Rental e-scooter trial Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 3
Table of Contents
1 Context ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 4
1.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 A brief history of the trial................................................................................... 4
1.2 Purpose of the report .............................................................................................. 5
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Approaches adopted by other cities ........................................................................ 7
1.4.1 International ..................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2 New Zealand .................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Responsibilities and legislative framework ............................................................. 9
2 Analysis and advice .................................................................................................... 11
2.1 What we found out through the trial ...................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Usage data ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Public survey .................................................................................................. 15
2.1.3 Safety and accidents ...................................................................................... 16
2.1.4 Public feedback .............................................................................................. 20
2.2 Strategic alignment ............................................................................................... 24
2.2.1 Transport and access ..................................................................................... 24
2.2.2 The natural environment ................................................................................ 32
2.2.3 Urban form and communities ......................................................................... 34
2.2.4 Economically successful city .......................................................................... 35
3 Evaluation summary ................................................................................................... 37
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 39
4 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
1 Context
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Introduction
In transport, as in most parts of society, technology is changing the way we do things. Two of the
biggest transport trends of recent years has been the increase in “shared” services, facilitated by
advances in IT and mobile phone technology, and the growing popularity of micro mobility devices1
often powered by lightweight electric motors.
These trends combined in the first e-scooter rental scheme in San Francisco in late 2017 before
spreading to urban areas across North America and around the globe. Auckland Transport was
approached in 2018 by several rental e-scooter companies seeking permission to operate in
Auckland.
Permission is required, depending on location, under the Auckland Council and Auckland
Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaws 2015 (the bylaw) which regulate the use of
public places for commercial activities and events.
While the operating model, technology and impacts of rental e-scooters were still relatively new in
both local and international contexts, it was clear there was the potential for them to contribute to
the strategic outcomes described in the Auckland Plan.
It was determined that a finite trial period would be the most appropriate means of managing e-
scooter rental schemes and provide time to learn and gather data to inform a regulatory position for
the future management of such schemes. This would be in keeping with the approach described in
the Auckland Plan2. After which, the trials impacts would be evaluated to inform future decision-
making processes and subsequent licence decisions.
The trial period ends on 31 March 2019. A decision needs to be made by then on whether to
continue to issue licences to e-scooter rental schemes in Auckland.
1.1.2 A brief history of the trial
In October 2018, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (the council) agreed to a trial of
rental e-scooters for a three-month period through a license issued under the bylaw.
In October 2018 the council issued a Mobile Trading Licence for Lime to operate 1,000 scooters for
3 months on a trial basis. Licenses were also issued to Onzo and Wave.
While appearing popular with users, safety concerns were quickly raised by the public, media and
some elected officials. These concerns primarily focused on the appropriateness of e-scooter use
on footpaths and on the irresponsible use of e-scooters by their users in such situations. In
response to this AT and the council ran a public safety campaign encouraging safe use of e-
scooters, while Lime ran specific events intended to raise awareness of safe rider use.
In January 2019, the trial was extended to 31 March to allow further data to be collected.
1 Note on terminology: There is no agreed term for these types of devices; though the most common, which this report uses is the term ‘micro mobility’. 2 Auckland Plan 2050, Outcome: Transport and Access, Focus area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 5
In mid-February staff became aware through media reports of potential safety issues regarding
locking wheels, resulting in a number of accidents and injuries to e-scooter riders.
The council and AT formally requested information from Lime relating to the incident and other
issues. After several requests for information and a failure to provide the council and AT with
satisfactory safety assurances, the council and AT suspended Lime’s license until satisfied that the
wheel locking issue had been resolved.
In late February information was provided by Lime which indicated the issue had been resolved.
The information satisfied the council and AT’s concerns and, subject to new, more stringent
conditions around maintenance and reporting of incidents, Lime scooters were allowed back on the
streets in early March.
In mid-March Wave deployed 500 e-scooters to operate until the end of the trial on 31 March 2019.
Wave was the only other operator to launch as part of the trial. Onzo decided not to launch.
1.2 Purpose of the report
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the trial of rental e-scooters in the context of the strategic
objectives for the city and describe the key findings from the trial period.
The focus of the work undertaken during the trial period and of this evaluation is on helping inform
decision making about future licensing decisions for rental e-scooters in Auckland. This report itself
does not make recommendations, merely providing the information from which a recommendation
and decision can be made.
This report is focussed on understanding the role e-scooter rental has played in the Auckland
transport network during the trial period and how well their operation has aligned with the strategic
objectives of the council. It has not looked at more operational matters such as the administration
of the licence and specific licencing conditions.
1.3 Methodology
The performance of the trial must be considered in the context of the strategic objectives for the
city. The council’s principal strategic document is the Auckland Plan 2050 (the Auckland Plan)
which sets the direction for how Auckland will grow and develop over the next 30 years. E-scooter
rentals have the potential to contribute to, or detract from, the ability to achieve a range of
outcomes across the plan.
There are four main areas of the Auckland Plan which are particularly relevant to assessing the
impact and desirability of e-scooter rental schemes (Table 1).
Strategic directions Aspects to be considered
Transport and Access
Auckland Plan (AP) Outcome: Transport and Access
Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods and services; and
• Increase in travel choice
• Accessibility
• Replacement of car trips
• Impact on use of public transport, walking and cycling
6 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland
Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection
Focus Area 1: Make better use of existing transport networks
Focus Area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology
Focus Area 4: Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders
• Efficiency of use of space
• Safety:
o Actual & perceived
o Users & non-users
• Equitable access
The Natural Environment
AP Outcome: Transport and Access
Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection
AP Outcome: Environment and Cultural Heritage
Direction 1: Ensure Auckland’s natural environment and cultural heritage is valued and cared for
• Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
• Vehicle efficiency
• Life cycle of vehicles and batteries
• Vehicle collection, charging and distribution process
Urban Form and Communities
AP Outcome: Belonging and Participation
Focus area 1: Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in, and enjoy community and civic life
AP Outcome: Homes and Places
Focus area 5: Create urban places for the future
• Support for a quality compact urban form
• Quality of life
• Accessibility of public spaces
• Enjoyment of the city
• People-focused and universal urban design
Economically Successful City
AP Outcome: Opportunity and Prosperity
Direction 1: Create the conditions for a resilient economy through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity
Focus area 1: Harness emerging technologies and ensure equitable access to high quality digital data and services
• Changes in accessibility for different sections of society
• Increased spending
• Time savings
• Medical costs
Table 1
Worthy of particular note here is Focus area 3 under the Transport and Access outcome:
‘Maximise the benefits from transport technology’. This focus area highlights the potential benefits
of technological innovation but also cautions:
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 7
“that these technology advances could create negative effects […] Realising benefits
from technology will require us to focus on trials, safety, enabling regulation and
supporting infrastructure.”
This trial has been a real-life example of this approach in action. While the learnings from this trial
will inform future licencing decisions in the short-term, they should also in the longer term inform
potential future regulatory changes and infrastructure funding prioritisation and design.
The report draws together a range of data and evidence and considers it within this strategic
context. This data includes:
• General usage information from Lime via their online “Insights” dashboard
• Detailed trip data for Lime e-scooter trips taken between 14 October 2018 and 22
February 20193
• Results of a representative survey of Auckland residents and of Lime users by Kantar
TNS
• Public feedback received via the council’s ‘EScooterProgramme’ email address
(including Lime-prompted feedback submitted by Lime users via the Lime app) as well as
other standard council communications channels
• Death and Serious Injury figures from NZTA’s Crash Analysis System
• ACC data on claims received before and during the trial period.
Given the timing of the initial licencing decisions which are required to be made, it has not been
possible to consider data from the entire trial period or to complete the full analysis of the data we
have received. As such, this report is a provisional assessment of the trial and further insights are
likely to be gained over time as further analysis of this and new data is completed.
1.4 Approaches adopted by other cities
1.4.1 International
The first e-scooter rental schemes launched on the west coast of the United States in late 2017. In
the 18 months since, e-scooter rental schemes have been introduced to well over 100 cities across
North, Central and South America, Europe, Israel, Australia and New Zealand.
The introduction of scooters in many of these cities has been met with considerable public and
media interest as well as a fair share of controversy. To start with this tended to be due to their
appearance in several cities on streets without the appropriate permission. Over time the
companies have increasingly worked with cities and now usually operate within the regulatory
framework set out for them, either as part of a trial or through iterating licenses. Nevertheless,
questions have remained as to their role in the transport system and their health and safety
impacts. In Auckland, three operators were issued with short-term licenses for a trial period of just
over five months, to help understand and inform the future management of licenses for e-scooter
rental schemes
Due to the relatively short time frame since their first launch, evidence on the impacts of e-scooter
rental schemes is still limited. However, what evaluations there are have identified several benefits
3 A full analysis of this data has not been possible in the time available; in particular spatial analysis of trips.
8 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
for cities, such as increased travel options, replacement of car trips and reduced car ownership4.
Cities, such as Santa Monica, though have also faced challenges with the integration of e-
scooters, including safety concerns over e-scooter use on footpaths, incorrect parking behaviour
and a lack of sufficient safe infrastructure for e-scooters.
Due to this rapid rate of adoption and the varying regulatory positions from which cities have been
starting, there is also limited consistency in the approaches cities have adopted and even less
clarity on best practice. A summary of the main issues cities have identified and the approaches
they have adopted is attached as appendix 1.
