We've spent several months browsing cities, meeting executives and studying usecases to understand what is hidden behind the micromobility frenzy. As urbanist and mobility experts, we have tried to figure out how to solve the main issues encountered by operators and cities. Hope you enjoy the ride ! It's only the beginning...

1. • 1 •
september 2019
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
—
micromobility
explorer
info@15marches.fr contact@dixit.net

2. ‘Micromobility’ is the recently
coined term for a category of new
transportation modes which fit in
none of the traditional transportation
categories. It encompasses very
different vehicles which are lumped
together under the title of Personal
Mobility Devices (PMD), like electric-
assist bikes, electric scooters, uniwheels,
self-balancing scooters, hoverboards,
and the like. The list is long, yet it is
far from exhaustive given that the
miniaturization and falling cost of
electric engines and batteries promises
the arrival of ever-more incredulous
vehicles.
However, the study of micromobility is
about more than the emergence of new
technologies – the real revolution is not
the sudden uptake of these new devices,
but the way in which they arrive on the
market.
In addition to people purchasing these
devices in a traditional manner for
private uses, numerous commercial
offerings have appeared in the form
of short-, medium- or long-term rental
services. These can be staffed or
unstaffed, station-based or dockless,
and available to the public or reserved
for a company’s employees.
The most noticeable phenomenon in
2019 has of course been that of the free-
floating electric scooter. The networking
of these devices via smartphone apps
has turned these new scooter services
into real decentralized transport
systems. The promise of having “your
personal transport solution wherever
you want it, in one click” explains their
extraordinary success around the globe.
After arriving a year ago in the United
States, they are already more popular
than bike share systems.
While their share in the global mobility
market is insignificant for the moment,
the growth curves are impressive; such a
rapid uptake of a transportation service
has simply never been seen before.
Investors weren’t mistaken – the industry
is today one of those attracting the
most capital and the top skills. It has
the characteristic features of the
“new economy” with which investors
are familiar: a huge market (short
trips account for over half of all miles
travelled), affordable technology (an
e-scooter costs 500 US dollars), and the
possibility to scale up quickly without
regulation.
Introduction
—

3. • 3 •
After their initial successes, start-ups
are, however, realizing the difficulty of
managing a fleet of vehicles in cities,
which – to make an understatement
– weren’t expecting them. The
response that this boom has brought
is reminiscent of that provoked by
other prior radical innovations; while
enthusiasts view micromobility as the
“new smartphone”, sceptics contend
that it is only a niche-centred fad which
solves none of the “real problems” of
mobility and even creates new ones.
The outcry generated by these “new
entrants” shows that our streets are
today a subject of political debate for
which micromobility has merely been
a trigger.
These scooters have held up a mirror
highlighting the unsuitability of another
of our modes of transport – that is, the
car – for the city of today. Cars are no
longer the democratic, practical and
efficient mode that they have long
represented.
Their competitiveness is declining given
the high cost of land and energy today.
The criticisms currently being made
about e-scooters are in fact those that
people dare not make about cars: they
clutter up the streets, cause pollution, go
at unsuitable speeds and put the most
vulnerable in danger.
It is scooters and bikes that are
actually best at the “job” expected of
a city transportation mode, which is
to move a person from A to B, over a
short distance and with the minimum
resources.
Electric assistance and onboard
technology enable these modes to scale
up, catering for larger communities
of users for a greater number of trips
and over longer distances of travel.
If public authorities so decide, these
modes could thus become the natural
partner of public transport that cars –
whether private or shared – have never
managed to be.
The micromobility challenge is to take
advantage of this boom to thoroughly
redesign city infrastructure. There where
public transport has too often been the
only solution pitted against the private
car, micromobility is the catalyst that
could allow us to eradicate the car all
together and make public transport
more efficient.
Micromobility can provide a valuable
complement to heavy-duty public
transport networks as well as a way of
“weaving together” or reconnecting
urban fabric and restoring the sense of
closeness that has been lost.
Introduction

4. • 4 •
Introduction
This transformation, however, cannot
take place without radically changing
a system which has for decades been
designed for privately-owned cars.
To this end, a number of complex
challenges remain to be met, such as:
• redistributing public space in favour of
the most efficient modes and the most
vulnerable city users
• optimizing self-service offerings and
ensuring that they are available to
everyone
• prioritizing environmentally, socially
and economically sustainable business
models
• creating urban policy conditions that
will allow these services to develop
smoothly.
Although this study does not provide the
answer to all of these issues, we hope
that it will help to eliminate a number
of misconceptions and highlight the
potential that these solutions represent
for a more calm and sustainable city.

