these studies, the Transportation
Authority and the SFMTA should conduct
pilot programs that improve first and last
mile connectivity to transit stations.
•  Enforce: Enforce Safe Streets
  The SFMTA and the Police Department
should increase enforcement of known
emerging mobility conflict areas throughout
the city and consider piloting enforcement
blitzes to encourage safe operation.
Similarly, they should seek legislative
authority and implement a pilot that
automates enforcement to promote safety,
ensure more systematic adherence to traffic
rules, and reduce enforcement costs. The
SFMTA should also develop a Vision Zero
study that studies collision rate trends and
unsafe operations, determines whether
there is a correlation with emerging mobility
services, and identifies recommendations to
reduce traffic fatalities.

 •  Price: Manage Congestion at Curbs and on
City Roadways
  The SFMTA and the Transportation
Authority should prioritize developing a
curb management strategy that allocates
and prices curb access appropriately. Such
a strategy should be supported by curb
management pilots with emerging mobility
services and through a curb management
prioritization study. The SFMTA should
also develop and implement an emerging
mobility streets design guide to reduce
modal conflicts. Finally, based on current
congestion levels on San Francisco
roadways, San Francisco should move
toward implementing a decongestion
pricing and incentives system, whether
through cordons or roadway user fees, to
manage roadway congestion.
San Francisco, like many cities across the United
States, became a showcase for unmanaged micromobility in early 2018. Several scooter-share
companies arrived unannounced and quickly
off-loaded thousands of rental scooters. The city
felt overwhelmed with new and poorly understood
safety hazards and sidewalk clutter. City leaders
quickly banned the e-scooters, but within several
months established a pilot program to test these
devices in a more controlled fashion. By midyear, San Francisco selected two (out of twelve)
companies that had applied for a pilot permit, and
e-scooters were back on the streets, although
in much smaller numbers. The pilots will be
completed in late spring 2019, when City leaders
will review the results and determine next steps.
In the pilot permit application, indemnification
and insurance requirements are generally stated.
Similar to indemnity clauses in other cities,
San Francisco’s clause generally states that the
“Permittee shall indemnify and save harmless
City and its officers, agents, and employees
from… any and all loss, cost, damage, injury,
liability, and claims…” from e-scooter use as
authorized by the permit, “…except where such
loss … is the result of the gross negligence or

willful misconduct of the City…” The permit
application requires general commercial liability
with limit no less than $2 million for each
occurrence and $4 million in aggregate. The
permit also requires commercial automobile
liability insurance, professional liability insurance,
and cyber and privacy insurance.
To address the proliferation of e-scooters in
California, some state laws were amended or
updated to clarify rules governing motorized
scooters. These new rules are effective as of
January 1, 2019. Notable rule clarifications
include:
•  Helmet laws for motorized scooter:
-  If under age 18, the e-scooter rider is
required to wear a helmet.
-  For ages 18 or older, helmets are
optional.
•  Riding on sidewalks is not permitted.
•  E-scooters should be ridden in bike lanes,
unless specified otherwise by a local
authority.
•  General speed limit for e-scooter is 15 mph.
•  E-scooter rider must have a valid
(automobile) driver’s license or instruction
permit.
While the pilot program and new legislation
does not explicitly address other types of micromobility, it sets a precedent for potential other
devices.
In December 2017, the Board of Supervisors
passed Ordinance 244-17 amending the Public
Works Code (Section 794) to allow Autonomous
Delivery Device (ADD) to operate on City
sidewalks for research and development testing.
In coordination with other City agencies, Public
Works oversees the program and issues permits
authorizing the operation of the devices on City
sidewalks.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   33