1.4.2 New Zealand
Since October 2018, several New Zealand cities have permitted Lime to operate an e-scooter
rental scheme as the first e-scooter sharing operator in New Zealand. Wave has launched as a
second operator in Auckland in March, and e-scooter operators Flamingo and Jump have been
selected for an e-scooter trial in Wellington. Further e-scooter operators Blip, Onzo, Fuutr, Scoot
and Goat have also shown intentions to launch e-scooters in New Zealand in the future. Across
New Zealand, cities have chosen different approaches to manage the licensing and operation of e-
scooter schemes.
Christchurch
Lime launched in Christchurch in October 2018, at the same time as Auckland, with 700 e-
scooters. After a 3-month trial, Christchurch Council decided to issue a 12-month permit for Lime,
starting in March 2019. The permit allows Lime to increase their fleet to 1000 e-scooters in
Christchurch. Fees are charged per square meter taken up by each vehicle ($86.25 per vehicle), in
accordance with the Christchurch public streets enclosure policy. The council also agreed on an
overall fleet cap of 1600 e-scooters to allow for the possibility of future operators in the city.
Hutt Valley
In December 2018, Lime introduced 600 e-scooters to the Hutt Valley on a 12-month permit, with a
permit fee of $150.
Dunedin
Lime launched in Dunedin in early January with 300 e-scooters. Instead of issuing a permit, which
is not required under Dunedin’s policies, Lime has signed a memorandum of understanding with
the city, which includes guidelines about the location and placement of parked scooters.
Wellington
In February 2019, Wellington City agreed a licensing process that allows up to two 18-month
licenses for e-scooter share operators in the city, with an initial 600 to 800 vehicles each. For the
initial trial phase, Wellington city chose the two operators Flamingo and Jump to start operation in
June 2019. As a license condition, operators were required to ensure that e-scooters are not
permitted to be used in a list of locations within the city.
4 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 9
Permit type Fleet cap Operators Fee structure5 Areas of use
Auckland (trial period)
Trial license (Oct 2018 - March 2019)
Lime with 1000 e-scooters, Wave with 500
• Lime
• Wave
(Onzo was issued a license but did not launch)
Mobile trading license fee
Lime:Inner city and outer suburbs
Wave: City centre and fringe, geofenced low-speed zones with a 15kmh speed limit in specific areas in city centre
Christchurch
12-month permit
(commencing March 2019)
1600 between operators
Lime (1000 e-scooters)
(open to several operators)
Fee per amount of vehicle space
($86.25 / vehicle)
No restrictions
Hutt Valley
12-month permit (Dec 2018)
Lime with 600 e-scooters
Lime
(open to several operators)
Permit fee ($150)
Hutt Valley Area
Wellington
18-month permit (6 months trial + possibility of 12-month extension (June 2019)
Min 600, max 800 per operator
Max. two operators:
• Jump
• Flamingo
• Interim fee ($45) per scooter during trial, agreement of a longer-term fee yet to be made
• Investment in a $10,000 awareness campaign
Wellington city, Operation not allowed at specific areas (and times) with high pedestrian numbers
Dunedin
Memorandum of Understanding (Jan 2019)
Lime with 300 e-scooters
Lime
(open to several operators)
No fees Dunedin city
Table 2
5 For permit period
10 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
1.5 Responsibilities and legislative framework
Responsibility for the regulation and control of rental e-scooters sits across a range of central
government agencies, local government and private companies.
In New Zealand <300 watt e-scooters are classed as ‘wheeled recreational devices’. They are not
considered to be motor vehicles, and like e-bikes they are not required to go through entry
certification or be licensed or registered for use6.
The requirements for the safety of e-scooters as products are covered under the Fair Trading Act
and the Consumer Guarantees Act (a device must be fit for purpose), administered by MBIE.
Specific requirements for the safety of the batteries and battery chargers are covered by the
Electricity (Safety) Regulations, administered by Worksafe.
The requirements for safe use of e-scooters on roads, shared paths and footpaths is covered by
the Road User Rule, administered by the NZ Transport Agency and enforced by Police.
To trade in a public space e-scooter rental companies must obtain a license under the separate
Auckland Transport (for roads and footpaths) and Auckland Council (for parks and civic spaces)
Trading and Events bylaws. The extent of control the council and AT have over e-scooter rental
schemes is limited to the issuance of licenses and the imposition of conditions under these bylaws.
Separate speed limits for footpaths (compared to the general road carriageway) and mandatory
wearing of helmets are not able to be set or required under this bylaw.
To use a rental e-scooter, riders must comply with road user rules, separate Auckland Transport
and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance bylaws and the rental company’s terms of use.
A summary of the legislative and regulatory responsibilities and framework is set out in appendix 2
6 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/vehicle-types/low-powered-vehicles/
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 11
2 Analysis and advice
2.1 What we found out through the trial
2.1.1 Usage data7
To date during the trial, over 220,000 people have taken over 1.05 million trips on rental e-
scooters. The number of rides and riders each week has stayed fairly steady throughout the trial
period, with a gradual increase in the relative number of rides per rider (Figure 1).
Each e-scooter was used for around 9-9.5 rides per day.
Figure 1
7 A note on the data: For the purposes of this report it has been necessary to place an end point on the data to be analysed shorter than the trial period itself. This date has been largely determined by reporting timeframes and the withdrawal of Lime e-scooters from Auckland streets on 22 February 2019. As such the data analysed in this report is for the period 14 October 2018 to 22 February 2019 unless mentioned otherwise. There are a number of caveats which must be noted about the period over which this data was collected:
• The school and Christmas holiday period fell during the middle of the trial period;
• University semesters almost completely fall outside this time; and
• The period only covers the summer months (of a very dry summer).
12 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Most users were occasional users with 60% of riders during the trial period using the e-scooters
five times or fewer and only 14% of users using rental e-scooters 15 or more times (a frequency of
not quite once a week over the 19 weeks covered in this report). On a weekly basis just under 40%
of users tended to use the e-scooters only once a week while almost 20% of users used them five
or more times a week (Table 3).
Table 3
The median duration of trips was 8.72 minutes and the median distance 1155 metres. 25% of trips
were less than 5.05 minutes in length and 642m in distance with 75% of trips being under 16.3
minutes and 2058m8.
Around 5000-7000 trips were made each day on the rental e-scooters.
Day to day the levels of e-scooter rental use closely mirrored pedestrian activity levels in the city
centre9 (Figure 2). While on an average week, e-scooter use increased as the week went on
peaking on Friday (Figure 3).
There were slightly different patterns
of use between weekdays and the
weekend (Figure 4 and Table 4). On
weekdays while there was a notable
spike of, what was most likely,
commuter use around 8am and 5pm,
the busiest periods were during the
middle of the day. The main periods
of use were between 12pm and 6pm
on weekdays and 11am and 4pm on
weekends.
8 The trip data received from Lime contained a considerable number of anomalies (for instance around 7.5% of trips had a distance of zero metres). Most of these trips were removed for the purposes of analysis, leaving 803246 trips, but it remains unclear if they were valid trips with measurement or recording issues, or an error without a trip being made (for instance a scooter which refused to unlock but still recorded a ‘trip’). 9 https://www.hotcity.co.nz/city-centre/results-and-statistics/pedestrian-counts
Rider frequency
Number of trips during trial
Proportion of riders Number of trips per week
Proportion of riders
<3 42% <2 38%
3-5 18% 2-3 26%
5-15 26% 3-5 19%
15-30 8% 5=< 17%
30=< 6%
Figure 2
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 13
Table 4
While clearly popular, e-scooters remained a small proportion of the total trips in the trial area. The
average 6000 trips per day across the trial area (which is focused on the city centre and fringe) is
roughly equal to:
• 20% of the trips by bus which start and finish within the City fare zone (roughly the city
centre and inner fringe areas);
Trip start hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
0 45 50 52 50 54 98 116
1 27 33 28 32 34 72 74
2 16 16 18 23 22 48 54
3 10 11 12 15 13 28 34
4 9 13 11 15 15 26 32
5 26 34 26 35 34 28 31
6 75 95 97 109 116 52 45
7 153 195 216 231 266 90 73
8 295 344 379 406 474 154 128
9 237 256 286 280 345 253 247
10 260 260 310 297 367 373 381
11 325 344 404 401 489 478 472
12 462 465 553 550 655 506 525
13 454 461 543 543 639 542 535
14 422 440 503 494 582 509 494
15 432 440 507 538 561 479 421
16 442 485 522 541 555 417 367
17 436 488 504 536 506 364 296
18 340 369 378 414 392 326 256
19 283 326 326 337 329 294 250
20 239 276 269 289 289 265 224
21 143 158 158 169 193 191 152
22 92 102 105 114 149 161 100
23 68 74 72 83 120 136 74
E-scooter use by time of day
Figure 3 Figure 4
14 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
• 5% of all public transport trips which start and/or end in the City fare zone;
• the number of bike trips made into and out of the city centre;
• the number of pedestrian trips along the southern side of Shortland Street10 (measured
between High and O’Connell Streets);
The average 592 trips started during the weekday AM peak period meanwhile are equivalent (and
probably contribute in part) to under 1% of the 74000 trips made into the city centre between 7am
and 9am on weekdays during the trial period11.