5. This document is a summary of
findings of the Micromobility Explorer
study carried out by Stéphane Schultz
(15marches), a strategy consultant and
expert on new mobilities, and Sylvain
Grisot (dixit.net), a consultant and
expert on circular urban design, from
November 2018 to May 2019.
Contact :
info@15marches.fr
syg@dixit.net
This study was financed by the French
Environment Energy Management
Agency (ADEME), Allianz and Transdev.
ABOUT
THE STUDY
—

6. • 6 •
For the purposes of this study, we met
with 15 or so bodies in the US and in
Europe, including mobility operators,
local authorities, tech firms and
consultancies.
A dozen case studies were also
produced on micromobility services
operating in the US, in Europe and in
Asia.
ABOUT THE STUDY
15marches • 2019
CONTENTS
chap. 1.............................. p.7
Understanding Micromobility
—
chap. 2.............................. p.17
A Vast and Accessible Market
—
chap. 3.............................. p.24
Calming the Chaos

7. “Small fragile vehicles designed for
short trips which could be made on foot
or using public transport”. To analyse
the micromobility market, it is first
necessary to explore the misconceptions
around it, which distort our vision of
the transportation market and alter
the perceived efficiency of different
transport modes.
The micromobility market is not a
niche market; it is the largest market in
terms of number of trips and distances
covered.
It is a market that is stealing share
from the private car, thanks to modes
of travel that are both efficient on an
individual basis and powerful as part of
networks.
WHAT EXACTLY DO WE MEAN BY
MICROMOBILITY MARKET?
—
The definition that we have adopted
encompasses the various forms of use
of Personal Mobility Devices (PMD),
whether they have electric assistance or
not and whether they are user-owned
or provided by an operator. The study
therefore looks at the products, their
features and the regulations that apply
to them, as well as at the systems to
which they can belong, such as station-
based or dockless self-service systems,
long-term rental services, and so on.
Given their commercial success, free-
floating (i.e. dockless) rental systems
have been analysed in particular detail.
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
—
CHAP. #1

8. • 8 •
15marches • 2019
THE MICROMOBILITY MARKET: DEVICES AND TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
A B
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
The way that micromobility is used
shows how flexible it is; it is possible to
use your own vehicle for an entire trip
and board it onto public transportation,
or use a shared vehicle for your entire
journey or combined with public
transport. Its complementarity with
public transport services depends on
the mix proposed in terms of prices,
distribution, ease of onboarding,
availability of vehicles in stations, and
so on.
Although we readily associate
the growth in micromobility with
the e-scooter, the most striking
phenomenon of the last few months is
actually the boom in electric-assist bikes
(EAB). Over 2.5 million e-bikes were sold
in Europe, and in Germany and Holland
EABs even accounted for one in two
bikes sales. E-bikes are already used by
a wider population and for much more
varied trip types than non-electric bikes.
Many factors indicate that e-bikes will
shift to becoming the “standard type
of bike on sale” – like the smartphone
has become the standard mobile
phone – such as the drop in cost of
ownership, the increasing number of
models available and the availability
of rental services that give people
the opportunity to test them. EABs
are in the process of making bikes a
mainstream mode of transport, which
is something that the bicycle policies of
the last 20 years have failed to achieve.

9. • 9 •
The parallel with smartphones doesn’t
end here. Households are investing
in several personal mobility devices,
which they use differently depending
on the journey, weather conditions and
personal circumstances (fatigue, route,
etc.). Some days, the user will commute
using a light, foldable scooter that can
be boarded onto the train, while they
might complete the same commute
entirely by EAB in fine weather. Similarly,
they may switch between using shared
fleets and their own device depending
on the place of destination and whether,
for example, it offers secure parking and
the ability to recharge.
In the future, there will probably be no
“one-solution-fits-all transport mode”,
but a panoply of vehicles and services
that people will use as they see fit.
As to the distinction between electrically
assisted or human powered modes,
we have observed that, while e-assist
devices are less beneficial for health,
they give a larger number of people the
opportunity to be car free. By enabling
the rider to set off faster, electric
assistance reduces the difficulty of
sharing the street with cars and removes
people’s fear of arriving “all sweaty at
the office”. The possibility to use cycle
paths and secure bike sheds makes
e-bikes competitive with motorized
two-wheel vehicles. The main barriers
to using them have thus been removed.
Moreover, contrary to what many
believe, studies show that electric-assist
bikes give people as much physical
exercise as non-electric assist bikes,
since people tend to ride them further
and more frequently.
We, however, prefer to insist on the
notion of the “augmented pedestrian”.
The idea is that the unenclosed nature
of PMDs allows their users to relate to
city and other people in the same way
as a pedestrian. Scooters, in particular,
are appreciated by their users for
being easy to get on and off. From an
environmental perspective, Personal
Mobility Devices offer an infinitely better
power-to-weight ratio than cars, even
electric ones. Do we prefer to move
one person around with a 250-watt
e-scooter weighing 20 kilos, or with a
65-kilowatt car – i.e. 300 times more
energy-intensive – weighing 1.2 tons?
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY

10. • 10 •
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
15marches • 2019
The Augmented Pedestrian
0 100 200 300 400
(watts)
power
75w
150w
300w
350w
65Kw
Being an augmented pedestrian also
helps to “reconnect urban fabric” in
restoring the closeness of things and
removing the often arduous nature of
walking and cycling, especially on the
outskirts of cities. And too bad if the
purists would prefer that to happen with
human powered means alone. Let us not
forget that walking and public transport
are already greatly assisted in cities by
escalators, lifts, automatic doors and
the like.
PMDs have benefited from favourable
technological and economic trends –
the cost of batteries, for example, has
decreased seven-fold over the last few
years. Batteries and engines are also
increasingly small and light, adding just
five to seven kilos to the weight of a bike
for enough autonomy to complete a
day’s worth of urban travel.

11. • 11 •
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
Change in average lithium-ion
battery price per kWh
batterypackprice(real2018$/kWh)
1160
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
899
707
650
577
373
288
214 176
15marches • 2019 • Source : Bloomberg NEF
22%
21%
8%
11%
35%
23%
26%
18%
These technologies are now easily and
massively available.
There are longer any barriers to
industrial entry for those wishing to
build personal mobility devices.
In contrast to cars, which are still a
mass-market product manufactured by
a few operators, PMDs can be produced
in small or large volume and are
customizable and modular. Extremely
short innovation cycles mean that they
are constantly being improved with the
regular addition of new functions.

12. • 12 •
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
NEW ELECTRIC
VEHICLES
E-SCOOTER
UNIWHEEL
HOVERBOARD
E-SKATE
15marches • 2019
Add to this the possibility of integrating
electronic components and personalized
sensors to these devices as “original
equipment” and you will understand
why businesses from the “new economy”
have with these devices found the
answer to the problems that they had
up to now been trying to solve – in vain
– with shared car systems.
The first-generation micromobility
service consisted of free-floating
bike share systems with no onboard
technology. The entire service was
delivered by the user’s smartphone,
using a simple barcode system to
identify and localize the bike. The
bike itself had no inbuilt “intelligence”.
Things are quite different today.
Devices now have an inbuilt “brain”
which is constantly connected to the
internet; they have speed, position
and environmental sensors and can be
operated as part of a network via a
central system. A model of scooter that
can be controlled remotely was even
presented recently.

13. • 13 •
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
This system allows you not only to
localize the device, but to interact with
its basic functions (e.g. shut down,
battery, speed, restriction of use in
certain areas/at certain times). The
data collected by today’s micromobility
services are analysed to forecast
demand and facilitate rebalancing
which involves returning devices to
where they are needed, when they are
needed. Like with the first-generation
services, they are also delivered to the
user via his or her own smartphone,
through interfaces which indicate
where and how to collect one’s device.
These technologies have substantially
improved the sharing capabilities of
these devices.
In a context where public space and
energy are rare, micromobility needs to
be seen as a way of both reducing the
power required to transport a person
and increasing the usage intensity of
the resources deployed.
Less power means lighter vehicles taking
up less space; greater intensity means
less use of space for an equivalent
number of trips.

