Document Millcreek_doc_5174367fc6

MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY SHI JIE SHENG MASTER STUDENT OF CITY + METROPOLITAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF CITY + METROPOLITAN PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MAY 8TH, 2020 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 CMP6100 URBAN THEORY + FORM - FINAL WHITE PAPER TABLE OF CONTENT ACKOWLEDEMENTS ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MICRO HISTORY CASE STUDIES THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM WHAT’S NEXT? BIBLIOGRAPHY IMAGE CREDITS 1 2 3 5 6 13 19 26 27 29 MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER ---PAGE BREAK--- ABSTRACT ABSTRACT Micro mobility, a popular transit mode which has increased in popularity and use in recent years, and it has developed rapidly in the last few years. It provides various benefits for cities, such as decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the transit equity. This article discusses the feasibility of implementing micro mobility in Millcreek, Utah by analyzing other suburbs which have implemented this mode. This report also reviews other research and professional reports to identify the most critical factors for success. Residential population density and employment density appear to be the most significant factors. Additional supportive factors include other forms of public transit and bike lanes, and other concepts which add potential users and improve the riding experience. Knowledge of income levels, ethnicity, and other demographic factors will help administrators improve transit equity in the future. Millcreek is a good candidate for implementing a successful micro mobility project. Civic decision makers should 1) prioritize deployment areas, 2) commit e-scooters as the primary mode of micro mobility, 3) ensure that the system will be affordable to users, and 4) connect micro mobility with local public transit. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to express my thanks to my advisor, Keith Bartholomew, JD, for his professional suggestion, guidance, and patience. Additionally, I would like to thank Ashley Cleveland, the Promise Program Manager in Millcreek City Hall, for her expert advice, and encouragement throughout the project. She told me a lot about the city and cleared up my confusion. I would also like to express my thank to Matthew Wheelwright, PhD, for his kind help; he was always accessible and very helpful when I had questions. Moreover, I would like to extend my appreciation to Stacy Harwood, Chair & MCMP Program Coordinator, for her unselfish assistance. Finally, I would like to express appreciation to my parents for their financial support during this graduate student program. Thanks to all of you. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 1 SPECIAL THANKS The City Hall of Culver City, California The City Hall of Draper, Utah The City Hall of Long Beach, California The City Hall of Millcreek, Utah The City Hall of Sandy, Utah ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY Millcreek staff plans to implement the micro mobility program into the city. Most micro mobility programs have been located in central cities such as Denver and Salt Lake City rather than suburbs. Some examples, more comparable with Millcreek, include Sandy, UT, Watertown, MA, and Culver City, CA. Millcreek residents want to focus on developing a mode of micro mobility appropriate for Millcreek. Accordingly, this report will: 1) discuss case studies which relate to micro mobility in other suburbs of the United States such as Draper, Sandy, Culver City, and Long Beach, 2) determine which factors support micro mobility success in Millcreek, 3) create recommendations about the future micro mobility project which will make the project more appropriately, effectively, and affordably. This report will use diverse documents and references such as interview responses from practitioners, planning documents, licensing agreements of micro mobility, and other professionals’ research, to explain and discuss these components. prevented 122 metric tons of CO2 output in Portland in 2018 (2018). Micro mobility has evolved in many cities of the United States, such as Dallas, San Francisco, and Portland, and many of these projects of micro mobility achieved success in the cities. According to Lime’s report, Dallas changed rapidly from a city without micro mobility to the city with the largest bikeshare fleet (over 220,000 riders) in the country in 2018 (2018). Also, according to the report from PBOT, Portlanders made over 700,000 trips via e-scooters during the four-month period of 2018, and 71% of Portlanders would like to use e-scooters to get to their destination (2018). The success of micro mobility is in many cities in the United States has promoted some suburbs and smaller cities to create micro mobility pilot programs. According to interviews with representatives of Sandy and Draper, Utah, both have implemented micro mobility projects in June of 2019 and received substantial positive feedback and ridership. Currently, Millcreek is planning to improve its overall connectivity. Considering the benefits of micro mobility, According to Shaheen, Cohen and Zohdy, micro mobility, also referred to as shared mobility, is the shared use of light vehicles such as electric scooters (e-scooters) and bikes, and is a creative transportation strategy which allows users to enjoy short-term trips (2016). Users need to use the application on their smartphones, and then a short-term micro mobility trip will start (Graph For this report, the “micro mobility” refers to docked and dockless modes of personal transit such as bikeshare and e-scooters. Since smartphones have become popular, the technologies of GPS and mobile payment sources have improved rapidly. These technologies provide substantial opportunity for the continued growth and success of micro mobility. In addition, according to the National Association of Community Transportation Officials (NACTO)’s statement, the number of bikeshare bikes in the United States more than doubled (42,500 to 100,000) in 2017 (2017). Also, according to a report from Lime, which is one of the most common vendors of micro mobility, Lime entered over 70 new markets within 12 months in the United States (2018). Micro mobility provides great convenience to the residents in their daily movement. According to Shaheen, Cohen and Zohdy’s statement, micro mobility provides the services which can supplement fixed-route bus and rail services (2016). For example, according to Lime’s report, over 7,000 respondents who used micro mobility in San Francisco stated