E-scooter trips during the trial period then have formed a small but perceptible portion of inner city
trips. They are dwarfed by the number of walking trips in the area but are a notable number when
compared to PT trips starting and finishing within the inner-city area (where most e-scooter trips
start and finish).
The average speed of trips taken was 8.4kph, with 95% of all trips averaging under 15.5kph
(Figure 5).
These numbers are the average
speed though, and would not
accurately reflect the top, or even
average moving speed, of e-
scooters12. These averages
would be distorted by waits for
traffic signals, especially for short
trips. This is reflected in the
longest 75% of trips (over 642m)
being 50% faster on average
than the 25% of shortest trips.
The impact of weather
Auckland has experienced fine
settled weather since the start of
the trial which has provided little
chance to observe the effects of inclement weather on the popularity of the scheme. In fact, during
the period 15 October 2018 to 23 February 2019 Auckland only experienced more than 10mm of
rain on 12 days, with only four of those days being more than 20mm and only one of these being
above 25mm13. Of these four days of more significant rainfall, two of these were Christmas Eve
and Christmas day which are likely to have lower levels of use anyway (evidenced by city centre
pedestrian counts about 40% lower than average).
Based on the data available there is some suggestion of reduced rates of use during inclement
weather. Compared to the average number of trips on the same days of the week without rain, trip
numbers were about 10-20% lower. As this is based on limited data, no firm conclusions can be
reached.
10 https://www.hotcity.co.nz/city-centre/results-and-statistics/pedestrian-counts 11 AT screenline results for October 2018-January 2019 12 It is hoped that further analysis of trip data will enable some understanding of actual moving speeds. This hasn’t been able to be done in time for preparation of this report. 13 Source: www.accuweather.com
Figure 5
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 15
2.1.2 Public survey
NZTA along with Auckland and Christchurch councils commissioned Kantar TNS to run a survey of
residents and e-scooter users in both Auckland and Christchurch (the Kantar survey)14. This was
conducted during December 2018 and early January 2019. The general residents survey was
weighted to be representative in terms of gender and age while a ‘booster’ sample was also
collected of Lime users to ensure a sufficient sample size of those users15.
The survey was undertaken before the issues with wheels locking up on Lime e-scooters became
known. It’s unclear how this may have affected people’s responses and what their views are now.
The main feedback from the survey was:
• Some additional trips have been made that would not have been made without e-scooters.
• E-Scooter trips are seen as most efficient/fastest travel option.
• The majority of trips replace walking trips with around a quarter replacing car trips.
• Footpaths, shared paths and separated bike lanes were the preferred places to ride (with
almost equal preference).
• The main negative aspects of e-scooters identified was the risk, or perceived risk, they
pose to pedestrians while in use and the clutter they cause when not in use.
• There was general agreement on the continuation of e-scooter rental operation among both
users and non-users.
14 As a survey of ‘claimed behaviour’ some caution should be taken with these exact figures as respondents may not accurately identify or be able to recall what they would have done in an alternative situation. Nevertheless, the results provide a guide to rough proportions and numbers. 15 The Lime user boost sample was excluded from all reporting at a general resident’s level to ensure that the figures were not skewed towards Lime users.
16 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
2.1.3 Safety and accidents
Deaths and Serious Injuries
The standard measure of road safety outcomes used by local councils, Central Government
agencies and New Zealand Police is the number of deaths and serious injuries16 (DSIs) which
have occurred. It is also the primary road safety key performance indicator for AT. Data on DSIs is
collected and reported by police before being recorded in the Crash Analysis System (CAS)
managed by the NZTA.
This system however, is very motor vehicle centric and holds little information on e-scooter
crashes. Information on non-motor vehicle crashes are usually only captured where they are
involved in a high severity, on-road crash involving a police investigation.
16 Serious injuries include fractures, concussions and other similar injuries but not minor cuts, bruises etc.
Key responses
E-scooter integration into transport system
• 45% of users made a trip they wouldn’t have otherwise made without a shared
e-scooter
• 21% of e-scooter users mainly use them to get to or from public transport
• 46% of users chose to take an e-scooter trip because it was the fastest and/or
most efficient travel option for them
Replacement of other modes
• 51% of users replaced a walking trip with a shared e-scooter trip, while
24% of users replaced a trip in a motorised vehicle (private car/motorcycle or
rideshare such as Uber, taxi)
8% of users replaced a public transport trip and
2% of users replaced a bike/e-bike trip
E-scooter user preferences
• footpaths (52%), shared paths (50%) and separated cycle lanes/paths (49%)
are the most preferred places for users to ride an e-scooter
Potential barriers for non-users to riding e-scooters
• service price increase - 48% of non-users
• e-scooter ban on footpaths - 42% of non-users
• compulsory helmet use - 24% of non-users
• fewer available e-scooters - 23% of non-users
• continuation of e-scooter ban from designated cycle lanes - 22% of non-users
Overall perception
• respondents perceived the hazard for pedestrians (27%) and vehicles being dumped on footpaths (25%) as the most negative impacts of e-scooters
• most e-scooter users as well as non-users agreed that e-scooters should continue operating
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 17
Nevertheless, it is a regularly used measure of safety and, as shown below, does capture a
number of deaths and serious injuries each year for other non-motor vehicle modes. The table
below indicates that of the crashes recorded in the last 5 years involving cyclists, pedestrian and
“wheeled pedestrian” classes only 1 of the 790 DSIs in the Auckland region as involving an e-
scooter17 (Table 5).
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand
Total
People on bikes 39 55 42 55 46 237
People on foot 87 115 106 130 101 539
Skateboarder 0 4 2 1 1 8
Electric Scooter 0 0 0 0 1 1
Push Scooter 1 1 2
Mobility Scooter 1 2 3
Grand Total 128 176 151 186 149 790
Table 5
ACC claims
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has records of a far greater number of accidents,
mainly due to its recording of injuries from accidents of all severities, but has some limitations
which restrict its usefulness, including:
• It is not usually used as a road safety indicator, so it is difficult to compare the risks of e-
scooters to other activities and transport modes.
• It relies heavily on accurate reporting by claimants (i.e. Did they mention an e-scooter or
just call it a scooter? Did they accurately identify the cause of the crash i.e. personal loss
of control could be due to excess speed, poor footpath/road condition, or just a loss of
balance); and consistent and accurate interpretation and recording by ACC staff reading
the claim.
• It is difficult to determine the proportion of incidents which involved rental e-scooters as
the ACC data, like the CAS above, does not differentiate between accidents involving
public rental e-scooters and privately-owned ones.
Nevertheless, it does allow us to shed some light on the relative level of risk and injury of e-
scooters both to other forms of scooter and to other road users.
From the ACC data it can be seen that e-scooter injuries increased around the commencement of
the trial and dropped off following the withdrawal of Lime e-scooters. While Lime was operating the
rate of claims was roughly 45% of that of regular foot scooters (Figure 6).
17 DSI data often takes three months to be available in the CAS. As such data for 2018 may not include December, or even part of November.
18 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Figure 6
Figure 7
The relationship in the data to the introduction and removal of Lime e-scooters suggests that the
majority of e-scooter trips in Auckland are made on rental e-scooters, though the level of claims
still being received two weeks after Lime e-scooters were removed suggests some level of base
usage which did not previously exist (though may also reflect belated claims).
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 19
While this may seem large, when
compared to the accident rates for similar
modes it can be seen that this is a
relatively small number (Figure 7). As set
out in Table 6 this number is equal to 69%
of skateboard claims and 17% of cycling
related claims for the same period.
Most accidents appear to be caused by a
personal loss of control rather than an
external factor, suggesting most accidents
are the fault of the user rather than the
device or infrastructure (Table 7). There is
the possibility though that this may not
have been accurately recorded by either
the claimant, or by ACC; an example of the
difficulties in relying on ACC data.
Lime wheel locking
These figures include a mix of accidents
causes, including presumably the wheel
locking fault which affected Lime’s e-scooter
fleet.
This appears to have been a fault of the
software Lime uses rather than the e-
scooters themselves. It highlights one of the
additional complexities and therefore
potential risks of the rental e-scooter model
compared to private ownership.
Nevertheless, there is little evidence yet that
this is a widespread issue with the rental e-
scooter model, rather Lime’s specific
software (and/or it’s interrelationship with
their hardware).
While this issue has demonstrated the need
for improved reporting and response
processes as a part of any future licensing
decisions, there is not enough evidence at
this stage to indicate that this is sufficient
reason to prevent all e-scooter rental schemes form operating.
Pedestrian safety
The safety of pedestrians has been one of the biggest concerns of the trial period. Given the
privacy reporting requirements of ACC the exact number of accidents to occur in these weeks is
unknown, however it is somewhere between three and nine (inclusive), and most likely on the
lower side of this range.
Number of claims
Percentage of e-scooter
claims relative to other modes
E-scooters 745
Foot scooters 1646 45%
Running/
Jogging 11327 7%
Vehicle
Mentioned 29020 3%
Skateboarding 1079 69%
Cycling 4413 17%
Table 6
Accident Cause Number
Loss Balance/Personal
Control 677
Collision/Knocked Over by
Object 16
Loss of Control of Vehicle 8
Twisting Movement 20
Slipping, Skidding on Foot 11
Pushed or Pulled 12
Tripping or Stumbling 11
Puncture 7
Not provided <4
Medical Treatment ..