14. • 14 •
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
15marches • 2019
UNDERSTANDING MICROMOBILITY POWER DISTRIBUTIONpower
(kW/h)
DISTRIBUTION
(TRIPS PER DAY)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
TESLA
owned
ZOÉ
owned
VAE
owned
Vélo
owned
Vélib
station-based
citybike
station-based
ELECTRIC-ASSIST
CITYBIKE
station-based
SHARED
SCOOTER
free floating
SHARED
CAR
free floating
SHARED
EAB
free floating
250 W
60 kW
100 kW
The matrix above illustrates the aim of
micromobility, which is to offer personal
transportation modes that run on low
power (vertical axis), made available
through services which maximize usage
(horizontal axis). We can see that
electric cars, whether shared or not,
are out of range. The power required to
move them around cities places them in
a very unfavourable position.
UNBRIDLED GROWTH IN
MICROMOBILITY SERVICES
—
Over the last ten years, cities have
developed station-based or “docked”
bike share systems. For example, with
New York’s Citibikes – which is one of
these systems described above – seven
trips per bike per day are reported on
average, with up to 15 journeys per
bike per day for electric-assist bikes.
Free-floating scooters and bikes initially
developed without the approval of
cities, then agreements were established
placing restrictions on their use and
number.
For the moment, these services are
reporting lower usage intensity figures
(see below).
The distinction between dockless and
station-based services is becoming
increasingly blurred.
Many systems allow users to leave
vehicles outside of docking stations;
dockless (or free-floating) services
increasingly require users to leave
vehicles in designated areas which
are sort of infrastructureless stations
(referred to as a semi-floating service);
station-based systems also have to
perform rebalancing operations to refill
stations after rush hour.

15. • 15 •
The success of this second generation
of shared services has been both
rapid and overwhelming; nobody has
ever seen such growth curves in the
transport business. Initially exclusive
to the US, they have now also made it
to Europe. Where station-based and
dockless services exist along side one
another, the latter seem more attractive,
despite them being unsubsidized and
therefore more expensive. Ease-of-
use is key in a market where there is
little differentiation – the user takes
the first scooter that he finds without
much concern for the brand. Add to
that efficient user interfaces featuring
very simple onboarding (first steps for
using the service), and you have the
key factors of success of free-floating
scooters.
In this race, size matters – in Paris,
the market leader Lime reportedly
provides for over 50,000 trips on some
days, which is equivalent in usage to a
provincial city tram line. Such success
must be analysed in relation to the
objective of usage intensity, discussed
above.
In most of the cases studied, the
number of vehicles which free-floating
operators have put into service seems
to exceed needs.
Low investment and operating costs
– a vehicle which is not running costs
virtually nothing – encourage this
strategy of “spamming”, which consists
in being present everywhere in great
number to create desire and incite
people to try the service. The chart
above, drawn from the findings of the
Amercian association NACTO, clearly
shows that the cities with the largest
free-floating fleets have the lowest
utilization rates.
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
15marches • 2019 • Source : crunchbase news
UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH IN USE
6M
4M
8M
10M
12M
2M
0M
5/2017 7/2017 9/2017 11/2017 1/2018 3/2018 5/2018 7/2018 9/2018
Lime
Launch
Launch
1M Total Rides
1M Total Rides
3M Total Rides 6M Total Rides
10M Total Rides
11M Total Rides
Bird

16. • 16 •
This strategy of local oversupply has
a damaging effect because although
users of these services love them, non-
users reject or even hate them. How
can private companies be occupying
the streets in this way without any clear
restriction or control? Why do these
scooters stay in one spot all day without
being used? For an area like urban
services, which is generally characterized
by the rareness of resources, the
situation is as confusing as it is new for
people. The analysis could end here,
with the conclusion that “micromobility
is a passing fad inflated by cheap
money and a lack of regulation, which
won’t last forever”. We, however, don’t
believe that this is the case.
Firstly, because micromobility is not
confined to free-floating services. Let
us not forget that these services are
only present in a few large cities. It
is a case of “not seeing the wood for
the trees” (of Paris). The “wood” is the
surge in purchases of Personal Mobility
Devices and the fact that they are being
used in much broader contexts and by
much larger populations than bikes.
The “wood” is the number of former car
drivers among these new users, who are
adopting micromobility not because
of rhetoric or grants, but based on
experience.
Lastly, the “wood” is the tremendous
opportunity created by the arrival
on the market of devices that are
more affordable, practical and… user
friendly. Even if many serious cyclists
find it hard to understand how electric
assistance is a game changer, it is
important to highlight that it is this
that has been the trigger which we
have awaited for 20 years. Technology
isn’t everything, but when it coincides
with favourable conditions – in this
case, the environmental emergency
and individuals’ desire to change their
behaviour – it is a catalyst for change.
Free-floating scooter services will
no doubt evolve, or perhaps even
disappear. However, micromobility
is here to stay, as it offers an
effective and accessible solution
in response to the vast trip market.
CHAP. #1
UNDERSTANDING
MICROMOBILITY
15marches • 2019 • Source : NACTO
RIDES PER VEHICLE PER DAY BY FLEET SIZE
4
3
2
1
0
RIDESPERVEHICLEPERDAY
FLEET SIZE
5
scooter sharebike share system
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

