Performance Evaluation of E-scooter Sharing in the City of Tampa

Dr. Yu ZhangJason JackmanYujie GuoSett Thiri Aung

Final Report Briefing

Figure from: https://www.tampagov.net/tss-transportation/programs/shared-electric-scooter-pilot-program

Outline• Program Overview• Program Evaluation Methodology• Data Sources• Evaluation Results:

• Evaluation Metrics• Public Opinions on Key Questions• Feedbacks and Suggestions

• Major Findings• Recommendations

• Appendix: Review of e-scooter programs in other cities

Program Overview• From May 28th, 2019 to March 9th,

2020 (Lime, Spin, Bird, Jump):• Total trips: 982,468 • Average daily trips: 3423• Average trip miles: 1.14 miles• Average trip time: 15 mins 19 secs

3

Program Overview

4

Program Evaluation Methodology

5

Data Sources• E-scooter sharing survey data

• Two rounds of survey distribution• First round: October 29, 2019 to December 3, 2019 (1405 responses)• Second round: February 3rd, 2020 to March 3rd, 2020 (537 responses)

• E-scooter sharing operational data from Populus (Aggregated)• Accident data

• Tampa General Hospital• E-scooter sharing survey

• Comments and feedbacks from the public• Call log data• Feedbacks from surveys• Suggestions from meetings of disability groups

6

Evaluation Results Section 1:

Evaluation Metrics

7

Evaluation Metrics: Economic Impact• Economic impacts:

• Time saving: 5.40 million minutes which is worth about $2.29 million• According to survey results, on average each trip saves 5.5 minutes, it rounds to 5.4

million minutes for all trips. The value of time is assumed as $17.91 per hour according to TTI research. The monetary value of time saving rounds to $2.29 million

• Improved mobility: 54,000 trips were made because of the program• According to survey results, 5.54% of trips would not have been taken if the

program was unavailable, it rounds to 54,000 trips in total• Public transit revenue loss: around $21,335

• According to survey results, 1.08% of trips would have taken the HART bus if the program was unavailable. Assume the replaced HART bus trips are using local and limited express ticket which is $2. The revenue loss to HART rounds to $15,598.

8

Evaluation Metrics: Economic Impact (Cont’d)Local restaurants/ bars gain economic benefits because of e-scooters

Trip purposes of e-scooter sharing

E-scooter sharing trip distribution

9

Evaluation Metrics: Environmental impacts• Reduced vehicle use

• According to survey results, 45.5% would have driven private cars, used ride hailing or car sharing if the program was unavailable

• Reduced vehicles mile traveled: 500,690 miles

• Assume distance of a vehicle trip is same as e-scooter trip, consider total e-scooter miles traveled and percentage of vehicle trips replaced by e-scooters, it rounds to 500,690 miles vehicle traveled replaced by e-scooters. However, this calculation does not consider vehicle miles traveled for e-scooter rebalancing. Actual reduced vehicle miles traveled could be lower.

• Traffic emission reduction:• 202.4 tons Carbon dioxide• 175.4 kg Hydrocarbons• 1973.1 kg Exhaust carbon monoxide• 144.7 kg Exhaust nitrogen oxide• 4.1 kg Exhaust PM2.5• 22,759 gallons Gasoline

• Number of vehicles off the road: 47 vehicles

• Based on reduced vehicle miles traveled and average annual travel mileage of light duty of vehicles, it rounds to 47 vehicles.

10

Horizontal equity: the coverage of e-scooters vary significantly among spatial areas

Evaluation Metrics: Equity

11

E-scooter distribution at census level E-scooter distribution among operating zones

Horizontal equity: the usage of e-scooters vary significantly among spatial areas

Evaluation Metrics: Equity (Cont’d)

12

E-scooter pick up distribution E-scooter drop off distribution

Vertical equity: e-scooter usage and coverage are inequitable among areas with different poverty ratio

Evaluation Metrics: Equity (Cont’d)

13

Poverty ratio of census area E-scooter distribution at census level E-scooter pick up distribution

Vertical equity: Users are mainly male, higher income and White populations

Evaluation Metrics: Equity (Cont’d)

14

Vertical equity: Users are mainly male, higher income and White populations

Evaluation Metrics: Equity (Cont’d)

15

Though most e-scooter accidents had no injury or minor injury, the hospital visits increased significantly after the program started.

16

Evaluation Metrics: Health and Safety

Accident counts reported by TGH

Collected safety data via survey and asked about accident types and severity levels.

17

Evaluation Metrics: Health and Safety (Cont’d)

Accident type and severity level collected via survey

• E-scooters could have negative impacts on users’ health due to reduced physical activities.

• According to survey, 44.5% of users would have walked or cycled if e-scooters were unavailable

• Majority of the public do not feel safe when e-scooters are ridden on sidewalk and street lanes.