All others 17
Table 7
20 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Perceived safety
While the reality is that there have been few accidents in Auckland serious enough to require
treatment under ACC, public feedback, as well as anecdotal comments and observations, suggest
many more unrecorded near misses or minor (non-injury) crashes. These minor incidents, along
with e-scooters silent propulsion system and potential speed which can lead to their unexpected
appearance, has caused concerns amongst some people for their safety.
Perceptions of levels of safety are often as important as the actual levels as people make
decisions based on their perception rather than the reality (though hopefully one informs the other).
In this case it is clear from the public feedback received and comments reported in the media that
some portion of the community are concerned with their safety. The exact scale of this though is
uncertain.
The public feedback received has included reports of some of the more vulnerable members of
society feeling so unsafe that they are not prepared to leave their house.
2.1.4 Public feedback
While not undertaking formal consultation on the trial or e-scooter rental schemes in general, the
council has received a large amount of feedback on the trial. The majority of this feedback was
received as a result of a campaign orchestrated by Lime itself.
During the temporary suspension of Lime’s licence, due to the wheel locking fault, Lime used its
app to encourage users to send a pre-written email to the council, in support of Lime scooters (a
copy is attached as appendix 3). More than 6000 e-mails were sent via the Lime app. Most of
these were in the form provided by Lime, though a portion of people edited the proforma text to
add their own opinions.
In addition to the feedback initiated by Lime further feedback was received via the more standard
communication channels, such as the council’s online enquiry platform or the dedicated
‘EscooterProgramme’ email-address set up by the council.
At the time of writing the council has received the following pieces of feedback:
• 5666 proformas
• 665 unique or amended proforma
• 78 other sources/complaints
The main feedback themes are:
• Safety
• Transport
• Fun
• Environment
• Convenience
• Affordability
• Access
The graph below shows the key themes mentioned in feedback from the standard Council
communication channels as well as customised emails sent via the Lime app.
This feedback has not been received as part of a formal consultation procedure and should not be
taken as such. It provides some insight into the views and position of the public but is neither
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 21
necessarily the views of all who would submit on a public proposal, or a representative sample of
all Aucklanders.
Figure 8
Nb. Excludes proforma submissions sent via the Lime app.
The opinions captured were:
• 6050 in support of the e-scooter sharing scheme (384 individual submissions and
5666 Lime proforma submissions)
In the customised feedback in support of e-scooters, all key themes listed above were
mentioned with safety and transport mentioned most frequently. In relation to safety the
careless behaviour of a few e-scooter users was referred to as the main cause of
negative public perception. Comments related to transport mostly referred to e-scooters
as a more reliant and more efficient alternative to Auckland’s public transport system, as
well as a replacement for personal car trips. Use of e-scooters for daily commutes were
also mentioned.
Other supporting comments highlighted the fun/enjoyment of e-scooter rides,
environmental benefits such as reduced traffic emissions, high convenience and
affordability of e-scooters, as well as improved access within the city.
• 142 with qualified support or which were neutral with suggestions
A high proportion of the more neutral or qualified feedback called for improvements to e-
scooter regulations or expressed support for Lime only in the case that certain conditions
were met. Most feedback providers in this group referred to accidents and safety risks.
The most frequently requested changes were speed restrictions for e-scooters, the repair
of Lime’s software malfunction and provision of safe vehicles in general, legal obligation
to wear helmets, provision of helmets with e-scooters, as well as an ACC levy paid by
Lime.
22 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
• 87 opposing e-scooter
sharing scheme
Safety was also the main
concern for of feedback
providers who opposed e-
scooters. Opponents most
frequently referred to the
number of e-scooter-related
ACC claims. Other frequently
mentioned issues were the
risks of e-scooter use posed
to pedestrians on footpaths,
near-misses and accidents
that cause serious injuries,
and irresponsible user
behaviour. Several e-scooter
opponents highlighted the
obstacles that parked e-scooters on footpaths can pose to people with disabilities.
For a high number of feedback providers, safety concerns were the main motivation for sending
individual feedback or complaints. Many submitters of the Lime feedback also commented on
safety issues possibly in part because the feedback was sent in response to Lime’s license being
suspended on safety grounds.
The five key issues most frequently mentioned in relation to safety were:
• Speeds: Feedback providers emphasised that e-scooter users riding at high speeds put
both users and pedestrians on footpaths in danger. Non-users highlighted the frequency
of accidents and near-misses caused by fast e-scooter riders, ultimately leading to
pedestrians not feeling safe. Speed restrictions were a common suggestion.
• Lime’s software malfunction: Most commonly mentioned by e-scooter users who
stressed the necessity of guaranteeing faultless vehicle safety to prevent accidents and
serious injuries.
• Helmets: Feedback providers often pointed to the danger of e-scooter use without the
use of helmets. Opinions differed on whether helmets should be legally required when
riding scooters, whether they should be provided with rental scooters, or whether they
are the user’s responsibility.
Figure 9
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 23
• Irresponsible user behaviour:
Both users and non-users
perceived irresponsible riding
behaviour as a high safety risk.
Users frequently emphasised
that the majority of e-scooter
users ride sensibly with only a
few riders using e-scooters
irresponsibly and thus drawing
negative attention to e-scooters.
• ACC claims: People opposed or
with reservations on e-scooters
commonly associated e-scooter-
related accidents with a high
number of ACC claims made. A
commonly suggested condition
for the continuation of e-scooter
sharing schemes was an ACC
levy paid by operators.
Table 8
Top 5 reasons for negative safety perception
for users:
19% - Goes too fast / hard to control speed
16% - No safety equipment / helmets
13% - Uneven road / footpath surface
13% - Competing for space with others
12% - Scooter related i.e. small tyres, hard to
control
Top 6 reasons for negative safety perception
for pedestrians:
36% - Riders drive too fast
26% - Worry about being hit / injured
15% - Unsure when coming i.e. silent / blind
corners
14% - Can't trust all to ride safely / responsibly
13% - Lack of control among some riders
12% - Inconsiderate to pedestrians / too close
Excludes Lime's proforma emails
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
High speeds Lime's vehiclemalfunction issue
Helmets Irresponsibleuser behaviour
ACC
Safety-related issues
Support Neutral/qualified support Opposition
Figure 10
24 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
2.2 Strategic alignment
2.2.1 Transport and access
The main strategic theme rental e-scooters will have an impact on is, most obviously, transport.
The transport system, the way people get around and their ability to access jobs and other
opportunities. E-scooter rental schemes could impact these matters in many different ways and as
such this section is broken down into sub-sections aligned with the directions and focus areas of
the Auckland Plan.
Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods and services
Improving the ability of people to access opportunities and undertake activities is a key goal of the
Auckland Plan and other relevant strategic documents. Greater wellbeing and economic growth
are both facilitated by increasing people’s access to jobs, recreation activities and each other.
The e-scooter rentals contributed in three chief ways to an increase in accessibility during the trial.
1. They increased the speed people could travel without a car, allowing them to travel further and
access more opportunities.
The median speed of trips was 8.1kph, this is approximately 50-100% faster than the average
person’s walking speed (4-6kph) meaning people could access an area two to four times larger
than if they had walked for that same length of time.
2. While the bike already offers transport at this speed, it is clear from the level of demand for e-
scooters (to buy for private use and rent) that they offer something privately owned bikes and
bike share don’t. The primary reasons for this are most likely:
• Less effort than cycling (at least on level ground);
• Not having to wear a helmet;
• Less intimidating than bikes/e-bikes to people that haven’t ridden a bike for a while, or
ever;
• A safer perceived riding environment for the rider as they are allowed on the footpath.
3. The rental model itself is also an important component making these micro mobility devices
more accessible to people, with relatively low costs for use (at least compared to purchasing
one or taking a taxi/uber) and easy accessibility allowing for spur of the moment decisions.
The Kantar survey appears to back up this increase in accessibility with 45% of Lime users
claiming to have undertaken a trip they wouldn’t have otherwise made without a rental e-scooter.
Induced demand such as this is seen when travel is made easier in some way, enabling a trip to be
made that previously wouldn’t have been worth it. This suggests that some form of barrier to travel
was removed or reduced thereby increasing the level of accessibility.
Summary: Rental e-scooters have improved accessibility for the general population by
providing an alternative to walking which is around 50-100% quicker. Their rental model, of
having e-scooters readily available, also enables spur of the moment trips.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 25
Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland
As the Auckland Plan notes:
“Many of us lack reliable, safe and affordable choices about how we travel. This
means we often depend on using private vehicles for most trips.”
A key direction of the Auckland Plan and Central Government’s Policy Statement on land transport
(the GPS) is increasing the range of transport choices people have to reduce reliance on the
private motor vehicle.
As a non-car mode of transport, e-scooters have the obvious potential to contribute to achieving
this goal. The rental model itself, which seeks to ensure an e-scooter is available when required,
also reduces the need to plan ahead and provides greater flexibility and choice for the way people
travel.
Evidence from the trial suggests this is the case, though maybe not to as great a degree as would
have been hoped.