17. The mobility market is most often
presented as a market of commute trips,
or in other words those journeys to and
from work or school, which are typically
the most constrained and longest daily
trips that we make. Transport policies
focus on these trips as a priority, taking
into account both public transport and
private cars. However, such trips actually
only account for 40% of everyday
travel. The majority of the mobility
market is in fact comprised of another
type of trips – those connected with
leisure, shopping and administrative
formalities. These are short trips (of less
than 10 km) which take place within the
inner city, where public space is more
scarce and constrained.
A MARKET OF SHORT DISTANCE
TRIPS
—
The market available for micromobility
to conquer is the short trip one, i.e.
trips of 500 metres to 10 km. Short
trips account for the majority of miles
travelled, even in France.
There is today a misconception that this
market is covered by walking and public
transport. The reality though is that,
apart from in very big cities, private cars
monopolize this segment. The figures
below are taken from an American
study, but French research paints a
rather similar picture – i.e. most trips are
short trips, for which the private car is
the predominant choice of solution.
A VAST AND ACCESSIBLE
MARKET
—
CHAP. #2

18. • 18 •
Private cars, however, are particularly
unsuited to the constraints that moving
around cities entails. Their average
speed rarely attains 15 kph; parking
them – and they are parked for 90% of
the time – eats up scarce and expensive
public space, and their moving mass is
a constant danger for other users. As for
public transport, it is not optimized for
short trips. Its spatial coverage, journey
times and prices make it difficult for it
to offer cost effectiveness. Walking is
strongly influenced by external factors
such as the quality of footpaths and
crossings, the environment and whether
or not people feel safe. Finally, the
relocation of people and businesses
to the outskirts of cities has resulted
in a grey area, in which short local
trips are mainly made in cars due
to the poor quality of footpaths, the
unpleasant urban environment and... the
omnipresence of cars.
Micromobility operators have seen that
this short trip market is immediately
accessible.
Technology allows them to offer reliable
devices that are relatively cheap
and have enough battery autonomy
for these trips. Their acceleration
capabilities make riding alongside
cars less dangerous. These devices
have already won over a very broad
population. In the Unites States, for
example, disadvantaged classes are
much more attracted to scooters than
bikes, probably for reasons related to
learning and culture. Women also find
an appeal in electric-assistance vehicles
which they failed to see in motorized
two-wheelers.
Scooters are also considered easier to
use than bikes for short trips.
CHAP. #2
A VAST AND
ACCESSIBLE
MARKET
15marches • 2019 • source : Micromobility Industries
HOW BIG IS THE MARKET?
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
DISTRIBUTION OF CAR TRIPS IN THE UNITED STATES
ONE-WAYTRIPS
DISTANCE TRAVELLED (IN MILES)

19. • 19 •
WHEN CITIES AND WEB
PLATFORMS MEET
—
Capital risk investors particularly
appreciate the sort of alignment of
the planets that we are observing with
micromobility – that is, a very large
global market, available technologies,
rapid adoption by users and the
involvement of talented entrepreneurs.
Consequently, they have massively
invested in these businesses in the
hope of “changing the market”. The two
leading free-floating scooter providers
(Lime and Bird) have managed to raise
funds in excess of 400 million dollars.
The aim is to achieve very fast growth in
terms of fleet size and number of cities
in order to outpace competitors.
Behind these two, there is already a
long list of followers, made up of more
local companies offering more or less
the same products with the same
business model. The main difference
is in the size of fleet provided. In the
coming six month periods, there is no
doubt that some of these operators will
disappear and that there will be market
concentration. The strategy of capital-
risk investors is to gamble on several
of the competitors early on, in order to
then “kill” those that can’t keep up and
focus on the leaders.
Many of the entrepreneurs that have
started these companies come from
ride hailing or bike share companies.
The failures of ofo and Mobike, two
“basic” bike share services, have been
a lesson for entrepreneurs who thus
seem to be controlling the expansion
of scooter services more carefully – for
example, they abandon less attractive
markets more quickly and regularly
increase prices in others. They have also
invested in more costly devices and the
development of anti-theft solutions.
Paradoxically, the very high levels of
vandalism seen in the beginning have
been beneficial for companies in forcing
them to design and produce their own
devices and technologies.
Innovation cycles are very short,
allowing operators to release
technology or services onto the market
quickly.
CHAP. #2
A VAST AND
ACCESSIBLE
MARKET
15marches • 2019
NAME (COUNTRY) VEHICLE FUNDS RAISED NUMBER OF FUNDRAISING ROUNDS
CHEAP CAPITAL INFLOWS
OFO (CN) 2 150
MOBIKE (CN) 928
LIME (US) 765
GOGORO (TN) 480
BIRD (US) 415
DOTT (FR) 23
BOLD TXFY (EE) 177
SKIP (US) 131
GRIN (MX) 72
FLASH (DE) 62
TIER (DE) 62
VOI (SE) 83