that micro mobility helped them connect with public transit and got people out of vehicles (2018). Additionally, the benefits of using micro mobility are not only convenience but also create less pollution. According to the report from the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), the research group estimate that e-scooters INTRODUCTION Graph 1: Scanning QR Code For Using Micro-Mobility Device (Source: Smart­ CitiesWorld) 3 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- MICRO HISTORY The rise of micro mobility has been linked with the development of smartphones; the applications of smartphones provide excellent interactive platforms for the users of micro mobility. According to Garcia, Gomez and Sobrino’s report, over 97% of users of micro mobility use smartphones to receive the service (2020). However, the developmental process of micro mobility has been challenging. In 2014, Seattle launched a micro mobility project called “Pronto Cycle Share”, which was a docked bike-sharing service, aiming to create a huge network of cyclists in the city. Nevertheless, Seattle shut down “Pronto Cycle Share” in 2017 because the city government did not receive an anticipated Federal Grant for 10 million dollars and the government was unwilling to use city funds to fully support the bike-sharing system (Peters & McKenzie, 2019). Despite these challenges, dockless micro mobility rose in popularity, and increased its share of the micro mobility market. In 2017, U.S. based dockless bikeshare vendors such as Lime and Spin launched their services in metropolitan areas and central cities. Additionally, in late 2017, Bird, which was a dockless e-scooter sharing company, deployed their devices in Santa Monica, California (POPULUS, 2018). Even though Seattle had failed in the “Pronto Cycle Share”, the dockless micro mobility renewed the market after the city stopped the project a few months later. Spin, Lime, and OFO, which were dockless bike-sharing companies, implemented their services in Seattle and created a huge ridership in the first four months, which was more than the entire ridership created by Pronto (Peters & McKenzie, 2019). As of 2019, Lime has entered over 100 cities globally and created over 30 millions rides by their micro-mobility service (Currey, 2019). Many cities received a great amount of applications and proposals from a substantial number of micro mobility companies (POPULUS, 2018). As micro mobility began to grow, many researchers started to explore and identify the benefits of micro mobility in urban planning. The first benefit noticed was increasing sustainability and clean air. According to Kou, Wang, Chiu, and Cai’ article, Citi Bike Share avoided introducing 5,417 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in New York in 2016 (2020). According to PBOT’s research, e-scooters prevented 122 metric tons of CO2 emissions in Portland in 2018 (2018). In addition, micro mobility appears to be a fantastic “first-last-mile” (FLM) transit option. According to the report from Denver Public Works, the average trip distance of e-scooters was 0.90 miles, and the average trip distance of the bike share was 1.52 miles (2019). According to the findings from Montgomery, the suitability of using e-scooters to connect with public transit is growing, therefore, micro mobility will be a great alternative for “FLM” transit (2019). Additionally, micro mobility reduced traffic congestion for cities. According to Irwin, the Coast Bike Share System decreased crowding of parking lots, obtunded traffic congestion, and increased accessibility for the Tampa Bay area (2017). In addition, micro mobility increased the equity of using transit. According to Reilly, Noyes, and Crossa’ research, the Citi Bike Share provided a more efficient and less expensive transit mode for the users who are low- income and lack car ownership in New York (2019). About Micro Mobility The mode of micro mobility is e-scooters in Draper, and Lime is the only vendor of micro mobility in the city. According to the “Micro Mobility License Agreement of Draper”, the city implemented e-scooters in June of 2019, and deployed the micro-mobility devices in the area closest to Front Runner Boulevard and adjacent office buildings (2019). The service area of micro mobility is flat in Draper, and bike lanes covered all roads. Moreover, Draper mainly focuses on providing a “FLM” transit for the people who come and go between workplaces, TRAX and Front Runner stations (Graph Also, most units which were covered in the service area are commercial spaces and office buildings such as Dell, eBay, MICRO HISTORY CASE STUDIES 5 6 CASE STUDIES The benefits of implementing micro mobility are numerous, and many suburbs wish to join this micro revolution. However, there is little research that focuses on the micro mobility in suburbs. Additionally, the vendors of micro mobility implemented their devices in central cities rather than suburbs. The following paragraphs discuss case studies which of four suburbs that implemented micro mobility: Draper, Sandy, Culver City, and Long Beach. The case studies are assembled from the documents provided by cities and the interviews from the local planning practitioners. These case studies will help researchers and clients understand the context of micro mobility in suburbs, and identify the factors which help make the micro mobility program successful. DRAPER, UT Location & Other Context Draper (Graph 2) is a suburb of Salt Lake City, which was founded in 1849 and incorporated in 1978. Draper is located in the south of Salt Lake County, and is bound by Sandy, Riverton, South Jordan, and Bluffdale. The topography change is significant in the south and east, and flat in the north and west. According to the “American Community Survey 2017” (ACS-2017), the population of Draper is 47,043, and the density is 1,572 people / mi2. White (85.2%) is the primary race of residents. The median age of residents is 32.3 years, and the median income of households is $111,731. Graph 2: The Boundary of Draper (Source: Google Map) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- and Jet. Therefore, employees are the primary users of micro mobility in Draper. Next, the rate of using e-scooters is $1 + $0.29 / minute (without tax) in Draper, and the city will receive 10 cents from each trip. The city did not make any subsidized plan for micro mobility. The vendors of micro mobility use part of revenue to maintain micro-mobility devices and services. Feedback From Residents And City According to the responses from the practitioners who are working on the micro mobility program in Draper, many residents and users