Micromobility and autonomous vehicles (AVs) are two key focus points in the mobility space. The global autonomous vehicle industry is poised to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 38.8% from 2021 to 2030, while the global micromobility market is projected to grow at a compound growth rate of 17.4% from 2021 to 2030. This post examines AVs and micromobility as emerging technologies in the New York City region, and makes comparisons with their implementation in other areas of the US.

In the last few years, these emerging mobility technologies have been constantly changing. COVID accelerated the adoption of micromobility in cities, as scooters and bikes were perceived as safer alternatives to public transportation. Additionally, AV technology is seen as an important aspect of sustainability and safety goals in transportation because it can provide mobility with fewer and more efficient vehicles, as well as reduce collisions with vehicles, pedestrians, and other road users. We must consider how and why these technologies might be used and tested differently in the New York City region in order to advocate for their adoption in thoughtful and meaningful ways.

NYC Regional Landscape for Micromobility and AVs

Micromobility is defined as transportation using lightweight vehicles like bikes or scooters that normally carry one or two people. Automated vehicles (AVs) are vehicles capable of operating without human involvement. While its examples of vehicle class and legal requirements are technically specific to New York City, Streetsblog’s recent micromobility field guide offers a comprehensive and humorous overview of the different types of micromobility vehicles used today. These types and definitions are also relatively uniform across New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut’s current legal frameworks.

Classifications for bicycles include regular or analogue bicycles, pedal assist e-bikes (currently popular among Citi Bike users), and throttle e-bikes (most common among delivery workers). Other types include standup scooters, Class C mopeds (smaller, slower mopeds, commonly deployed by rideshare companies like Revel and Lime), slightly faster Class B mopeds, and much bulkier and faster Class A mopeds (a motorcycle by any other name).

Micromobility and AV testing and piloting take many forms throughout the region. New York City’s scooter pilot started in 2021, and has now doubled its service area in The Bronx. Each company involved offers accessible vehicles, and offers discounted pricing for those receiving federal assistance. In Connecticut, Fairfield and Bridgeport both began scooter pilots in April 2022. The director of Fairfield’s pilot noted the importance of a provider that can monitor the pilot on a small, local level. While scooters can be safely piloted and used by most people, AVs must be tested under relatively strict conditions. Mobileye began testing AVs inside New York City in 2021. They have noted that their vehicles can have trouble understanding pedestrian and vehicle behavior, due to a culture of jaywalking and double parking not as common in other cities. The University of Connecticut is on track to build an AV testing site that will act as a research center with the ability to simulate different road environments and smart infrastructure. While a facility like UConn’s will be able to test many types of technology in a single space, they may not be able to create the complications that come with testing in a real city like New York. In New Jersey, Trenton is beginning its on-demand AV shuttle pilot called Trenton MOVES. It is meant to complement its fixed route public transit system. May Mobility has been chosen to operate the pilot, and will eventually deploy 100 vehicles to start.

Piloting and implementation of technology happens in other ways, as well. The United States Department of Transportation’s Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program was taken on by New York City, Tampa, and Wyoming to test connected vehicle technology (or V2X). The pilots were meant to integrate connected vehicle concepts and technology with practical elements, and enhance operational capabilities. NYC’s pilot found that V2X could influence driver behavior and help advance Vision Zero goals of eliminating traffic deaths and collisions. The study was limited, however, by the number of vehicles and intersections used. Tampa’s pilot struggled to show good results because of limited deployment time, and COVID’s impacts on mobility and road safety. Wyoming’s pilot, which uses a stretch of I-80, could be useful in managing heavy freight, but its results are still not published. Other technologies like geofencing are used in many scooter share programs to create restricted areas, slow zones, or designated parking areas. The Bronx scooter pilot, for example, has slow zones, no parking zones, and designated parking zones.

Enforcement is split between policing and technological restrictions. Policing new technology like scooters can become complicated when certain policies are put in place that do not necessarily make sense to riders. Riders are sometimes stopped and ticketed on either side of the Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Queensborough bridges because the DOT restricts scooters on those bridges. Officially, this is a matter of safety, as they are too fast for the bike lanes and too slow for the car lanes. This creates problems for riders who may not be aware of these rules, and can create potentially negative interactions with police. These types of restrictions can sometimes be addressed with geofencing, but it would not be safe to stop or slow vehicles on these bridges. New York City’s Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot Program began in August, and will put speed governors on city fleet vehicles to disable speeding inside the city. As a leader, NYC can set an example for other cities to follow, and can encourage manufacturers to include this technology more frequently. Senator Brad Hoylman has already introduced legislation to require the New York State DMV to require technology like speed governors on vehicles over 3,000 pounds. Lastly, speed cameras were recently authorized to operate in NYC all day. Speed cameras have effectively reduced speeds and changed driver behavior in the city.

The national landscape for AV testing in particular can vary widely. The majority of testing involves either shuttles or cars, and while testing in RPA’s region is restrictive, plenty of states are more open to testing. California legislated AV testing in 2012, with much of its testing happening around San Francisco, where many tech companies are based. Michigan legislated testing in 2012, with most of its testing happening around Detroit, the center of auto manufacturing in the US. Arizona, Texas, and Florida also created legal environments that are welcoming to AV testing, with Texas being particularly welcoming to trucking tests (many states are wary of heavy freight testing on highways). Legislation is determined by states, who must decide what kind of environment they want to make around AV testing.

Advocating for Equitable Implementation of Micromobility and AVs

With all of this background, it is important to consider how emerging tech can feed into smart regional advocacy. NYU’s Rudin Center for Policy and Management recently released a policy framework for AVs in cities. The framework highlights safety, equitable service, community engagement, complementing public transit, intelligent interaction, augmenting sustainability, and public private partnerships as essential to successfully integrating AVs into cities. For example, safety means creating a pedestrian-first environment and creating clarity around traffic incidents and enforcement. Equitable service would mean prioritizing underserved communities, creating accessible vehicles, including low-income and unbaked users, helping retrain drivers who lose their jobs, and creating equitable street safety. While this framework was created for AVs, these values are reflected in the introduction of scooter and bike share in cities, too, which aim to create better access to transit, equitable pricing, and more accessible modes.

However, because micromobility has been more easily introduced into cities, certain issues have already emerged, creating more legal gray areas and concerns around safety. Recently, Councilwoman Gale Brewer has expressed concern over dark stores, which are warehouse-style facilities used to facilitate app-based click-and-collect services. These are run by startups like Jokr that offer fast delivery services. There is concern that many of these stores violate land use laws by acting exclusively as warehouses while occupying space meant for retail and grocery. As grocery stores, they would have to allow shoppers inside to buy items, which many do not. If these stores are competing with bodegas, Brewer contends that they must allow shoppers inside, and not exclude those who cannot use credit cards on apps. This issue may continue to grow as Brewer pushes to breach this legal gray area and protect small grocery stores. With the adoption of a wider variety of micromobility vehicles in general, cities must find a way to make room for them in micromobility infrastructure.

The shift from gray areas to the mainstream happens quickly, and many new types of vehicles are now on the road, or will be soon. Cities must figure out how to best adopt policy and legal frameworks to encourage equity, proper use, and healthy growth. With this large shift that continues to take shape, equity has an opportunity to take priority in how these technologies and transportation modes are implemented and enforced. Greater community involvement in decision making is central to this goal. The same can be said for safety. Testing and piloting of new technologies are presenting new ways to keep users and pedestrians safe, which should always be a priority. While AVs are still being tested, and micromobility is still taking shape, cities should always be working with communities and providers to create frameworks that lead to the safest and most equitable outcomes.