 Oakland

Oakland offers a bike share program, launched
in July 2017, and currently permits e-scooters to
operate in the city.
The city prepared the “Dockless Scooter Share
Program Terms and Conditions + Permit
Application” document, most recently updated in
May 2019.
Of note, the City’s indemnification clause is
somewhat more stringent compared to San
Francisco’s. The indemnification clause more
clearly states that e-scooter permittees agree to
indemnify the City from liability and risk arising
from potentially dangerous conditions of the
right-of-way. The clause states that the e-scooter
provider, by accepting the permit to operate in
the City, agrees “…to defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless City and each of its respective
Councilmembers, officers, directors, partners,
agents, and employees … from and against any
and all liabilities, claims, lawsuits, actions or
causes of action, losses … or for damage or
destruction of any property of either party hereto
or of third parties, in any manner resulting from,
arising out of, relating to, or by reason of any …
act error, or omission, including both passive
and active negligent conduct, of City and/or
Indemnitees, including without limitation, any
act or omission resulting from, arising out of, or
relating to the design, construction, maintenance,
repair, replacement, oversight, management, or
supervision of any physical, environmental, or
dangerous condition(s) of the Public Rights-ofWay and of any related improvements, or with
respect to the suitability of the Public Rights-ofWay for Operator’s and/or its Dockless Scooter
Share Users’ or Customers’ intended use.”
As the City continues to refine its rules, regulations,
and permit process, e-scooters are still allowed
to operate in the city. The initial permits issued
to operate e-scooter share services are valid for
one-year, and operators must renew year-by-year.
The next round of permits will be issued to selected
applicants beginning in June 2019.
34   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In Oakland, as in San Francisco, state laws
generally govern motorized scooters. They are
prohibited on sidewalks. E-scooters may be
ridden on the street, a bike lane, and multi-use
paths. They may be parked on sidewalks—in the
“furniture zone”—so long as they do not block
driveways, building entrances, curb ramps, color
curbs (such as blue zones or yellow zones) or
utilities such as fire hydrants. They may not block
space for people walking or rolling. To operate,
riders must have an (automobile) driver’s license
or instruction permit. As of January 1, 2019,
helmets are optional for riders ages 18 and over,
but riders under the age of 18 are still required to
wear a helmet.

Los Angeles

Shared micro-mobility devices have been
available in Los Angeles since late 2017, but they
entered the market more gradually and with
much less drama compared to San Francisco.
Two council districts hosted pilot projects in 2018
to assess the impacts of the devices, but other
devices weren’t banned while the pilots were
underway. Users are only limited by the service
areas of the rental companies. Today various
parts of LA host a wide variety of pedal-bikes,
e-bikes, and scooters.
Since rentals have been largely unregulated
in LA, it provides an interesting case study for
injury rates. Researchers found that 250 people
have arrived in emergency rooms within a year,
and 3 have died in scooter crashes. Critics use
this data to spotlight the hazards, pointing out
that these numbers will grow further if scooter
use becomes more widespread. Proponents
note that this number of crashes is still small
compared to overall crashes (i.e. thousands of
crashes in the same timeframe for cars and
pedestrians). Without good data on the number
of miles traveled on scooters, it’s impossible to
tell if scooters are really a more dangerous way to
travel compared to other established modes.

 Per Los Angeles city code, scooters are essentially
regulated as motorcycles and are therefore banned
from trails, sidewalks, etc. However, these laws
seem to be largely unenforced with the recent rise
of small electric scooters.

Santa Monica

Santa Monica started a 16-month Shared Mobility
Pilot Program in September 2018. The pilot
allows four companies (Bird, Jump, Lime, and
Lyft) to provide shared mobility services—shared
bike and scooter services—in the public-right-ofway. The pilot aims to:
•  Develop a new area of policy, regulation,
and enforcement through firsthand
experience
•  Move quickly to adapt to a rapidly changing
industry, but leave room to learn and adjust
as appropriate
•  Test new device and service providers in a
growing industry
•  Explore partnership models with private
companies
•  Explore possibilities for data capture,
structures, and utilization

•  Allow the City time to experiment with
different management tools like “Geofencing” and creation of shared mobility
device drop zones
The city’s administrative rules are subject to
change during the pilot. The city continues to
work with the companies to make data-driven
decisions to deliver safe transportation options.
And find effective solutions to known and
identified challenges during the process.
Per city rules, bikes/e-bikes, and e-scooters may not
be ridden on sidewalks or specific pathways. Devices
must be ridden in bike lanes. As of January 2019,
helmets are required to operate e-scooters for those
under the age of 18. In Santa Monica, these rules are
strictly enforced and violators ticketed.
To manage parking clutter, the city has installed
marked “drop zones.” They include both marked
parking areas on the sidewalk and in-street
parking corrals. Illegally parked devices may be
impounded and charged $95 per device assessed
to the operator to retrieve the device.