stated that micro mobility provided a convenient, effective, and cheap “FLM” transit option. In particular, it benefited many employees who work near the Front Runner station in Draper. However, some residents discussed complaints about micro mobility such as riding e-scooters on the sidewalk, parked e-scooters blocking the sidewalk, and needing a larger service area. Moreover, the city stated that the vendors of e-scooters did not share ridership data with them; this created difficulties in improving micro-mobility services in Draper. In addition, the city stated that the most challenging thing was education. Even though e-scooters are currently very popular, there are some users who have questions in usage. Additionally, because Draper made a geofence of the service area for e-scooter, informing this to users is very important. If users ride e-scooters out of the geofence, the e-scooters will sound an alarm to notify users that they are out of the boundary, and the e-scooters will stop working until users ride them back to the geo-fenced area. There is no extra charge for riding out of the boundary. SANDY, UT Location & Other Context Sandy (Graph 4) is a suburb of Salt Lake City which was founded in 1871 and incorporated in 1893. Sandy is located in the south of Salt Lake County, and it is bound by Draper, Cottonwood Heights, Midvale, South Jordan, and West Jordan. The topography change is great in the east and southeast, and flat in the north and west. According to “ACS-2017”, the population of Sandy is 96,145, and the density is 3,982 people / mi2. White (83.8%) is the primary race of residents. The median age of residents is 37.2 years, and the median income of households is $94,025. About Micro Mobility The mode of micro mobility is e-scooters in Sandy, and Lime is the only vendor of micro mobility in the city. According to “Micro Mobility License Agreement of Sandy”, the city implemented e-scooters in July of 2019, and deployed the micro-mobility devices in downtown, State Street, and TRAX stations (2019). The service area of micro mobility is flat in Sandy, but there is no bike lane. The city allowed users to ride e-scooters on the sidewalk because there is no substantial pedestrian traffic in Sandy. In addition, Sandy primarily focuses on improving the connection between the downtown area and public traffic stations, and encouraging residents to use e-scooters as a “FLM” transit. In addition, most units that were covered in the service area are recreational and retail buildings such as The Shops at South Town, Target, and Megaplex Theatre (Graph Therefore, residents who are traveling downtown are the primary users of micro mobility in Sandy. The rate of using e-scooters is $1 + $0.29 / minute (without tax) in Sandy, and the city will receive 10 cents from each trip. The city did not make any subsidized plan for micro mobility. The vendors of micro mobility use part of revenue to maintain micro-mobility devices and services. Feedback From Residents And City According to the responses from the practitioners working on the micro mobility program in Sandy, substantial residents stated that micro mobility provided a convenient, effective, and cheap “FLM” transit option, which decreased the demands of driving vehicles. Furthermore, the biggest complaint which residents discussed mostly is parked e-scooters blocking the sidewalk. CASE STUDIES 7 8 Graph 3: The Service Area of Micro Mobility, Draper (Source: Google Map) Graph 4: The Boundary of Sandy (Source: Google Map) Graph 5: The Service Area of Micro Mobility, Sandy (Source: Google Map) CASE STUDIES MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- Next, the city felt ambitious in the micro mobility project, because the ridership data reflected a positive trend. 1,200 e-scooter rides have been utilized in the first thirty days, and the respondents who were working on this project looked to further increase the ridership. According to Figure 1, the average number of daily trips was around 80, and the median riding distance was 1 mile in August, 2019. The peak number of daily trips was around 210, and the lowest was around 60. Yet, the city stated that safety and regulations of parking e-scooters were challenges in the micro mobility project. Sandy does not have a large volume of pedestrian traffic, and there are few bike lanes in the city; riding e-scooters on the sidewalk was allowed in Sandy. However, the flexible regulations create other issues such as parked e-scooters blocking the sidewalk. Sandy is trying to figure out some solutions to these issues. Sandy implemented a geofence for regulating e-scooters in the city. CULVER CITY, CA Location & Other Context First of all, Culver City (Graph 6) is an old suburb located nine miles west of Downtown Los Angeles. It is bounded by Mar Vista, Palms, and Ladera Heights. Culver City was founded by Harry H. Culver in 1917. The topography change is great in the east, and the remaining areas are flat. According to “ACS-2017”, the population of Culver City is 39,283, and the density is 7,681 people / mi². White (62.4%) is the primary race of residents. The median age of residents is 41.6 years, and the median income of households of Culver City is $86,791. About Micro Mobility The selected mode of micro mobility is e-scooters in Culver City, and there are many vendors of micro mobility in the city, such as Bird, Lime, and Razor. In addition, the city is planning to add a bike share service for its micro mobility project. According to the “City Of Culver City Interim Operating Agreement,” the city implemented e-scooters in July of 2018, and deployed micro-mobility devices throughout the whole city (2018). Most of the service areas of micro mobility are flat with few dedicated bike lanes on several residents stated that micro mobility provided a convenient, safe, and cheap “FLM” transit option, and decreased the demands of driving vehicles. However, some complaints such as education, riding micro mobility devices on the sidewalk, and parked micro mobility devices blocking the sidewalk, were discussed mostly by residents. Moreover, Culver City feels confident in its micro mobility project. According to Figure 2, the average number of daily trips was 361 (Bird + Lime) between November 2018 and May 2019. The peak number of weekly trips was around 1,300, and the lowest was around 200. However, the city stated that safety and education were the challenges in the micro mobility project. There are few bike lanes in Culver City, so many people complained of some riders riding e-scooters on the sidewalk. Even though the application of e-scooters stated the regulations of usage, some parked e-scooters