20. • 20 •
This extreme level of volatility is also
rendered possible by the reduction of
fixed costs to a minimum. Fleets of
thousands of devices can be launched in
a city with less than ten staff, where an
equivalent service provided by a public
transport network would require three or
five times as many. How is this possible?
Firstly, by using pooled solutions
and processes (software, interfaces,
equipment, maintenance, etc.) and
secondly by employing a decentralized
workforce.
Businesses in this sector have favoured
a crowdsourcing model; freelance
contractors connect to an application
to find out which scooters to pick up,
recharge and redistribute. They are
paid on a per-task basis with dynamic
rates that vary according to supply and
demand.
It is the same “gig-based” model
developed by the ride hailing operators
and meal delivery applications.
The value of the service lies in the
system which “books” these contractors;
it uses algorithms to tell the contractor
where to drop off the devices each
morning based on usage data. They
form the “invisible infrastructure” which
re-supply pavements and redistribute
scooters.
CHAP. #2
A VAST AND
ACCESSIBLE
MARKET

21. • 21 •
Micromobility services have therefore
opted for business models which
minimize barriers to entry and fixed
costs. This has allowed them to rapidly
win an enthusiastic customer base
which cares little about the inner
workings of the services they use. The
grey legislative area in which shared
PMDs find themselves has allowed them
to launch their services with minimal
constraints – there are few regulations
on devices and their use, few sanctions
for users and few or no approval
processes in cities.
The downside of this easiness is that it
has led to a wave of misunderstanding,
followed by indignation, more or less
everywhere that these services have
been launched.
The public has been shocked by this
“laissez-faire” attitude which is rather
unusual in the area of urban services.
In the United States, which we visited
for this study, reactions have been even
more fierce due to the “precedents”
left by Uber and Lyft. Cities were quick
to respond to the arrival of scooters
and bike share systems, imposing strict
conditions and taxes on them.
Because, although the “commercial” side
of these services is a success, everything
is yet to be done to integrate them
efficiently into urban ecosystems.
CHAP. #2
A VAST AND
ACCESSIBLE
MARKET
15marches • 2019
MICROMOBILITY: THE VALUE CHAIN
USERS
MOBILITY SERVICE
PROVIDER
OPERATORSMAINTENANCE
REPAIR
BATTERY
CHARGERS
BATTERY
SUPPLIERS
DEVICE
MANUFACTURER
SATELLITE
NAVIGATION SYSTEM
4G
Banque
IT
€
LICENSE FEES
AUTHORIZATIONS
CITY HALL
MAIRIE
€
€
€
€
€

22. • 22 •
CHAP. #2
A VAST AND
ACCESSIBLE
MARKET
15marches • 2019
MICROMOBILITY
AN INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEM
DEVICE
USER
INFRASTRUCTURE
SYSTEMrecycling
power
traffic
satellite
navigation
system
insurance
police
product certification
maximum speed
locking systems
lights
safety
battery
autonomy
maintenance
rebalancing
recharging
cleaning
pedestrians
disabled
public transport
transport
hubs
docking
stations
parking
data
QR code
4G
mobile app
payment
age
professional
private multimodality
residents
equipment
driver
rules
speed
respect for
speed limits/stop
signs