FIGURE A-2: DESIGNATED PARKING FOR MICRO-MOBILITY IN SANTA MONICA

Image from: https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/11/08/santa-monica-installs-in-street-e-scooter-parking-corrals/, by Gary Kavanaugh

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   35

 San Diego

San Diego released draft regulations governing
the dockless bikes and scooters in February 2019.
The city took some time to develop rules that
could work for the city, the community, and micromobility operators. The document regulates:
•  Speed – Companies would be required to
restrict vehicle speeds using geofencing
technology in designated zones to 8 miles
an hour, down from the current 15 miles an
hour. In high-pedestrian areas, devices will
be automatically slowed to just 2 miles an
hour, with riders receiving alerts that these
areas are “no-ride zones.”
•  Parking – Riders will be prevented from
ending rides in certain high-traffic areas,
including on the boardwalks, around the
stadium and waterfront.
  Companies will also be restricted in where
they can set up the vehicles. The devices
must be staged in groups of no more than
four and at least 40 feet apart.
  The devices cannot be parked within 500
feet of K-12 public schools or hospitals, or
within six feet of bus and trolley stops.
•  Residents would be encouraged to report
improperly parked or abandoned vehicles
using the city’s “Get it Done” app. Dockless
scooter and bike companies will be notified
as a result and given three hours to move a
device or face impound and other fees.
•  Fees – Companies would be required to
obtain operating permits every six months
in January and June, which declare and fix
the size of each vehicle fleet. Companies
would have to pay associated fees to be
established by the City Council. The mayor
has proposed $253 a permit and up to $150
per device annually.

36   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

•  Education – Motorized scooters must be
labeled in 40-point font that “Riding on
Sidewalks is Prohibited,” as well as any age
requirements adopted by the operator.
•  Data – Operators would be required to
share data on fleet sizes, how often devices
are used, trips and parking locations,
accidents and maintenance.

OTHER U.S. CITIES
Atlanta

The city has codified administrative rules on
shareable dockless mobility devices that include
e-bikes and e-scooters. By permit, Atlanta
allows shared and dockless e-bike and shared
e-scooters services to operate in the city. The
devices are not allowed on sidewalks or spaces
designated exclusively for pedestrian use. They
are allowed on pathways in city parks, including
the Atlanta BeltLine. The city’s administrative
rules outline requirements for permit application,
enforcement, safety, parking, operations, data
sharing, and equity. Violations of rules can incur
fees of up to $1,000 per day.

Austin

In August 2017, the Austin city council passed a
resolution to allow testing of personal delivery
devices in the city. According to the resolution,
“no fees or exchange of monetary services
are anticipated as part of the pilot.” Operators
must obey the city’s operational and geographic
restrictions. To address equity and access issues,
the resolution encourages companies to deploy
devices in traditionally underserved areas.
Devices cannot exceed weight of 300 pounds
excluding cargo (similar to specifications for
motorized wheelchairs) and cannot exceed a
maximum speed of 10 miles per hour.
The personal delivery devices are allowed only on
city sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian
paths. The resolution also requires operating
companies to maintain at least $1 million in
liability insurance. Devices should also be marked
with information to allow the public to submit

 inquiries or comments. Results from the pilot
are not yet published, but a report from the city
manager to the city council is anticipated in
August 2019.
In April 2018, while the city was engaging with
the community on how to regulate e-scooters,
companies began deploying e-scooters
throughout the city in April 2018. With little to
no regulation, e-scooters quickly proliferated.
By summer 2018, the city crafted an initial set of
rules to manage these new devices. The city now
hosts approximately 17,000 of them.
Regulation for e-scooters is relatively moderate,
with lawmakers providing “common sense”
rules or guidance: regulations like one rider at a
time, wear a helmet, and don’t ride intoxicated.
Scooters and similar devices are allowed in bike
lanes so long as they do not exceed 20 mph and
in vehicle lanes, if the speed limit for that road
is less than 35 mph. They are also allowed to be
ridden on sidewalks except for specific streets in
the downtown area. A few parks and pedestrian
plazas with high-pedestrian traffic ban scooters
altogether.
While Austin has embraced these devices for
mobility, parking them has created a fair number
of issues, not unlike in other cities. Due to a lack
of parking space on sidewalks, scooters have
often piled up in popular areas.
In January 2019, Austin set a moratorium on
issuing new licenses for dockless mobility.
While they don’t seek to regulate scooters, or
reduce their numbers, they do plan to stop the
rapid proliferation and look for opportunities
to increase safety and more effectively manage
parking and overall operations of these devices.
Austin also hosts a variety of docked and dockless
bike share options. Per city code, bikes are allowed
on the sidewalk except for specific streets, and
bikes can be parked on a sidewalk if they’re against
a curb or building (or within a bike rack).