blocked the sidewalk. LONG BEACH, CA Location & Other Context Long Beach (Graph 8) is a municipality located in the southeast of Los Angeles County. It is bound by Lakewood, Compton, Carson, and Signal Hill. Long Beach was incorporated in 1897, and it became the most important container seaport in the United States. The topography of Long Beach is flat; this provided a fantastic environment 9 10 the roads (Graph Culver City mainly focuses on providing “FLM” transit for the residents and visitors, improving the livability in Culver City, and decreasing the demands of driving vehicles. Also, because Culver City deployed micro-mobility devices throughout the whole city, the primary users of micro mobility are residents and visitors. Equally important, the rate of using e-scooters is various because of different vendors of micro mobility. For instance, the rate of using e-scooters, which was provided by Lime, is $1 + $0.26 / minute (without tax). Also, the city will receive $1 / day from every e-scooter deployed in the city. The city did not make any subsidized plan for micro mobility; all revenue received from micro mobility will be used to maintain micro-mobility devices and services. Feedback From Residents And City According to the responses from the practitioners who are working on the micro mobility program in Culver City, Figure 1: The Ridership Data of Riding E-Scooters in Sandy, August, 2019 (Source: The City Hall of Sandy) Graph 6: The Boundary of Culver City (Source: Google Map) Graph 7: The Map of Current Bike Lanes in Culver City (Source: The City Hall of Culver City) Figure 2: The Ridership Data of Riding E-Scooters in Culver City, November 2018 – May 2019 (Source: The City Hall of Culver City) CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- for the development of micro mobility. According to “ACS-2017”, the population of Long Beach is 470,489, and the density is 9,307 people / mi². Hispanic (44.5%) is the primary race of residents. The median age of residents is 33.6 years, and the median income of households is $60,075. About Micro Mobility The modes of micro mobility are bike share and e-scooters in Long Beach. Many vendors such as Lime and Bird deployed their micro-mobility devices in the city. Specifically, the City owns the bike share implemented in the city, so this created many conveniences for gathering ridership data and improving services. According to “Shared Micro-Mobility Program, 2019 - 2020”, Long Beach implemented micro mobility in July of 2018, and the city deployed e-scooters throughout the whole city, and deployed bike share services in most areas (2019). Most service areas of micro mobility are flat and include substantial bike lanes. Long Beach focuses on providing a “FLM” transit for the residents and visitors, improving the livability in Long Beach, and decreasing the demands of driving vehicles. In addition, because Long Beach deployed micro-mobility devices in the whole city (Graph the primary users of micro mobility are residents and visitors, and college students. The cost of using e-scooters varies for the different vendors. For example, the rate of using bike share service is $7 / hour (without tax and out of bounds fee), and the rate of using e-scooters which was provided by Lime is $1 + $0.26 / minute (without tax). Also, the city will receive the revenue from the application fee: vendors of micro mobility need to submit $25,000 annually for the permit fee and $100 per micro-mobility devices annually for device fee. The city did not make any subsidized plan for the e-scooters but provided funds for its bike-share services; all revenue received from the bike-share services will be used to maintain bike-share devices and services. Feedback From Residents And City According to the responses from the practitioners who are working on the micro mobility program in Long Beach, many residents said that micro mobility provided an efficient, safe, and cheap “FLM” transit option for the residents, and improved livability in Long Beach. However, some complaints such as riding micro mobility devices on the sidewalk, parked micro mobility devices blocking the sidewalk, and education were mostly discussed. Moreover, micro mobility has developed very well since it deployed from 2018 in Long Beach. According to Table 1, the average trip number of riding e-scooters was 42,490 (1416 trips / day) between August and December of 2018. According to the respondents who are working on the micro mobility project, Long Beach has 472 bike-share devices, and the city is planning to double that number in the next few years. However, the city stated that looking for spaces to park bike share and e-scooters, and educating the benefits of using micro mobility were challenges in the micro mobility project. Long Beach has a large fleet of bike share and e-scooters, so creating more spaces for setting docks and parking is very important. 11 12 Graph 8: The Boundary of Long Beach (Source: Google Map) Graph 9: Graph 11: The Service Area of Micro Mobility in Long Beach (Source: The City Hall of Long Beach) Table 1: The Ridership Data of E-Scooters in Long Beach, August – Decem­ ber 2018 (Source: The City Hall of Long Beach) CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO- MOBILITY PROGRAM The case studies teach clearly to identify the factors which are essential in building a successful micro mobility project. Many researchers discussed micro mobility in central cities and identify the factors which matter in making the micro mobility project successfully. However, central cities have a variety of differences with suburbs such as population density and the primary land use. This is the main reason why the City of Millcreek is hesitant in implementing a micro mobility project in the city. According to the previous case studies and analyses, it is easy to find factors which significantly affect implementing micro mobility such as population density, and topography. Therefore, determining the factors to make a micro mobility project successful is very important for Millcreek to create an effective, appropriate and affordable micro mobility project. The following ten factors are identified as those which are most significant in the case studies and whose careful consideration will support Millcreek in creating a successful micro mobility project. These factors include: population density, employment, resident age, public transit, bike lanes, local business, topographic change, parks, affordability, and minority density. 