In the Kantar survey when asked about their most recent ride 24% of the users would have
otherwise made the trip in a motor vehicle (be it a privately-owned car, motorbike or a taxi/ride
share). This figure of 24% is not dissimilar from the figures Lime itself has stated publicly from their
own surveys18.
This figure is also backed up by the general usage data. Most short trips are, and without e-
scooters would be, made on foot. Most of the 43% of e-scooter trips under 1000m (10-12 minutes’
walk) and many of the further 19% of trips under 1500m (15-20 minutes’ walk) are likely to have
replaced walking trips rather than use of a motor vehicle19. Beyond this distance (the remaining
38%) it is more likely that these e-scooter trips are replacing private vehicle trips20.
Rental e-scooters then are contributing to reducing motor vehicle trips to some degree and
providing a genuine transport alternative for certain trips.
However, it is less clear if they are contributing to the healthy, vibrant and equitable aspects of this
goal. Healthiness and vibrancy are addressed below under the Focus Area 4 heading, and in the
section on Urban Communities; this section will look a little more at the equitability of this increase
in travel choices.
Equity of accessibility
Given the geographic focus of the trial on the city centre and fringe (as well as a small number
along Tamaki Drive and on the north shore) there has been limited chance to observe the
popularity or effectiveness of rental e-scooters in less central, more suburban areas.
18 22% in one case (Lime Year-End Report); and around one third of trips in a second instance (Lime executive: We apologise - and our scooters are safe’ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12206910 retrieved 05.03.2019) 19 These figures (both of walking trips replaced and trip lengths) may in part reflect the city centre location of the trial. Given the relative inconvenience of using a car in the city centre most trips are made on foot, and therefore it is unsurprising to see that these are the majority of tris replaced. In the suburbs where driving is easier and more frequent this result may not be replicated. It is not possible to tell from the trial at this point. 20 It is not clear from the trial why rental e-scooters are proving most appealing for these short trips. Presumably at a certain point beyond 1500m the characteristics of other options, such as comfort and cost, prove more attractive. Further work could consider this, including whether a change to charging rates could better target car trips.
26 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Likewise, the trial area has been focused on some of the more affluent areas of the region, which
are also some of the best served by public transport. This has not provided the chance to see how
well the scheme would contribute to an increase in travel choice for lower-socio economic areas,
and in particular those which have a poorer level of travel choice.
Questions therefore remain about how affordable and accessible e-scooters are for those with less
money or without a debit/credit card or mobile phone. Measures to address these issues have
been trialled in cities overseas, as outlined in appendix 1, and could be considered for Auckland if
e-scooters rental companies are allowed to continue to operate.
Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection
Improving the safety of the transport system is one of the principal strategic goals of both Auckland
Council and Central Government. It has also been the primary focus of concerns raised as part of
the public discussion and media reporting on the trial.
In evaluating the safety outcomes of the trial, the actual and perceived safety of both users and
non-users needs to be considered.
As with all data it is also useful to consider some of these absolute figures in a wider context to
ensure a considered perspective.
Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSIs)
As mentioned in section 2.1.3 DSIs are the standard measure of road safety and under the ‘Vision
Zero’ approach adopted by the council and AT these life-ending, or changing, crashes are the
primary focus of safety activities.
There was only the one recorded DSI in the Auckland region in the first month or two of the trial21.
Comparatively, during 2018 there were approximately four cycling and eight and a half pedestrian
related DSIs per month. Nevertheless, there are some limitations in using DSI data for this
evaluation, primarily the under reporting of non-vehicle related rashes and the small number of
recorded incidents. Some further understanding can be gained by looking at ACC data of claims
received.
Actual safety of users
As described in section 2.1.3, there were 745 claims made to ACC between the 14th of October
2018 and 23rd of February 2019 for e-scooter accidents in the Auckland region.
Discounting a portion of these injuries for private use, the rate of ACC claims works out to be about
one claim every 1450 rides22. At the average ridership rate from the trial period of 0.2 rides per
rider per week, an average user could expect to have an accident on an e-scooter (resulting in an
21 Data was only available until November 2018 at time of writing 22 Depending on the assumptions made the range of claim rates is 1 per 1100 to 1700 trips.
Summary: As a new and different transport mode e-scooter rentals have increased travel
choice in those areas in which they have been trialled. This increase though has been limited to
these areas. If expanded given their cost and reliance on technology to access they could still
exclude many portions of the population.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 27
ACC claim) every 136 years. Even if taking one ride a week at this rate a user would only have an
accident every 27 years. In saying this however, at this rate a frequent user of rental e-scooters,
who uses them twice a day, could expect to have an accident requiring an ACC claim every three
years.
It is difficult to compare these figures to other activities and transport modes given the limitations of
the ACC data which have already been mentioned, as well as the trouble with comparing modes
which can be used both recreationally and for transport.
With these caveats in mind though when compared to the accident rates for similar modes this is a
relatively small number. The 745 e-scooter related claims made in the Auckland region during the
trial period compares to 1079 skateboarding claims, 1646 foot-scooter claims and 4413 cycling
claims for the same period.
Converting these accurately to a relative level of risk requires more information on the level of
these modes/activities than we currently have. In saying that, these other activities are likely to
have a higher level of use/participation than e-scooters, and as such it is likely that e-scooter use is
less safe to the user than most other modes.
From what little information is available looking at cycle claim rates, cycling appears probably
about 10-20 times safer on a per minute basis and 3-7.5 times safer on a per trip basis than rental
e-scooter use during the trial period23. However, it remains safer than other activities such as skiing
and playing rugby24.
Given the lack of experience many users would have with e-scooters, an elevated level of
accidents was anticipated during the trial; accident rates may settle down to some degree as
people’s familiarity with the devices and their own ability improves.
Actual safety of non-users
While not using e-scooters, many non-users, and in particular pedestrians, are exposed to
potential safety risks from the use of e-scooters.
As set out in section 2.1.3 there have been few accidents in Auckland serious enough to require
treatment under ACC. Given the privacy reporting requirements of ACC the exact number of
accidents is unknown, however it is somewhere between three and nine (inclusive), and most likely
on the lower side of this range.
Perceived safety
As part of the Kantar survey, undertaken before the wheel locking fault became known, 78% of
users said they felt safe using an e-scooter and 21% unsafe. From the sample of the general
population 51% of pedestrians felt unsafe when sharing footpaths with e-scooters and 39% safe.
In the public feedback received, safety was the single most mentioned issue. For a high number of
feedback providers, safety concerns were the main motivation for sending individual feedback or
complaints. Many submitters of the Lime feedback also commented on safety issues possibly in
23 Based on figures in the Christchurch City Council ‘Draft micro-mobility discussion paper’; Chieng, M., et al., How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand? Journal of Transport & Health (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.008i; and Tin Tin et al., Completeness and accuracy of crash outcome data in a cohort of cyclists: a validation study’, BMC Public Health 2013, 13:420 24 Chieng, M., et al., How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand? Journal of Transport & Health (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.008i
28 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
part because the feedback was sent in response to Lime’s license being suspended on safety
grounds.
Perceived safety continues to have a real impact on some residents, especially the more
vulnerable, with some reports of residents feeling so unsafe that they are not prepared to leave
their house. The exact scale of this is unclear, but the curtailing of even one person’s ability to
leave their house clearly runs contrary to the council’s strategic goals.
Vision Zero
Focus Area 6 of the Auckland Plan’s Transport and Access section is to ‘Move to a safe transport
network free from death and serious injury’. This focus is based on the ‘Vision Zero’ approach to
road safety which aims to eliminate transport-related deaths and serious injuries. This approach
accepts that people make mistakes and seeks to minimise the harm from any mistakes.
Given the limited number of deaths and
serious injuries to date it may be that e-
scooters are a mode well aligned with this
approach, or it may be that the trial has not
been in place for a sufficient time for any
issues to become clear.
Nevertheless, the same general approach
can be applied to e-scooter use. Under the
Vision Zero approach it is recognised that
crashes and accidents do happen, and that
the system should be made safer to reduce
the severity of crashes.
In the case of e-scooters the most obvious
response is the separation of e-scooters from
non-like modes, in particular pedestrians and
motor vehicles. This however will not happen
immediately. In the meantime, consideration
should be given to the fact that, given the
disparity in weight between them, the impact of an accident between an e-scooter and a motor
vehicle is more likely to have severe repercussions than that between an e-scooter and a
pedestrian (Figure 11). Under this approach, if a choice must be made between the two then the
footpath is the preferable of the two.
Summary: Insufficient safety and usage data makes it difficult to compare the risks of e-
scooters to other activities and transport modes. There is definitely some risk from using e-
scooters and they appear less safe than other alternative transport modes; however, they
appear to remain safer than some other socially acceptable activities.
For non-users there appears a relatively small level of actual risk of injury, but there is
anecdotal evidence of a greater number of near misses. There is a strong perception of risk
and a feeling of lack of safety amongst some people, especially the more vulnerable.
Figure 11
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 29
Focus Area 1: Make better use of existing transport networks
Most of Auckland’s future transport footprint already exists today. Growth in travel demand will
need to be accommodated within this footprint. To move more people and more trips in the same
amount of space we need to be much smarter about how we get around.