23. • 23 •
So, what needs to be done?
Micromobility intersects three key
aspects of cities: users, the vehicles
or devices that transport them and
infrastructure. Micromobility operators
have developed technological and
operational infrastructure that allows
them to manage a real network of
distributed transport. However, this
infrastructure is for the moment
largely disconnected from the existing
infrastructure, both in the physical and
regulatory sense.
Many have deemed it reckless to
launch new modes of transport that
users often deploy clumsily, while city
infrastructure is already inadequate
for its other users as it is. This strategy,
however, is intentional and assumed.
New micromobility operators do
not think it necessary to wait for the
arrival of appropriate infrastructure to
launch their offering; they believe that
the growth of the service, even if it is
chaotic, will force authorities to create
it. The history of the smartphone and
mobile internet, where the service offer
has always advanced the infrastructure,
is their proof.
What remains to be seen is how to
create infrastructure and adapt the
urban ecosystem to best accommodate
these services.
New operators are banking on the fact
that the growth in usage will force
authorities to create the necessary
infrastructure.
CHAP. #2
A VAST AND
ACCESSIBLE
MARKET

24. IDENTIFYING THE REAL PROBLEMS
—
Seen through the narrow window
of social media, the emergence of
micromobility in cities is nothing but
a situation of chaos and despair, with
hordes of helmetless riders invading
pedestrian zones at unbelievable
speeds, scooters lying on the ground
turning sidewalks into an obstacle
course, and piles of muddy devices
heaped up on river banks after being
dumped in various French rivers.
While these emotional reactions focus
on the “trees”, or in other words on
free-floating services, as opposed to
the “wood” or the rise of micromobility,
and fail to consider a good part of
the debate, they illustrate that these
services bring real difficulties of
acceptance, which extend far beyond
resistance to change or a rejection of
the latest entrant.
The introduction of these services in
cities indeed raises real questions to
which the various stakeholders – that
is, the start-ups and their users, and the
cities and their residents – do not yet
have satisfactory answers.
The disorganized manner in which many
riders are using devices is the logical
consequence of the legal ambiguity that
has long prevailed and the playfulness
of the object in question.
In our collective culture, a scooter is a
toy.
Though this has considerably facilitated
the adoption of services, with scooters
being promoted as a new enjoyable way
of moving around cities, the (overdue)
clarification of the regulatory framework
should be accompanied by an
educational policy (which needs to be
developed), as well as the sanctioning
of offences (which is complex), with the
clear message that the sidewalks is for
pedestrians.
But more than issues related to the
riding of these devices, it is their
parking on sidewalks which people
feel most strongly about. Even when
used intensively – which is certainly
not always the case – a free-floating
device spends most of its life waiting
in a public area for a random user to
arrive. For a few (or sometimes dozen or
so) minutes of use in a day, the device
occupies the public space for hours.
Cities and operators everywhere are
trying to find a way to prevent this time
spent on the pavement from being a
nuisance for the pavement’s (many)
users.
CALMING THE CHAOS
—
CHAP. #3

25. • 25 •
CHAP. #3
CALMING THE CHAOS
Despite some interesting ideas
identified by a number of unfortunately
mismanaged trials (notably one
making it compulsory to lock devices to
something after use), the organization
of the parking of free-floating devices
has been a failure overall. Although the
actual incidences of scooters physically
obstructing sidewalks and preventing
the passage of pedestrians – as seen
in the media – are rare, many untidily
positioned devices or devices lying on
the ground create a real eyesore that
harms the readability of public space
and fuels rejection among people and
the authorities.
The parking of free-floating devices is a
central issue of the relationship between
micromobility users and other public
space users, as well as the relationship
between operators and authorities. It is
the element which must be dealt with
to facilitate the acceptance of shared
micromobility and avoid overregulating,
which would jeopardize operators
and, more importantly, a service with
considerable potential for city users.
The size of these challenges, though,
highlights a much more structural
problem, which is that sidewalks have
become so narrow that there isn’t even
room to put a few scooters on them
without creating a nuisance for other
uses.

26. • 26 •
RETHINKING SPATIAL
DISTRIBUTION
—
It is of course cars that are today taking
up all the space in cities. And whether
they are parked or in motion, this space
is huge. Yet if the aim is to move people
– and not cars – around efficiently, cars
have a very low land-use efficiency
compared to all other alternative
transportation modes, in addition to
performing poorly from an energy
efficiency perspective.
Source données : KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
CHAP. #3
CALMING THE CHAOS
15marches • 2019 • Data source: KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
140m2
5m2
Car
50 kph • 1 passenger
Bike
15 kph
2m2
20m2
7m2
Parked car Tram
Parked bike
2m2
Pedestrian
0,5m2
Stationary
pedestrian
SURFACE AREA OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORT
BOTH MOVING AND STATIONARY, CALCULATED
ON AN PER-PASSENGER BASIS