Chicago

Chicago allows a station-based shared bike
operation. The city conducted a free-floating bike
share pilot between May and November 2018
for the Far South Side of the city. The city is the
process of evaluating the data. Bikes are only
allowed on the sidewalk if such sidewalk has
been officially designated and marked as a bike
route. The city prohibits bikes on sidewalks for
specific, high traffic streets.
The city is aiming to launch an e-scooter pilot
in 2019. A report by the city’s mobility and
transportation task force recommended the
city should incorporate and regulate these new
forms of mobility, from e-scooters to autonomous
vehicles. However, with the rapid growth in micromobility options and potential impacts to people
on sidewalks, the task force also recommends
updating the City’s Municipal Code to expand
micro-mobility devices that can utilize bike
lanes. And the city should develop clear policies
around right-of-way placement and use of micromobility devices in the public right-of-way. These
policies will help to ensure shared bikes, scooters
and other dockless mobility devices are not an
impediment to access of the public way.

Denver

The city currently allows a station-based bike
share system, that started operations in 2010.
Free-floating bike share began operations
irregularly in 2018.
In late May 2018, several e-scooter companies
started operations in the city absent any
regulations for these devices. Within a few days,
the city’s public works department ordered the
companies to suspend operations until rules
could be agreed to regulate dockless e-scooters
and bicycles. By the end of July 2018, the city
allowed the relaunch of dockless e-scooters
and bikes/e-bikes through the Transit Amenity
Program, Dockless Mobility Vehicle Pilot Permit
Program. The pilot program is expected to run for
one-year, through August 2019.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   37

 In January 2019, the city council passed an
ordinance requiring e-scooters to be ridden in
bike lanes or on roads where the speed limit is
30 mph or less. Where there is no bike lane and
the speed limit is higher than 30 mph, e-scooters
may be ridden on adjacent sidewalk.

safely cross the roadway, except when crossing
pursuant to a crosswalk pedestrian signal;
6) have a system that alerts the operator if a
technology failure or loss of communication
occurs; 7) obey all traffic and pedestrian control
signals and signs.

The City and County of Denver in partnership with
the Regional Transit District are also currently
undertaking a separate and different pilot project—
61AV—that allows a driverless “transit pod” to
circulate on a fixed route to connect a commuter
transit station to nearby employment offices.

The city has yet to publish a report on the pilot’s
findings.

New York City

The city allows a station-based bike share, in
operation since 2013. The city launched a freefloating (“dockless”) bike share pilot July 2018.
In November 2018, the city extended the pilot
for another 90-days to gather more data for
evaluation. Bikes are not allowed on sidewalks.
E-scooters are currently not legal to operate
in New York City, per New York state law. The
city Currently revisiting their bans on motorized
scooters and trying to negotiate how to integrate
e-bikes more effectively.

Washington, DC

The city initially approved a one-year pilot for
personal delivery devices in September 2016. The
city extended the program through end of 2018.
One company, Starship Technologies, participated
in the pilot. Per program rules, the company
could operate no more than 5 devices at a time.
Delivery robots can operate on sidewalks and
crosswalks except with in the Central Business
District. Some of the operating rules for delivery
robots: 1) operate in a safe and non-hazardous
manner so as not to endanger pedestrians,
bicyclists, other users of public space, or
property; 2) not operate above 10 miles per hour;
3) have a gross weight of less than 50 pounds,
excluding cargo; 4) not interfere with pedestrian
or bicycle traffic; 5) yield the right-of-way to
all vehicles approaching on a roadway upon
entering a crosswalk to the extent necessary to
38   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Starship Technologies reported to the city’s
transportation department that three collisions
occurred during operations, all involving a motor
vehicle running into the delivery robot. The
company noted that in each case, the device had
the right-of-way, and the motor vehicle operator
failed to yield.
Since June 2017, delivery robots in D.C. have
made more than 6,500 trips, traveling at a little
over 2 mph, and average delivery distance about
1.5 miles.
Shared bike rentals, both station-based and
free-floating operations, are allowed in the city.
The station-based system, SmartBike DC, was
the first in a large city to launch in the United
States. It began operations in 2008 with 10
stations and 120 bicycles. A subsequent version,
Capital Bikeshare, started operations in 2010
with 49 stations and 400 bicycles. More recently,
in September 2017, the city launched a pilot for
both free-floating bikes and e-scooters. The city
has extended its pilot through December 2019.
Currently, one company operates a dockless
bike system in the city. Five companies currently
operate e-scooters.
Bikes are allowed on sidewalks but cannot
create a hazard or ride in certain areas (Central
Business District). They also need to ride under
10 mph and cannot suddenly leave the sidewalk
and impede traffic.
But e-bikes may not be ridden on sidewalks.