Given their size e-scooters are relatively efficient forms of transport. Sharing many similar
characteristics with the bicycle (particularly their general size and speed) they are likely to be able
to move a similar number of people in the same amount of space. This would mean they are
approximately seven times as space efficient as the private motor vehicle, but less efficient than
moving by foot or in dedicated public transport space (Figure 12).
Figure 1225
In addition to this, e-scooter rental schemes appear in theory to be complementary to other space
efficient modes, such as walking, cycling and public transport. As is covered in more detail below in
Focus Area 4, e-scooter rental schemes have the potential to support public transport, as well as
less directly walking and cycling.
The most important time for the transport network to be used efficiently is during peak times when
demand to travel is highest. While usage of e-scooters shows a clear increase at peak times, they
are still used more frequently during the middle of the day suggesting they may not be contributing
to this objective as much as they could.
In saying this, routes in high density locations such as the city centre can experience some level of
congestion throughout the day and the temporal and spatial extent of this will likely only increase
over time as Auckland continues to grow and demand for space intensifies. The types of trips that
are likely being taken on e-scooters during this time, such as running errands and getting between
meetings, are also often poorly served by existing transport options and this option may help fill a
gap.
25 Asian Development Bank, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (2011) Changing Course in Urban Transport: An Illustrated Guide.
30 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Feedback received from the public described a number of ways in which the rental e-scooters were
being used including providing an alternative to “inefficient” PT system, the car or ‘Uber’ trips, and
being used as part of a daily/ regular commute.
Focus Area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology
Technological changes bring with them great opportunities, but also carry risks that may either
prevent some of the potential benefits from being fully realised or else create perverse and
negative effects.
This trial period has been a good example of the approach set out in the Auckland Plan of
encouraging innovation and supporting the testing of new transport ideas.
The trial and its evaluation has improved our understanding of the possible role e-scooter rental
could play in Auckland’s transport system, as well as identifying a number of possible changes to
the licensing scheme (in the short term), land transport rules (in the medium term) and to
infrastructure (in the medium and longer term) that could address some of the adverse effects and
help realise the positives.
There remains a lack of certainty around some of the impacts and the best approach to take in
managing any possible future schemes. Given this lack of certainty, if it is decided to continue
issuing licences a further trial period, or longer licence with review points, could be appropriate.
This especially applies to matters which have not been able to be covered in the trial, such as the
impact in outer suburbs and lower socio-economic areas, and to any interventions or changes to
the licenses which may be made, such as the number of e-scooters in more suburban areas.
Focus Area 4: Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders
While the Auckland Plan sets a strategic direction of increasing travel choice, it also identifies a
specific focus of increasing the popularity of walking, cycling and public transport. The reasons for
this are manifold but include the efficiency and effectiveness of both modes at moving large
Summary: E-scooters are a relatively space efficient mode of transport and they have the
potential to move large numbers of people in a limited amount of space. During the trial, they
have not been heavily used during the times when efficient movement is most important, but
have been most used in the locations where this is important.
Summary: This trial period has been a good example of encouraging innovation and
supporting the testing of new transport ideas. The trial has not produced conclusive results, and
as such, if it’s decided to continue a further trial period, or longer licence with review points,
should be considered.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 31
numbers of people and, in particular for walking and cycling, the considerable health benefits which
result from incorporating exercise into day-to-day routine and activity26.
For these reasons these modes must remain the priority for the region, and new interventions
should not undermine this focus and the benefits this emphasis is expected to achieve.
As summarised above, over 50 percent of respondents in the Kantar survey stated that their most
recent e-scooter trip would have otherwise been made on foot. While some of these trips may have
been new trips which otherwise would not have been made, it is likely that a significant proportion
of e-scooter rental trips have replaced walking trips. While replacing a 10-12 minute walk (the
median e-scooter trip distance) may seem relatively harmless, it is one third of the recommended
minimum daily amount of physical activity27. Short bouts of exercise, such as this, built into a day
are also one of the most effective methods of staying active and maintaining good health.
Rental e-scooters may then at first glance seem to have a negative association with rates of active
travel, however the situation may not be quite so clear cut. Firstly e-scooters are at least a partially
active mode as they require some level of activity to use. Unless going up a hill this is unlikely to be
to the level of walking or cycling but is more than sitting in a car.
E-scooters could also play a role in reducing an individual’s car reliance, allowing them to reduce
the number of vehicles they own and/or car trips they take. People’s daily travel choices are often
heavily influenced by their single most difficult trip leg. While it may be the case that four out of five
trip legs could be made without a car, if the fifth does require it, for instance because it’s longer or
must happen quickly, then they will often use the car for all five. E-scooter rentals can fill some of
the gaps in the (car-free) transport system allowing more people to live with fewer cars.
Furthermore, as is clear from the trial the best location for e-scooter use is in separated “cycle”
facilities, with modes of a similar speed, size and weight, and away from pedestrians and motor
vehicles. While it is unclear at the moment how this trend will translate into funding decisions, it is
clear there is supressed demand for this type of mode. If this demand supports the case for more
and better cycleways it could, by creating a safer environment for cyclists, indirectly encourage
greater cycle use.
In relation to public transport, 8% of users (in the Kantar survey) reported replacing a public
transport trip with their most recent e-scooter trip and 19% have used public transport less due to
e-scooters. On the flip side though, 7% of people28 claimed to have used public transport more and
21% to mainly have used e-scooters to get to or from PT.
As these results suggest, and as claimed by the e-scooter companies themselves, e-scooter rental
schemes should support public transport by providing a first and/or last leg service. As a result of
their speed and reduced effort (compared to walking) they effectively increase the catchment of
stations allowing people from further away to connect to public transport.
26 Celis-Morales Carlos A, Lyall Donald M, Welsh Paul, Anderson Jana, Steell Lewis, Guo Yibing et al. Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2017; 357 :j1456 Shaw C, Keall M, Guniey H. What modes of transport are associated with higher levels of physical activity? Cross-sectional study of New Zealand adults. Journal of Transport & Health 7 (2017) 125–133 She Z, Kimg D M, Jacobson S H. Is promoting public transit an effective intervention for obesity?: A longitudinal study of the relation between public transit usage and obesity. Transportation Research Part A 119 (2019) 162–169 27 https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/food-activity-and-sleep/physical-activity/how-much-activity-recommended 28 Combined Auckland and Christchurch surveys, as it wasn’t reported just for Auckland. The 19% figure for reduced public transport use in the previous sentence is solely for Auckland.
32 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
There are some challenges to this role however, as the current rental e-scooter model works best
when serving trips from busy nodes such as bus stations and other activity centres (such as town
and shopping centres). Trips to these centres from less dense locations are much more difficult to
serve. The current model then serves last leg connections (from public transport stations) and first
leg trips from busy locations (such as the city centre and employment centres around the city
fringe) to public transport well, but less so from the suburbs to these areas.
Some companies, such as Bird, are looking at addressing the morning first leg issue by allowing
users to have e-scooters delivered to their door29. This however, was not part of the Auckland trial,
and it is unclear if it is practical, effective or viable here or overseas.
Overall alignment with transport and access
Based on evidence from the trial period to date, e-scooter rental schemes appear broadly aligned
with the council and AT’s strategic transport objectives.
During the evaluation period e-scooters appear to have improved accessibility, especially by non-
car modes; increased travel choice; and served as a relatively efficient mode of transport. While
there is some evidence of e-scooter trips replacing walking trips, more broadly and longer-term the
situation is likely more nuanced.
These positive, and neutral, outcomes are countered by concerns with the safety of the devices
and users. Compared to other transport modes the level of serious incidents has been low,
although the rate of more minor incidents requiring some form of medical treatment is likely higher.
The actual physical safety of non-users has been pretty good, but there remains a strong
perception amongst at least part of the population that their level of safety has been reduced. In
the most extreme cases this has led to some members of society being restricted to their house.
2.2.2 The natural environment
Minimising the harmful environmental and health impacts of the transport system is a key direction
of the Auckland Plan. Emissions from the transport sector make up almost 40% of Auckland’s
emissions30 (Figure 13).
As explained above the e-scooter rental trial has seen two to three hundred thousand car trips
replaced by e-scooter trips. With New Zealand’s largely renewable electricity supply and the small,
29 https://bird.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360019188812-Bird-to-Work 30 Auckland Council Low Carbon Auckland: Annual update 2017
Summary:
• There is some evidence of e-scooter trips replacing walking trips and PT trips
• E-scooters require some level of effort to use, and are likely to indirectly support
car free (or light) living, and the case for more protected cycle infrastructure.
They may also support public transport by enabling first and last leg trips.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 33
light design of the e-scooters (meaning that whatever the
power source is they will be much more efficient to move
than a car), they have definitely contributed to a reduction
in vehicle emissions.
This has resulted during the trial period in approximately
92,659 fewer kilograms of CO2 being released into the
atmosphere31.
However, e-scooter rental schemes are not entirely
emissions free. As part of their operating model, most, if
not all, rental e-scooters are collected each night, charged
(if needed), and returned to the streets the next morning,
usually with the use of a car or van. These trips are likely
to be far less than the number of vehicle trips replaced by
e-scooter trips, but conversely they will generally be longer
and as such will negate some of the emissions benefits
outlined above.