• 76% of pedestrians feel unsafe when e-scooters are ridden on sidewalk• 79.5% of drivers feel unsafe when e-scooters are ridden on street lanes. • 45.5% of cyclists feel unsafe when they see e-scooters being ridden on

bike lanes.

18

Evaluation Metrics: Health and Safety (Cont’d)

Vendor perspective: • Vendors did not

provide enough e-scooters in some of service areas.

• Vendors might need to adjust e-scooter relocation strategies or reduce the number of e-scooters to improve utilization ratio.

19

Evaluation Metrics: Level of Service

E-scooter utilization ratio

User perspective: • Vendors generally perform well based on proposed evaluation

metrics• Pricing and customer responses have the lowest satisfaction

score.

20

Evaluation Metrics: Level of Service (Cont’d)

*Score of evaluation metrics (Scaled from 1 to 5)

Metrics Mean VarianceSmartphone app is user friendly 4.4 0.004It is easy to find usable e-scooters 4.2 0.002The price is reasonable 3.8 0.031The e-scooter is easy to use 4.5 0.000The company is responsive to requests, concerns or questions 3.8 0.005I’ll recommend this vender to friends 4.1 0.004

Section 2: Public Opinions on Key Questions

21

Bike lane is more desired.

22

Public Opinions: Where to ride e-scooters?

Survey 1 Survey 2

Users’ familiarity with e-scooter rules and regulations still need to be improved.

23

Public Opinions: Rules and Regulations

Regulations T/FCorrect responses

in survey 1 (percentage)

Correct responses in survey 2

(percentage)Ridding e-scooters is allowed on street lanes T 48.2% 53.1%

People at all ages can ride shared e-scooters F 81.6% 75.4%

People without driver's license permit can also ride shared e-scooters F 54.4% 45.6%

Riding e-scooters is not allowed at Tampa Riverwalk T 79.6% 77.6%

24

Public Opinions: ConcernsConcerns User Non-user E-scooter users do not follow regulations (e.g. improper parking) 76% 90%

Right of way of e-scooters are unclear 65% 75%The regulations of shared e-scooter program are immature 42% 54%E-scooter related accidents 56% 63%Others 31% 38%Concerns User Non-userE-scooter users do not follow regulations (e.g. improper parking) 56% 78%

Right of way of e-scooters are unclear 45% 38%The regulations of shared e-scooter program are immature 15% 11%E-scooter related accidents 19% 27%Not enough enforcement of traffic rules for e-scooter users 26% 51%Speed of e-scooter is too fast 10% 36%Vendor issue 11% 1%Helmet is not available 11% 13%Sidewalk is too rough 35% 9%Others 20% 17%

Survey 1

Survey 2

Users and non-users have different concerns, while improper user behaviors is the most concerned issue.

Non-users want the speed limit to be lower while users prefer higher speed limit.

25

Public Opinions: Speed limit

Survey 1 Survey 2

Program should be continued but adjustments are needed.

26

Public Opinions: Continue the program?

Survey 1Survey 2

Users prefer standing e-scooters, non-users would also like to try seated e-scooters.

27

Public Opinions: Standing or seated?

Survey 1 Survey 2

Performance of vendors are generally good and similar, while Jump performs best for ‘Pricing’ and Spin performs best for ‘Company’s responsiveness’ from user’s perspective.

28

Public Opinion: Users’ evaluation of vendors

Lime Bird Spin JumpSmartphone app is user friendly 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4It is easy to find usable e-scooters 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2The price is reasonable 3.7 3.5 3.8 4.0The e-scooter is easy to use 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5The company is responsive to requests, concerns or questions 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8

I'll recommend this vendor to friends 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.2Total 24.6 24.4 25.0 25.1

‘Multiple vendors’ is preferred.

29

Public Opinions: Single or multiple vendors?

Section 3: Feedbacks from the Public

30

Complaints including a person who made 82 reports Complaints excluding a person who made 82 reports

From May 28th 2019 to March 26th 2020 including 187 reports

31

Call Log Data Analysis

Comments from Call Log• Most of calls were made at the beginning of the program, probably the

general public was unfamiliar about the program at that time• Abandoned scooters

• Left e-scooters at private properties• Don’t like how the City looks with e-scooters all over the streets

• Behaviors• Fast speed riding on sidewalks• Some users claimed the speed could go up to 20 mph

• Bayshore/ Riverwalk riding• Some people observe high speed riding in ‘No-Ride Zone’

• Supportive feedbacks• Hope the program could continue in the future• Provide more docking stations (with chargeable docks)

32

• In total 698 respondents wrote comments at the end of survey (394 non-users and 302 users)

• Non-users mentioned and are mostly concerned about

• Parking issues (29%)• Violation of traffic rules (13%)• Sidewalk riding (12%)

33

Comments from Survey: Non-users

Comments from Survey: users

• 26% of users expressed their support to the program

• Users’ comments mentioned• Parking issues (21%)• Violation of traffic rules (7%)• Safety issues (6%)• City shall enforce bike lane riding (6%)

34

Visualization of Abuse of the Program

35

Improper e-scooter parking Unsafe riding behavior E-scooter vandalism

Suggestions and Feedbacks from Tampa-Hillsborough Alliance for Persons with Disabilities and National Federation of Blind-Tampa Chapter

• Improper e-scooter parking block the sidewalk, e-scooters must be returned to designated areas when not in use

• Ban e-scooter riding on sidewalk• More enforcement• Introduce shared tandem/ bikes for families with disability • Place adaptive bikes/scooters near the Riverwalk.• Improve the accessibility to agencies website and apps for complaints

for those who use adaptive technologies.