 E-scooters may be ridden on sidewalks except in
the Central Business District.
D.C.’s latest permits require that any dockless
bikes be equipped with locking mechanisms so
riders can affix them to posts or bike racks.

INTERNATIONAL CITIES
London

In the United Kingdom, the Department for
Transport (DfT) classifies e-scooters as Personal
Light Electric Vehicles (PLEV), along with
hoverboards, electric skateboards and twistthrottle electric bikes and are not allowed on
public roads or sidewalks; they can be used on
private property. Pedal-assisted electric bikes are
allowed, however, so long as they are capped at
15 mph. One e-scooter company, Bird, operated a
brief pilot in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, as it
is technically private property.
In Greenwich, a township in the London greater
area, Starship Technologies is started a 6-month
pilot for self-driving delivery robots in March
2019. The town is partnering with the company
to test the delivery robots; Starship Technologies
located its UK base in Greenwich. The company
chose the UK because of the government’s
clear commitment to autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles. In Greenwich, the company
is operating a small fleet of 10-15 robots,
delivering mostly take-out food orders, but more
and more parcel, of up to two miles.
In Milton Keynes, about 50 miles northwest
outside of London, Starship Technologies started
testing hundreds of delivery robots in late 2018.
It is the first full-scale use of the technology.
Starship chose Milton Keynes as its test bed
because the city’s modern road and pavement
infrastructure; more robot friendly. And the city
was quite welcoming of the technology; the city is
an emerging technology/smart city in the UK.

More about the delivery robots:
•  Travel along pavements and cross streets,
just like pedestrians
•  Have 10 cameras, ultrasound sensors,
radar, and GPS
•  Can see 360 degrees and have a “situational
awareness bubble” around them to detect
and avoid any obstacles
•  Use sophisticated computer vision and
software to identify objects such as cars,
pedestrians, traffic lights and pavements

Paris

E-scooters debuted in Paris in summer 2018
with little regulation. While it struggled in
London, one firm reported that 50,000 people had
taken an e-scooter ride, covering over 250,000
miles, two months into operations in Paris. For
some months, the regulations had been murky.
Recently, in March 2019, Paris mayor Anne
Hidalgo launched campaign to disallow scooters
on sidewalks—“footpaths are for pedestrians
only!” Scooters must now be ridden to roads
and bike lanes. Violators riding on sidewalks
(footpaths) will be fined €90 (about $101), which
rises to €135 (about $151) if not paid within
two weeks. Parking will be addressed with
multi-pronged approach. The city will designate
appropriate parking locations for micro-mobility
devices by summer 2019 and any illegally parked
scooters will be impounded with a €35 (about
$39) recovery fee. Companies encourage riders to
wear a helmet, but there is no legal requirement.

Singapore

In Singapore, the use of e-scooters and other
similar electric personal mobility devices
(PMDs) is governed by the Active Mobility Act
(ACA). Singapore allows e-scooters and other
PMDs on shared paths, or bike lanes, but not on
designated pedestrian-only paths. They are also
allowed on footpaths, which do not have specific
signage. Footpaths are public paths that are not
pedestrian-only paths, shared paths, or roads.
Penalties for riding in the wrong place can range
from $1,000 - $2,000 and/or 3 month in jail. Also,
only approved models allowed. As of January

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   39

 2019, devices must be registered, licensed,
with the Land Transport Authority (LTA). As of
February 2019, the city has limited speeds to 10
km/h (about 6 mph) on footpaths and 25 km/h
(about 15 mph) on shared paths. Penalties can
reach up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to 6 months
for riding exceeding the speed limit or riding
dangerously. E-scooters may be brought onto
public transport but must be in its folded position.