This also isn’t the only way the scheme could impact on the
environment, and the end result is not so clear cut. E-
scooters have a limited lifespan. Reports from overseas have
suggested lifespans of 2-3 months are not uncommon32 for
rental e-scooters, with one report even suggesting an
average lifespan of under 30 days33. Lime’s release of their
new model earlier this year (yet to reach Auckland)
trumpeted “prolonging its lifecycle up to six months”34,
suggesting this current 2-3 month figure may not be way out.
This also appears to be backed up by the data from the trial
to date. Of the e-scooters launched in October 2018, 50%
operated for under 90 days, although 20% were still in operation on the 22nd of February 114-131
days later (Figure 14 and Figure 15).
31 Assuming one third of e-scooter trips have replaced a car trip, and using the ‘Car – Default’ figure recommended by the Ministry for the Environment and available at: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/guidance-voluntary-greenhouse-gas-reporting-2016-data-and-methods-2014 32 https://www.wsj.com/articles/scooter-startups-cool-fundraising-wheels-1544356923 33 https://qz.com/1561654/how-long-does-a-scooter-last-less-than-a-month-louisville-data-suggests/ 34 https://www.li.me/blog/lime-s-gen-3-electric-scooter-transform-micro-mobility, accessed 10.03.19
Figure 13
34 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
2.2.3 Urban form and communities
The Auckland Plan envisages a future Auckland with a quality compact urban form and vibrant,
accessible and people-focused urban spaces.
Rental e-scooters support the council’s goal of a quality, compact urban form. They are a space
efficient mode of transport that is particularly complementary of a more compact urban form where
more activities and opportunities are available in closer proximity. They also support the ability for
car free living, reducing the need for carparking and freeing up that land or floor area housing, or
other more productive uses.
For users as well, they can improve the experience of urban life adding a layer of fun to the city. In
the Kantar survey, “fun” was repeatedly the reason for using a rental e-scooter whether it was for
the first time or as a regular user. Likewise, “fun” was clearly the most common single word used
by both users and non-users alike (Figure 16).
Summary: There has been some evidence of emissions benefits though this is offset in part by
their collection and redistribution via cars. These benefits are also likely to be further negated to
some degree by the limited lifecycle the scooters have. How much though is hard to estimate
and will require further work.
Figure 14 Figure 15
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 35
Figure 16
As a space-efficient, quiet and low polluting mode of transport, e-scooters conceptually support the
council’s focus on well-designed public places and spaces. They get people out of their cars
creating a friendlier, people focussed public realm and improve the case for separated “cycle”
infrastructure which in turn would help achieve the same result.
However, in the absence of this “cycle” infrastructure and with no proven solution to consistently
ensure safe parking, unsafe use on footpaths and inconsiderate parking can undermine these
benefits. As already covered, e-scooter use on footpaths can lead to perceived/real safety risks for
pedestrians and incorrectly parked e-scooters can reduce access for pedestrians and increase
perceived/real clutter of e-scooters, negatively affecting the image/experience of urban areas.
2.2.4 Economically successful city
The Auckland Plan foresees a prosperous future Auckland that creates conditions for a resilient
economy, through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity.
While it hasn’t been possible to collect definitive evidence of the economic effects of the e-scooter
rental trial it seems likely to have had the following benefits:
• As covered in section 2.2.1, it appears that rental e-scooters are enabling a number of trips
which wouldn’t have otherwise been made. Given the discretionary nature of these additional
trips many of these will have been for social activities, potentially increasing spending on
shopping and hospitality. This is backed up by some of the public feedback received which
Summary: Short-term effects of e-scooter use are likely to have some negative impacts on
urban spaces and communities, as the lack of designated lanes compromises real/perceived
safety for both pedestrians feeling unsafe sharing footpaths with e-scooter users, and e-scooter
users feeling unsafe to share road space with cars. Over time as infrastructure improves, e-
scooter use is likely to have more positive effects on urban space and communities.
36 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
made mention of trips to visit local cafes, restaurants and shops, which would not have been
made without e-scooters, and by media reports.35
• As described in section 2.2.1, rental e-scooters have increased travel speeds, compared to
making the trip by foot, potentially improving access to employment opportunities and the
ability of businesses to interact face to face. This is supported by mention in the public
feedback of regular use of e-scooters to get to and from work, and to get between work-related
meetings as a more reliable transport alternative to public transport or the car.
• In a similar vein to the above point, the faster travelling speed of e-scooters will have saved
people time. This saved time will have had value, especially when it was saved as part of a
business trip.
• Rental e-scooters have also acted as a fun and convenient mode for tourists. User feedback
mentioned using e-scooters to explore the city as a tourist or part of a group of tourists,
combining tourist activities across the city.
• The creation of jobs for both direct employees of the companies as well as the contractors
recharging and redistributing the e-scooters.
Conversely the costs appear to consist primarily of:
• Some increase in ACC claim costs. Payment for ACC claims is the purview of central
government and to date they have not shown any concern at the level of claims.
• The inability of some people (including the disabled and elderly in particular) to make trips due
to safety concerns.
• There may be some increased long-term health costs as a result of the reduction in walking
trips but, as covered in section 2.2.1, the actual impact of e-scooters on active travel rates is
unclear.
35 NZHerald: ‘How Lime scooters have impacted retail and shopping around Auckland CBD’ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12208262
Summary: The economic effects of the trial appear modestly positive, given the increase in
trips enabled and improved accessibility due to increased travel speeds, although there is
limited data, and subsequent certainty, on the extent of this.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 37
3 Evaluation summary
The provisional results of the trial indicate that, broadly speaking, the outcomes of the trial have
been in line with the strategic goals of the council and AT. These results are summarised in the
table on the following page.
The scale of all benefits and costs though have been quite small, in part due to the limited
geographic scale and duration of the trial and as such the ratings below are all relatively neutral.
Short vs long term consideration
This analysis has been based on the trial period and the circumstances under which the trial was
undertaken; in particular, the form of the transport network at the time and the legislative
requirements within which the scheme and users were allowed to operate.
This is clearly not the ideal situation within which e-scooter rental schemes would operate. This
provisional assessment has tried to restrict itself to consideration of the schemes within the current
infrastructural and legislative environment to inform immediate licensing decisions, and not
considered the longer-term potential of such schemes should different infrastructure or legislation
be in place. This could be another piece of work.
It is clear that the most serious negative impact of the trial is the safety impacts, including in
particular the perceived safety impacts to non-users, including the less physically able. This can be
resolved with improved infrastructure, in the form of separated cycle (or micro mobility) lanes, and
this should be prioritised.
38 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Rating Comments
Transport and access36
Better connect people, places, goods and services
• Positive for the general population
Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland
• Reducing motor vehicle trips and providing a genuine transport alternative for certain trips
• Financial and technical barriers may exist for lower socio-economic sectors of society, though overseas examples show possible ways to alleviate this
Maximise safety and environmental protection
-- • Users – Some risk. Less safe than alternative transport
modes, but more safe than other socially acceptable activities
• Non-users – Relatively small level of actual risk; but strong perception amongst some people of risk, especially the more vulnerable
Make better use of existing transport networks
• Light weight and small. Similar road capacity to a bike which is approximately 7 times better than cars.
• Peak time of rental e-scooter use doesn’t match period of general peak demand for travel.
Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders
--
• Directly replaces walking trips
• Some level of effort still required so slightly ‘active’
• Could indirectly support active modes and public transport by assisting car free living, supporting the case for dedicated cycle & e-scooter space and serving first and last leg PT trips
The natural environment
-- • Modest emissions benefits
• Unclear potential lifecycle costs
Urban form and communities
--
• Supports compact urban form
• Immediate impact on public places is mixed – fewer cars & more people, but safety concerns exist while e-scooters share pedestrian spaces
Economically successful city
• Modestly positive due to:
o Additional trips (more money spent shopping etc)
o Improved accessibility (able to access more jobs in same time, make more meetings etc )
o Time savings
Scale: , , , -- , , ,
36 Focus Area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology, has not been included as part of this overall evaluation summary. As it relates to this project this Focus Area 3 is more concerned with the process followed (i.e. a trial) rather than the strategic outcome desired. By virtue of being a trial of a new transport technology, the trial is aligned with the approach described in this focus area. Including a rating based on this risks distorting consideration of the long-term strategic alignment with short-term process based considerations.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 39
Appendices
40 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Appendix 1
Summary of overseas approaches
• Safety: To mitigate safety risks presented by damaged e-scooters, many cities request
maintenance records from e-scooter operators (e.g. on a monthly basis, Seattle requests
service histories, information on product recalls, user reports of unsafe or damaged
vehicles, tallies of vehicles taken out of service for repair).
E-scooter rental companies have applied “Geo-Speed Limiting” technology that enables
automatic slowing or stopping of vehicles within specific areas, such as areas with high
pedestrian volumes. This “geo-speed limiting” technology, used in cities such as Santa
Monica, Denver and Austin37, geofences slow speed zones.
In Auckland, safety was addressed in the code of practice that underlies Auckland’s mobile
trading licenses, which requires operators to ensure safety of vehicles and regular repair
and maintenance of vehicles. Additional elements to the trial of Lime’s e-scooters scheme
also requested in-app speed and safety messages for e-scooter users and pop-up
activations in the city centre to give safety-training to e-scooter users. The e-scooter
operator Wave set up a geo-fenced low-speed zone on Queen Street, Wynyard Quarter
and the Viaduct Basin as part of the trial period.