1. POPULATION DENSITY Population density is the most important factor in the suc­ cess of micro mobility. According to Schwartz, population density is the most critical factor affecting the use of micro mobility (2017). According to the responses from the prac­ titioners who work in micro mobility, the areas that have high population density are the preferred sites to imple­ ment micro mobility, because the high population density is the greatest factor of generating users. According to ACS-2017, the total population of Millcreek was 62,139, and population density was 4,801 people/mi². Contrasting with Culver City (7,681 people / mi²) and Long Beach (9,307 people / mi²), which are the suburbs located in Los Angeles County and have implemented the micro mobility project, Millcreek has a lower density. However, contrasting with Sandy (4,307 people / mi2) and Draper (1,572 people / mi2), which are the suburbs located in Salt Lake County and have also implemented the micro mobil­ ity project, Millcreek has a higher density than these two suburbs. These analyses reflect that even though Millcreek conjunction with existing employment density is a pivotal factor in achieving micro mobility success in Millcreek. 3. RESIDENT AGE (20-44 YEARS OLD) The ages between 20 to 44 years old is a characteristic factor which relates to micro mobility ridership. Many central cities conducted user surveys to discover the THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM 13 14 does not have a high population density like the suburbs of California, its density appears sufficient to support the rollout of a micro mobility program. It will be valuable, as shown in Figure 3, to select initial zones of use. 2. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY Employment density is the second most important factor in the success of micro mobility. It is another significant factor of generating users. According to the City of Austin report, over 60% of respondents used micro mobility to go to work (2018). According to Smith and Schwiterman, micro mobility improved the accessibility of workplaces in Chicago (2018). In the case studies mentioned above, Draper and Sandy implemented micro mobility in the areas that have a high employment density. Even though Millcreek is a suburb with significant residential zones, according to ACS-2017, 49,001 people travel to Millcreek for work (2017). And according to Figure 4 , the middle west of Millcreek has a higher employment density than other areas of the city. Positioning rollout in Figure 3: The Map of Population Density in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) Figure 4: The Map of Employment Density in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) Table 2: The Age Level of Micro Mobility Users, Dnever (The City Hall of Denver) Table 3: The Age Level of Residents, Millcreek (Source: ACS-2017) Figure 5: The Map of Median Age Between 20-44 in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- average user’s age. According to Schwartz’s report, he found “age between 20 to 44 density” to be an important factor in predicting the success of micro mobility in a certain area. According to the report from Denver Public Works shown in Table 2, 64% of riders were between 20 and 44 years old (2019). Identifying the density of age between 20 to 44 years old will help focus the rollout and uncover the possibility of future interest. Moreover, according to ACS-2017 and Table 3, the median age of Millcreek was 36.9 years old, and 36.7% of residents are between 20 to 44 years old. According to Figure 5 , most areas of Millcreek have a substantial density of age between 20 to 44 years old. Identifying the resident age will help administrator prioritize the deployed areas for micro mobility and meet more potential users. Therefore, the fit age level of Millcreek provides an important factor for making micro mobility successfully in the city. 4. PUBLIC TRANSIT Public transit is an associated factor in the success of implementing micro mobility, because micro mobility is usually used as a mode of connecting starting/ending points and public transit. According to Lime’s report, 27% of respondents used micro mobility to connect to or from public transit stops during most trips (2018). The cities that have a high transit density will enjoy greater potential ridership for micro mobility. The primary public transit of Millcreek is riding UTA Buses. According to Figure 6, the public transit covers much of Millcreek, and mainly focuses on the middle and west of Millcreek. As a result, the wide public transit services provide guidance to the foundation for implementing micro mobility in Millcreek. 5. BIKE LANES Similar to public transit, the existence and extensiveness of bike lanes and a bike network is also a supportive factor in the success of implementing micro mobility, because numerous cities and vendors of micro mobility require users to ride micro mobility devices in bike lanes for safety purposes. For example, according to the City of Long Beach’s report, it requires that users should ride their devices in bike lanes (2018). Not only is riding in bike lanes safer, but also users may have better riding experiences in the bike lanes as opposed to sidewalks. Millcreek has a wide network of bike lanes. According to Figure 7, bike lanes cover most areas of Millcreek, and they are primarily located on the middle and west of the town. In addition, according to the guidance manual from the City of Millcreek, the city will improve its bike lanes in the next few years (2015). Therefore, the wide network of bike lanes has created a successful environment for implementing micro mobility in Millcreek. 6. LOCAL BUSINESS Local business is another factor in the success of implementing micro mobility. “Business” refers to the uses of lands which are commercial, retail, mixed-use, and recreational in this analysis. According to the report from the City of Austin, 96% the purposes of micro mobility trips are recreation, and over 81% respondents used micro mobility to access entertainment such as to dinners, movie, and shows (2018). Therefore, a high business density may create more potential ridership for micro mobility not only to get to/from work, but also to enjoy the many Millcreek amenities. Unlike central cities, Millcreek is a suburb that has a lower business density; most of the land uses are residential. According to Figure 8, there were few business units in Millcreek, and they were mainly located on the middle and west of the city. Therefore, business density may not support all the benefits for Millcreek in implementing micro mobility as shown in other cases. 7. TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGE Topographic change is a factor which affects the riding experience and risk of causing injuries. According to the report from Austin Public Health (2018), over 30% of respondents stated that they received injuries when riding 15 16 Figure 6: The Map of Public Transit Covered Census Blocks in Millcreek (Data Source: Utah AGRC) Figure 7: The Map of Bike Lanes Covered Census Blocks in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) Figure 8: The Map of Business Areas in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) Figure 9: The Map of Elevation Change in Millcreek (Data Source: Utah AGRC) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- micro mobility on a slope. According to the responses from the practitioners who work in a micro mobility program in Long Beach, they decreased the number of deployed micro mobility devices in the areas with greatest topographic change. The topography of Millcreek is not flat. According to Figure 9, the topography change is greatest in the east and central areas, and flatter in the west. If Millcreek implemented micro mobility in the city, the topography change would be a limiting condition. Especially the bike share would be affected by some areas that have a great slope; because the bike share is driven by manpower, and a slope will affect the overall experience. 8. PARKS Parks are a supportive factor in making micro mobility successfully, because parks are potential generators of users. According to the report from the City of Austin, 67% of respondents stated that parks had higher accessibility for micro mobility than other areas, and parks were frequently listed as the destinations for trips of micro mobility (2018). According to Figure 10, there are four parks located in Millcreek: Scott Avenue Park, Valley Center Park, Big Cottonwood Regional Park, and Canyon Rim Park. Most of the parks are primarily located on the middle and west of the city. Therefore, park density may provide some support and increase accessibility to micro mobility in Millcreek. 9. AFFORDABILITY Even though the rate of using bike-share devices and e-scooters is different, there are diverse methods for figuring out the affordability of using micro mobility services. Analyzing household income is very important for implementing a micro mobility project in a city, because it partly reflects the affordability of using micro mobility services. According to ACS-2017, the median household income of Millcreek was $63,021. Contrasting with the median household income of Sandy ($94,025) and Draper ($111,731), Millcreek had a lower median household income than these cities. However, median household income may not reflect the affordability of using micro mobility services directly. Comparing the levels of household income is an effective method, because the vendors of micro mobility focus on the customers who have certain amount of income. Denver did a user survey for e-scooters in 2019. According to Table 4, most household income levels of users focused on $75,000 - $199,000. Contrasting with the household income level of Millcreek (Table most household income focused on $35,000 - $149,999. Even though Millcreek had a lower income level in this comparison, Denver is a metropolitan area and there is no significant difference in the comparison of household income between Denver and Millcreek. Therefore, Millcreek has substantial potential micro mobility users, and the households of Millcreek appear to be able to afford micro mobility services. In addition, the density of households below poverty is an equity factor which affects affordability considerations. According to the report from PBOT, many low income respondents (66%) held positive views of using e-scooters (2018). Also, many cities made some subsidies and special member passes for low-income micro mobility users. For example, Metro Bike, which is a bikeshare vendor in Los Angeles, provides a “Flex Pass” option for low-income users to improve their affordability of micro mobility (Schwartz, 2017). These actions make the low-income households are available to receive the benefits from micro mobility. Low- income users are essential in making a successful micro mobility program, and are potential users in the future. Next, Millcreek has low density of households below the poverty. According to Figure 11, there were few households below poverty; most of them were mainly located on the middle and west of the city. Therefore, the density of households below poverty may not significantly affect implementing micro mobility, but is worthy of consideration in the future. 10. MINORITY DENSITY Similar to the density of households below poverty, minority density is also an equity factor in making a successful micro mobility program. According to Schwartz, considering equity factors such as poverty and minority density helps planners prioritize development of the micro mobility service area (2017). 17 18 Figure 10: The Map of Parks in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) Table 4: Income Level of E-Scooter Users, Denver (Source: The City Hall of Denver) Table 5: Household Income Level, Millcreek (Source: ACS-2017) Figure 11: The Map of Households Below Poverty Density in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) Figure 12: The Map of Minority Density in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM THE FACTORS MAKING A SUCCESSFUL MICRO MOBILITY PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- In addition, according to ACS-2017, Millcreek had 18.6% (11,376) residents are non-white. And according to Figure 12, most of minorities lived in the middle and west of the town. Minority density may not be a significant consideration at this time. provide good examples for the priority areas for possible micro mobility deployment. For example, according to “Culver City Bike Share Feasibility Study”, which was created by Sam Schwartz for implementing a bike share project in Culver City, the author uses heat maps which are constructed to analyze the priority areas for possible micro mobility deployment (2017). Using Schwartz’s idea as a reference to create the heat maps by analyzing the following factors (Table Then, weighting each factor by its importance in implementing micro mobility (Figure 13). Finally, get the map of priority areas for micro mobility deployment in Millcreek (Figure 14). Population Density: It is the most important factor which affects the number of potential users of micro mobility. Higher population density will create more potential users for micro mobility. Employment Density: It is the second most important factor which influences the number of potential users of micro mobility. More employment opportunities will create more demands in using micro mobility to