Mexico City

In April 2018, a startup began operating e-scooter
share in the city. Starting with only 15 scooters,
primarily in trendy neighborhoods, the number
grow to over 200 scooters by early 2019. In
February 2019, the city revoked the company’s
permit for failing to submit information about
its operations to the government’s Secretariat
of Transport (Semovi). But months of protests,
a fatal accident, and pressure from neighbors
may have had impact on the decision. In late
March 2019, Semovi published regulations for
“Sustainable Individual Transportation Systems”
(SiTIS). The rules govern authorized service
providers to operate in designated areas of the
city. The regulations also specify where and
where not to park bikes or scooters. The new set
of rules also frame other operating obligations,
from safety features required on devices, devices
restricting speed, to fleet size caps, pricing/fees,
and insurance policies.

40   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Munich

Munich offers an innovative approach to education
and outreach about the broad range of mobility
options. A new residential development closely
located to a tram line includes a mobility hub, a
“living lab” for mobility solutions. The hub includes
e-bikes, e-scooters, cargo bikes, and electric
car share for use by residents and the general
public. Munich also provides a mobility center
where residents can get assistance on a walk-in
basis, and where the city offers training tailored
to particular groups, such as seniors and recent
immigrants, on how to use the mobility options.
 

 APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF
COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUP
On March 26, 2019, SDOT staff hosted a community
focus group on managing emerging mobility
technologies in the right-of-way. The following
groups were invited to attend: Pedestrian
Advisory Board, Bicycle Advisory Board, Transit
Advisory Board, Freight Advisory Board, Planning
Commission, the Commission for People with
disAbilities, Disability Rights Washington, National
Federation for the Blind, Cascade Bicycle Club/
Washington Bikes, and Seattle Neighborhood
Greenways. Current permitted bike share
companies (Jump, Lime, and Lyft) were also invited
to attend in a listen-only capacity. A list of who
participated in the focus group is provided at the
end of the summary.
After a brief presentation about the Statement of
Legislative Intent and an overview of the different
types of emerging mobility devices, we facilitated
an exercise and discussion. The following is a
summary of responses from the focus group:

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND
OPPORTUNITIES?

•  Environmental – Potential for helping to
reduce pollution, carbon emissions.
•  Safety – Potential for reducing car use,
SOV travel. With fewer cars, less traffic and
increase in overall safety.
•  Equity – More options for travel for all
ages. Equity in travel options; not everyone
has a driver’s license, i.e., youth and others
not able to drive.
•  Health – Encourages healthy and active
travel options.

•  Transit Integration – First-and-last mile
solutions; can improve access to transit.
•  ROW Rethink – Opportunity to rethink
allocation of ROW space for safer
movement and staying uses for all users—
from people walking, to bikes and “light
mobility devices,” to cars and trucks, to
cafes and people just using the sidewalk as
public space.

WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES AND
DRAWBACKS?

•  Limited Space in ROW – Not much
dedicated space for all these new devices.
•  Safety – Not enough room on sidewalks;
concern over conflicts on already crowded
sidewalks.
•  Speed – Higher speeds of some of these
devices incompatible with slow sidewalk
speed.
•  Conflicts with people with disabilities –
Potential for a lot of conflicts and challenges
on sidewalks with people who have
disabilities, are blind, or are elderly; devices
would limit safe access on sidewalks for
people who are disabled or differently-abled;
quiet and/or small devices are difficult for
people with low vision or low hearing to
detect.
•  Parking issues – Improperly or poorly
parked devices block the sidewalk pathway;
devices easily fall over; they create clutter
in the public realm.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   41

 •  Holistic ROW reimagination – Not enough
space to accommodate all these new
uses at the edge of the ROW, thus all the
other problems above about safe flow,
parking issues, and clutter. Too much room
dedicated to cars. If these micro-mobility
devices are to succeed—become a safe
addition to the transportation system—the
City needs to dedicate space for them. We
(the people) are fighting over the leftover
edge space to fit in biking, walking, cafes,
these new devices, parking them, etc. Just
not enough room!