27. • 27 •
CHAP. #3
CALMING THE
CHAOS
15marches • 2019
PEDESTRIAN
MICROMOBILITY
CAR
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
6
6
25
6
6
25
50
50
The sudden emergence of micromobility
in cities highlights the level of
unpreparedness for the mass use of
alternatives to the car. The arrival of
service operators has been the focus of
attention, but behind this is a deep shift
in behaviours, symbolized by the rapid
development of electric-assist bikes.
The current distribution of space
cannot accommodate this mass use
of micromobility. Its rise has quickly
created conflicts with pedestrians
and has also shown that the current
infrastructure is not safe enough to
allow it to develop properly.
This growth in micromobility, however,
involves very rapid innovation cycles,
similar to those seen with smartphones.
It is therefore impossible and futile in
this context for cities to manage how
each new type of device is used, and
even more so adapt the public space to
its specific needs.
There will not be room to reserve a
lane for every different type of mode,
and therefore the space will need to be
shared.
Access to the difference segments of
public space should be conditioned
by a more relevant criterion, like the
true speed of vehicles or devices. To
organize traffic flows involving different
modes within the same space, it is
indeed necessary to reduce the speed
differences between them. Their true
speeds must be compatible.
In many situations, pathways will be
shared between different modes, with a
speed limit corresponding strictly to the
slowest type. An example of how this
might be organized is shown below:

28. • 28 •
CHAP. #3
CALMING THE
CHAOS
Where traffic flows are separated, each
mode has its own designated space
where it can move at its maximum
speed with minimal interference. The
difficulty lies mainly in reducing the
true speed of a mode when it must
share the space with a slower mode.
There are several options for regulating
speed that do not involve displaying a
speed limit and the associated checks,
which has proven largely ineffective.
These include automatic speed control
and sanctioning, GPS speed control
technology (this is already implemented
by some operators) and, most
importantly, urban design.
CITIES IN TRANSITION
—
We have therefore entered a transition
period, marked by an accelerated
adoption rate, but a lag in the
development of a shared culture and
appropriate infrastructure.
The challenge today is to limit the
duration of this transition period,
which brings with it a high level of risk.
To shorten the transition period and
become a city suited to micromobility,
the rapid development of appropriate
infrastructure is needed, otherwise
conflicts of use and the associated risks
will develop even faster than usage
itself. The challenge is not to develop
infrastructure only for those who have
already adopted micromobility, but to
allow those who are not yet users to
become ones.
15marches • 2019
time
usage
culture
+ infrastructure
usage
TIME LAG
transition

29. • 29 •
CHAP. #3
CALMING THE
CHAOS
The slow development of cycle paths in
France allows us to draw several lessons:
• To ensure the uptake of a mode by
less experienced users, the key is to
offer them a real sense of safety on
their trips. Cycle paths marked on the
ground, offering no physical protection
from moving vehicles and onto which
the doors of parked cars can open, are
clearly not safe enough.
• Gaps in the system of pathways
(for example, where unsuitable road
sections or dangerous intersections
occur) are also major handicaps to
the uptake of micromobility. More
than announcing how many miles of
road have been (poorly) equipped for
non-motorized modes the challenge is
to create a complete network of well-
designed pathways.
• The rise in electric-powered devices
means that we need to create lanes
that are wide enough for users to
overtake one other... or even ride side
by side and chat.
• Some urban infrastructure (e.g.
roundabouts, public transport lanes
shared with bikes, etc.), which can
appear to function well when used
by a few experienced riders prove
unsuited to a higher volume of users
that includes “novice” riders.
• Beyond the issues of safety, the
reliability of infrastructure (lack of
obstructions, quality of surfacing,
cleanliness, etc.) and their readability
(road signage, cycle route signage, use
of colour to distinguish from footpaths,
etc.) are also essential.
This sometimes chaotic rise
in micromobility in cities is a
phenomenon which is only going
to intensify. The blossoming of new
types of vehicles or devices and
different forms of ownership and
usages must not cause us to forget the
characteristics that all micromobility
share: exemplary energy and land use
efficiency, and most importantly an
approach to the city that could wipe
out the car’s century-long domination
of urban space. By filling a gap
between heavy-duty transport and
walking, micromobility connects places
and people, as the car, even when
shared, has never managed to do.
Now authorities, operators and
residents need to ensure a fast
transition to create cities that are
capable of accommodating alternative
mobilities. That is the challenge of the
decade.

30. info@15marches.fr contact@dixit.net