move between workplaces and public transportation stops. Population Age 20-44 Density: The population whose age is between 20 and 44 are the most potential users of micro mobility. More population age between 20 and 44 will create more demands for using micro mobility. Transit Density: Micro mobility is a fantastic “FLM” transit, and it usually is used for moving between public transit stops and destinations. A higher transit density will provide more potential demands for using micro mobility. Bikeway Density: Bikeways are the recommended places for using micro mobility. A higher bikeway density will create more potential users of micro mobility. Business & Parks Density: The properties which are used for businesses and parks are the generators of potential users for micro mobility. A higher business and parks density will increase the demands of using micro mobility. Total Households Below Poverty Line & Minority Population: For equity concerns, households below the poverty line and minority density have a certain weight in analyzing the estimated demand of micro mobility. They will help planners recognize and prioritize in developing micro mobility service area. Topographic Change: Topographic change is hard to quantify as a metric in this heat map. This factor will be used to recognize the phased service areas and identify the boundaries of the areas. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM 19 20 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM According to previous case studies and analyses, e-scooters may be the appropriate mode to implement micro mobility in Millcreek. The analysis above and supporting data will help plan and develop an appropriate Millcreek micro mobility program. In the following paragraphs, recommendations are presented which will further help the micro mobility program achieve success in Millcreek. 1. THE PRIORITY AREAS FOR POSSIBLE MICRO MOBILITY DEPLOYMENT First, understanding the priority areas for possible micro mobility deployment is necessary; it will benefit planners to create a more appropriate, effective, and efficient plan for implementing micro mobility in the city. Also, identifying the priority areas for possible micro mobility deployment will help planners phase service areas of micro mobility, to gather substantial data for improving future phased work in the program. Some references Table 6: The Metrics And Weights for Prioritizing Micro Mobility Deploy­ ment Areas (Source: Sam Schwartz) Figure 13: The Map of Weighing Metrics in Millcreek (Data Source: The City Hall of Millcreek) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- According to Figure 14, Phase 1 area is located in central Millcreek. According to previous graphs, the Phase 1 area had the highest density such as population density, employment density, and minority density. In addition, according to the planning document from the City Hall of Millcreek, the city is planning to build a City Center which will have some mixed-use (residential and commercial) units in the Phase 1 area (2019). The City Center will increase the population and employment density for the Phase 1 area in the future. These factors will create more potential micro mobility users in this area. Therefore, the Phase 1 area is the highest priority area for micro mobility deployment. Phase 2 is located on the west of Millcreek. According to previous graphs, this area had substantial population density, transit density, and business density, etc. Also, the topographic change was the flattest in this area, and this area had high bikeway density; these factors provide benefits for riding e-scooters and a good riding experience for this area. As a result, these factors will generate more potential users of micro mobility for the Phase 2 area, and it is the second highest priority area for micro mobility deployment in Millcreek. Phase 3 is located on the eastern side of Millcreek. According to previous graphs, the Phase 3 area had a lower population, business density and transit density than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 areas. However, the Phase 3 area had the highest age 20 to 44 density because most land uses are residential in this area. The Phase 3 area had substantial bikeway density and employment density. These factors will create an environment for using micro-mobility devices. Therefore, even though the Phase 3 area had some lower density than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 area, it is a good site for implementing micro mobility in the future, based on success seen in Phase 1 and 2. Phase 4 is located on the eastside of Millcreek. According to previous graphs and analyses, the Phase 4 area had the lowest weight in all factors such as population, employment, transit, and bikeway densities. These factors will limit the development of micro mobility. In addition, because of the Phase 4 area close to the mountain, the topographic change is great in this area. This factor will decrease the riding experience of micro mobility, and increase the risk of injuries. As a result, the Phase 4 area is the lowest priority area for possible micro mobility deployment in Millcreek. It is recommended that this area not receive any micro mobility services. 2. APPROPRIATE MODE OF MICRO MOBILITY Even though factors such as age and employment density affect micro mobility projects, they do not influence exploring the appropriate mode of micro mobility for Millcreek. E-scooters are recommended as the appropriate mode of micro mobility in Millcreek. In the next paragraphs, the factors and reasons which relate to implementing e-scooters, and how e-scooters are more appropriate than a bike share in Millcreek, are presented. Population Density And Parking Space Millcreek does not appear to have enough places for building docks. Millcreek has a higher population density than other suburbs located in Salt Lake County. Millcreek is a suburb, therefore most properties are used for residential housing. A bike share is a mode of micro mobility which relies on docks to park. Insufficient space for building docks for bike-share devices may be a great challenge. E-scooters are a dockless mode of micro mobility; the accessibility of parking e-scooters is easier than bike- share devices. Also, a piece of required parking space for e-scooters is smaller than bike-share devices. Therefore, e-scooters are more appropriate in Millcreek. Topographic Change E-scooters may have stronger topographic adaptability than bike-share devices in Millcreek. Millcreek is not flat. Due to bike-share devices being driven by human power, riding bike-share devices on the bike lanes, which have a