• Parking: Cities have established a range of different approaches and guidelines for the
parking of micro-mobility device:
o “Furniture zone”: defined by the US based National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) as “the portion of sidewalk between where people walk and the
curb, often where you’ll find other street signs, street furniture, trees, parking meters,
etc.”38 This is one of the e-scooter parking areas advised by Santa Monica.
o “Micro mobility corrals”, where on-street parking is repurposed to create permanent
and legible parking space for scooters and bikes, e.g. in Santa Monica.
o Geofencing or other digital prohibition for parking in specific areas such as areas with
high pedestrian volumes, set up through the operator’s app, e.g. in Austin and San
Francisco.
Most cities’ policies place the obligation to enforce parking policy on operators and pass
through the costs of managing illegally parked vehicles, such as ticketing and towing3.
Auckland’s Code of Practice also requires operators to ensure correct parking behaviour of
e-scooter users, however it does not recommend specific parking areas but states that e-
scooters should be parked where they do not impede pedestrian and vehicle access.
• Equitable access: In the US especially, e-scooter rental schemes are seen as a way to
improve access for more financially deprived areas that often have low levels of car
37 http://www.govtech.com/fs/Is-Geofencing-the-Answer-to-Cities-Electric-Scooter-Challenges.html; http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/scooter-speeds-to-be-limited-to-8-mph-in-parts-of-ut-campus 38 NACTO, 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NACTO-Shared-Active-Transportation-Guidelines.pdf
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 41
ownership and poor public transport service. To ensure these schemes serve this purpose,
cities have required:
o that a minimum number/proportion of e-scooters are located in underserved more
deprived areas at the start of each day, as in Portland;
o a reduced rate or exemption from paying for certain trips (such as trips under 30
minutes in length) for people on a low-income, including an agreed low-income
verification process, as in Chicago; and
o the ability to pay for and unlock e-scooters without a bank account and/or
smartphone, as in San Francisco.
No initiatives for equitable access to e-scooters were required from operators in the e-
scooter trial licenses in Auckland.
• Fees: A common mechanism for cities to mitigate the financial impact of managing shared
e-scooter programmes (such as administrative costs, enforcement costs). Three fee
mechanisms are most commonly used, sometimes in combination:
o Annual license fees – implemented by most surveyed cities (e.g. Los Angeles,
Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, etc.)
o Per vehicle annual fees – common additional mechanism (e.g. in Los Angeles,
Chicago, Austin, Seattle, etc.)
o Dynamic fees – tied to numbers of vehicles, trips or stations, per day (e.g. Portland:
25ct per trip, Minneapolis: 1$ per scooter per day)
• Data sharing: New data sharing specifications such as the General Bikeshare Feed
Specification (GBFS) and Mobility Data Specification (MDS) are helping reduce the
resourcing burden on both cities and e-scooter rental companies globally, by providing a
standardised data format. The key data elements requested by most cities are:
o Trip data
o Fleet availability data
o Maintenance and safety records
o Parking compliance data
o Customer experience (these could be conducted by the company or the city itself)
• Fleet and operator caps:
o Fleet caps: Like Salt Lake City, and Nashville, US, nearly all reviewed cities with e-
scooter sharing schemes have instituted a fleet cap (an upper limit on how many
vehicles can be on the city streets). Within this limit, performance caps are used by a
number of cities to align desired program goals with operators’ efforts, reward
operator performance and actively balance supply and demand.
o Operator Caps: The number of operators has a direct relationship to the total potential
vehicles on the streets. While having multiple operators should mean competition,
especially in early markets, there are likely diminishing returns due to increased
compliance work. There is also no evidence of multiple operators leading to a
reduction in price, though competition may be occurring on levels of service (such as
42 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
ride quality) which are harder to measure. San Francisco and Seattle are among the
cities that have set a cap for e-scooter operators.
In Auckland, three operators were given licenses for the initial e- trial period, but only two
operators launched within the time.
Permit type Fleet cap Operators Fee structure39 Service area
San Francisco
12-month trial permit
(Oct 2018 – Oct 2019)
1,250 e-scooters between operators, potential increase to 2,500.
Scoot, Skip • Application fee (US$5,000)
• Annual permit fee (US$25,000)
• Public property repair and maintenance endowment
(US$10,000)
San Francisco city centre
Portland40
4-month trial permit (July - Nov 2018)
2,043 e-scooters between operators
Bird, Lime, Skip
(open to several operators)
• Permit Application Fee (US$250)
• Pilot Permit Fee (US$5,000)
• Per ride fee (US$0.25/ride)
Portland city boundary
Brisbane
Temporary Permit (Nov 2018 – March 2019)
5,000 e-scooters (procurement process will limit cap to 1,000 e-scooters)
Lime
(current procurement process allows 2 operators)
Unknown
(council currently considers $570 annual fee per scooter)
Brisbane city boundary
Vienna
License type unknown, sharing schemes launched starting in September 2018
1,500 e-scooters per operator
Lime, Bird, Tier, Wind, Flash
unknown Geofenced speed restrictions in specific areas with high pedestrian numbers
39 For permit period 40 Portland have recently released their decision, based on the results of their initial pilot, to run an additional trial for a year from 26 April 2019.
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 43
International e-scooter regulation
Regulatory environments for e-scooter sharing systems can differ widely across cities and
countries, which makes comparisons between e-scooter permit types and their relevance to
Auckland difficult. Generally, regulation most relevant to e-scooter use relates to the spaces where
e-scooters can be used, e-scooter speed restrictions and helmet use. The following list shows
some examples of e-scooter regulations currently in place in different cities, states or countries.
City/State/
Country
Banned on
footpaths
Banned on
roads
Speed
restriction
Helmet use
required
Drivers’
license
required
Australia -
Queensland
Use on roads allowed
where footpath use is
impractical 12 kmh •
France • 25 kmh
Singapore • 15 kmh
UK •
Use on public roads
allowed only if e-
scooter is registered,
licensed & insured
• •
US - California 24 kmh For under 18
year-olds •
US -
Massachusetts 32 kmh • •
In places like South Australia, New York City and Germany, current regulations prohibit e-scooter
use from public streets, mostly because e-scooters are classified as motorized vehicles which are
prohibited on footpaths, but also do not meet legal safety standards required for road use.
As a response to the worldwide proliferation of e-scooters, several countries/cities chose to adapt
existing regulation to set a regulatory frame for e-scooter use. For instance, Germany is currently
developing a regulatory package under which e-scooters are permitted on public streets after May
2019. The regulation will presumably set a speed limit of 20 kmh for e-scooters, and largely
prohibit e-scooter use on footpaths. Similarly, New York City’s Transportation Committee has
introduced four bills that would legalise e-scooter use below a speed on 15 mph (24 kmh).
44 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Appendix 2
Policy/Legislative framework
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 45
Legislative / regulatory / operators powers
Powers Enforcement powers/ penalties
Strength/limitation
MBIE & Commerce Commission
Fair Trading Act 1986
Prevents importation /distribution of dangerous goods
prevent importation, unsafe goods can remove for 9 days
Can ensure unsafe scooters are removed/prevented
NZTA & Police
Road user rule 2004
Safety Behaviour Location specifications
Can issue infringement fines 10-30k fine and further fines of up to $1,500
• Helmets not required
• Not classified as vehicle
• No speed limits (max limit 50kmph)
• Allowed on footpath
• Limited public awareness
• Enforcement challenges
• Can travel in cycle lanes not attached to road
The council/AT
Trading and events in public places bylaw (licence and code of conduct)
Can require operator to help address unsafe behaviour but limited effectiveness
Can approve and decline licence request
impose conditions
Can amend and revoke licence
Court fine on prosecution of up to $20,000 for businesses who breach the bylaw including licensing requirements. Can charge licence fees
• Largely effective
• Requires strong monitoring and oversight
• Can control operator behaviour
• Current licence and code can be updated to strengthen requirements in line with learnings from trial
• Current fees unlikely to support costs of implementation and administration of licence but could be revised
• Cannot control rider behaviour
Public safety and nuisance bylaw
Prohibits nuisance and unsafe behaviour and activities on public places and transport network
No ability to issue
infringement fines
Court fine on prosecution of up to $20,000.
• Rules can address safety and nuisance issues
• Limited public awareness
• Enforcement challenges
Other bylaws Cannot regulate speed on footpaths or roads
As above. • Can’t require helmets
• Can’t set speed limits
• Can’t legally allow on cycle paths attached to roads
Operators
46 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Terms of use Age, Safe riding etc
Can permit use Can set rules
Can sanction of incentivise behaviours
• Relatively weak
• Difficult to enforce
• Sanctions not necessarily binding or effective
Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 47
Appendix 3
Copy of Lime proforma
48 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation
Subject: I support Lime in Auckland Dear Mayor and Councillors, Since Lime launched in Auckland, I have been one of nearly 209,343 local riders to hop on a scooter. Together, Auckland riders have made nearly a million trips. Many of these would have replaced a car trip, easing the pressure on our roads. Lime also improves access to many parts of the city not serviced by public transport and encourages people outside to explore our city. I support Lime as a transport option for Auckland. Keep Auckland rolling with Lime! Yours sincerely,
Find out more: visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/