36

Major Findings• E-scooter sharing improves people’s mobility in downtown areas, while

equity is an issue• Safety concern is the mostly complained by the public about the program,

other issues include improper riding behaviors, improper parking, fast speed of sidewalk riding and lack of law enforcement

• Geofencing needs to be improved• E-scooter is more suitable to be ridden on bike lanes• Performance of vendors are similar• The utilization ratio of e-scooters has been decreasing since the debut of

the program (utilization ratio in February: 1.5 rides per scooter per day)

37

Recommendations• Invest in constructing a connected and protected bike lane network• Service providers may need more staff to respond to complaints and collect abandoned e-scooters

timely• Service providers shall monitor the utilization ratio of e-scooters and adjust the number of e-scooters in

downtown dynamically and perform better rebalancing strategies • Service providers may offer seated and adaptive e-scooters to serve disabilities• Set the minimum number of e-scooters in disadvantaged areas to improve equity• Provide discounted membership plan for low income population• Ban e-scooters riding on some of the busy sidewalks• Set speed limit of sidewalk riding to 10 mph or lower• Provide warning signage at the entrance of ‘No Ride Zone’• Provide more designated parking corrals• Strengthen law enforcement• The City shall keep monitoring the safety and usage data of the program and track its performance

continuously

38

Questions?

Literature Review: Pilot program statistics

40

Alexandria Arlington Chicago Saint Monica San Francisco Portland Tampa

Pilot program Time length 9 months 9 months 4 months 1 year 5 months 4 months 1 year

# of e-scooters 780 618 - 1147 2,500 2,250 1,250 2043 1,600# of vendors 7 6 10 4 2 3 4Total # of trips 230,000+ 453,690 821,615 2,673,819 242,398 700,369 982,468Average daily trips 852 1,680 6,847 7,325 1,615 5,836 3,423Average trip duration (mins) 10 – 15 14 12 14 20 N/A 15

Average trip length (miles) Under 1 0.94 1.5 1.3 Just under 1 1.15 1.14

Replace vehicle trips (including private vehicle, ride hailing, car share)

46.23% PV41.45% RH 32% 42.6% 49% N/A 34.2% 43.48%

Replace public transit (bus, metro) 6.82% 5% 9.9% 4% N/A 10.21% 1.3%

Replace bike trips (private bike, bike share) 12.73% 4% 7.4% 7% N/A 8.82% 8.26%

Replace walking 49.8% 37% 30.2% 39% N/A 36.51% 37.83%

Program support ratio 51% support N/A 45% N/A 70% 62% 54.6%

Pilot Program Lead Practices – Program management• The leading practices below is obtained from Alexandria pilot program report. It

concludes leading practices from many cities from the following 5 aspects:• Program management• Equity practices• Parking management• Safe riding practices• Data requirement

• Program management

41

Pilot Program Lead Practices - Equity

42

Pilot Program Lead Practices – Parking Management• Parking management

43

Pilot Program Lead Practices – Safe Riding Practice

44

Pilot Program Lead Practices – Data Requirement

45

Literature Review: Findings and Recommendations• Improper parked e-scooters

• E-scooters shall be locked to city infrastructures that are designed for e-scooters parking so that they do not block pedestrians. (Chicago)

• Violations of rules and regulations• Informational signages needs to be heavily amplified and the providers needs to

deliver safe riding educational programs to the public. (Saint Monica)• Providers must host/ attend public educational display on e-scooter use in each

deployment zone annually, their apps shall provide easy access to the riding laws. (Baltimore)

• Sidewalk riding complaints• Develop new technologies to restrict sidewalk riding in Saint Monica.

46

Literature Review: Findings and Recommendations (Cont’d)

• Speed limit of e-scooters are too high for some areas• Conflicts between the commuters of different kinds are minimized by

lowering the speed of e-scooters on pedestrians or designated bikeways. (Portland)

• City-wide speed limit is 15 mph. Geofencing is used to reduce speed at specific areas (10 mph) and to stop the vehicles when it enters no ride zones. (Baltimore)

• Parking issues• Providers must not exceed a deployment limit per block face, not

deploy e-scooters on blocks which contain a k-8 school. (Baltimore)

47