WHERE SHOULD THESE EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES OPERATE?

•  Not on sidewalks! – Some say not on
sidewalks at all. Should be sacred space
for people who are walking and people who
are differently-abled. Safety for pedestrian
users should be a priority on sidewalks.
Can’t ask peds to give up more space—40%
of city doesn’t have sidewalks, so these
devices would need to have provision to use
roadway in these areas.
•  Sidewalks okay, maybe? If street not
safe? – Others responded that without
safe bike lanes, forcing people into mixed
traffic is not a good solution. They pointed
out the fact that most people die on the
streets because of cars, not devices on the
sidewalk.
•  Bike lanes – Turn bike lanes into “low
intensity travel” or multi-modal “go” lanes
to accommodate bikes and a select set of
these micro-mobility devices.
•  ROW rethink – Modify and reallocate the
ROW to have truly dedicated space for these
new devices.
•  Regulate by speed of device – Faster
speeds should not be on sidewalks but in
bike lanes or automobile lanes. Slower
speeds, less than 4 mph, should be
considered allowable on sidewalks.

42   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

HOW SHOULD THE CITY MANAGE
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY?

•  Highest priority should be safety for all
users – Thus need to consider reallocation
of ROW to allow for all users to have
enough room to be safe
•  Rethink paradigm of ROW being primarily
for cars – ROW more than just mobility. City
needs to manage for wide range of uses in
the ROW Safe travel FOR ALL USERS is #1
priority, yes, but also access to commerce,
sidewalk cafes, goods delivery, utilities,
etc., need to be considered. Right-of-way =
safe mobility + safe places to be.
•  Equity – Opportunity to emphasize that
the ROW, the streets and sidewalks,
are for everyone. New street designs
should include accessibility for the blind
community. The City should work with
companies to ensure equitable outcomes.
Training and education about these devices
need to be in multiple languages.
•  Curb space management – Important,
especially if we are to better integrate
micro-mobility for goods delivery (e-trikes
and delivery bots).
•  Better parking requirements – Need better
parking regulations for e-bikes and potential
other emerging mobility devices. Designated
parking, especially at intersections, could be
helpful. Take first car parking space nearest
intersection and turn into bike and micromobility parking zone.
•  (De)Congestion pricing can help reduce
number of vehicles – Opportunity to
repurpose or upgrade car travel lanes into
protected bike and micro-mobility travel
lanes or space for emerging uses.
•  Encourage use of micro-mobility by
subsidizing infrastructure – If we want
more people using these devices, potentially
subsidizing companies could help.

  

•  Follow best practices – Many other cities to
learn from. Many other cities have already
allowed such devices. Need to learn from
them.
•  Data from micro-mobility – Make sure
data from operators is accessible. The City
can and needs to learn from the data to
help continuously improve the system and
services.

ATTENDEES
Focus Group

Eric Scheir – Commission for People
with DisAbilities
Anna Zivarts – Disability Rights of Washington
Mike Mello – National Federation for the Blind
Corey Grandstaff – National Federation for the
Blind and Seattle Transit Advisory Board
Enjoleah Daye – Seattle Transit Advisory Board
Jennifer Tippins – Seattle Pedestrian
Advisory Board
Florence Williams – Seattle Bicycle
Advisory Board
Gabe Meyer – Cascade Bicycle Club/
Washington Bikes
Vicky Clark – Cascade Bicycle Club/
Washington Bikes
Glen Buhlman – Seattle Neighborhood Greenways
Tom Lang – Seattle Neighborhood Greenways

City of Seattle

Holly Delcambre – Citywide ADA Title II
Compliance Project Manager
Lorraine Phillips – Assistant City Attorney
Councilmember Mike O’Brien (listen only)

SDOT Project team
Radcliffe Dacanay
Ian Macek
Joel Miller
Kelly Rula

Listen Only

Alejandro Chouza - Jump
Jonathan Hopkins - Lime
Jewls Krueger - Lyft
Doug MacDonald – general public

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS OPERATING IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY   43

 The Seattle Department of Transportation
700 5th Avenue, Suite 3800
PO Box 34996
Seattle, WA 98124-4996
(206) 684-ROAD (7623)
www.seattle.gov/transportation
44   SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

5.2019