great slope, is difficult, frustrating, and unsafe. However, e-scooters are driven by electric power, and they can be ridden on the roads which have a certain degree of slope. For example, most e-scooters which are made by Segway and Xiaomi allowed riding their e-scooters on the slopes with a maximum of 15 degrees. As a result, implementing e-scooters are more appropriate than a bike share in Millcreek. Price E-scooters are simply less expensive than bike share. Most bike-share services charge one hour at least. For example, GREENbike, the sponsor providing bike-share services in Salt Lake City, has a minimum rate of using its bike-share devices for $7 (not include tax) for a 24-hour pass. However, e-scooters charge by the specific used time. For example, Lime, a vendor of providing e-scooters services, charges $1 plus $0.27 / minute (not include tax). The rates of using e-scooters are more flexible than using bike-share devices. In addition, using e-scooters are cheaper than bike share as a “FLM” transit. For example, if the rate of using a bike share was $7 for a 24-hour pass, and rate of using an e-scooter was 1$ plus $0.27 / minute, the cost of using a bike share for a one-mile trip will be $7 (not include tax), and the cost of an e-scooter for a one-mile trip will be between $5 to $6 (not include tax). Bike share are less competitive than e-scooters in the cost for a one-mile trip. In conclusion, riding e-scooters is a less expensive choice than a bike share. User/Provider Preference According to our previous case studies, Draper, Sandy, Culver City and Long Beach implemented e-scooters in the cities; only Long Beach deployed a bike share in the city. It looks like most suburbs prefer e-scooters to bikes. In addition, most vendors of micro mobility are increasing their focuses on providing e-scooter services. According to Graph 10, the City Hall of Miami Springs posted an announcement in January 2019. It said that Lime, a vendor which provides micro mobility services, removed the bike 21 22 Figure 14: The Map of Priority Areas For Micro Mobility Deployment (Source: ESRI) Graph 10: “Say Goodbye to the Fleet of Lime Bike”, Miami Springs, 2019 (Source: The City Hall of Miami Springs) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- share service in the city because the vendor increased their focus on providing e-scooter services. In addition, even though some cities implemented both bike and e-scooter projects, it looked like e-scooters experience higher demands. For example, Long Beach implemented both bike share and e-scooters, the e-scooters experience higher use than bike-share devices. According to the responses from the City Hall of Long Beach, the city deployed 472 bike-share devices and over 1,000 e-scooters. These factors made the vendors of micro mobility put more focus on developing e-scooters than bike-share services. Therefore, implementing e-scooters follows the tendency of developing micro mobility. 3. INCREASING AFFORDABILITY According to previous paragraphs, using micro mobility is appropriate in Millcreek. However, increasing the affordability of using micro mobility is necessary because using micro mobility is meaningless if using e-scooters were more expensive than using Uber. People would choose Uber because it is cheaper, and faster. The cost of Bird, in Salt Lake City, was $1 to start and $0.29 per minute plus tax in 2019. If a person used an e-scooter to ride one mile at an average of 7 miles per hour and includes a 2-minute stop, the price will be around $4.19 plus tax. Contrasting with the cost of using e-scooters, the cost of using Uber to drive one mile in Salt Lake City is around $6 to $7 included tax. These results look like using e-scooters is a little bit cheaper than using Uber, but Uber can be more convenient, and may provide a better trip experience. It is very frustrating to ride micro-mobility devices in very hot, cold, or rainy weather. Therefore, using e-scooters is cheaper than using Uber, but the small difference in price and experience makes Uber a more desirable option in some situations and times of year. In addition, the weekly cost of using e-scooters may be higher than the cost of “Hive Pass” (Graph 11), which is a public transit pass costs $42 per month and includes UTA bus, TRAX, and GREENbike. Therefore, it is necessary to figure out a way of decreasing the price of using an e-scooter to attract more residents to use e-scooters, and making more residents afford e-scooters. There are two potential solutions: include e-scooters in a pass and help vendors of e-scooters make the investment. According to communication with Ashley Cleveland, the Promise Program Manager at Millcreek City Hall, the city wants to do the “Hive Pass” program. This is a good decision because more residents will benefit from the “Hive Pass.” Including the vendors of e-scooters such as Bird and Lime in “Hive Pass” will allow more residents to afford e-scooters. In addition, helping the vendors of e-scooters to invest is a good option, too. In China, most vendors of bike shares, such as Mobike, make a short-term investment and buy financial production by using security deposits which are paid by users to get profit and decrease the cost of using their bikes. It is possible to allow the vendors of e-scooters to do something similar and decrease the cost of using their e-scooters. The government can support a low- interest loan, decrease the application fee for a permit, and other preferential policies to the vendors of e-scooters to reduce the cost of using their e-scooters. In conclusion, the cost of using an e-scooter is appropriate for Millcreek, but the cost is very competitive with the cost of using Uber. Including e-scooters in a pass and helping vendors of e-scooters invest can decrease the cost of using e-scooters. Making using an e-scooter more affordable is essential because shared mobility is a type of healthy, low- pollution transportation. The full benefits of using shared mobility may not happen immediately, but will manifest itself fully into the future. 4. PARKING LOCATIONS & “FIRST-LAST-MILE” TRANSIT Micro mobility relies on parking areas or docks. The locations of parking areas and docks are very important because they affect the convenience of accessing a bike or e-scooter. In addition, connecting micro mobility and public transit will improve the efficiency of travel in the city, and fill in the gap between the house or workplace and public transit. Therefore, setting the locations of parking areas and docks and making micro mobility a desirable option of “FLM” trips will be discussed in the following paragraphs. First, according to Wang et al., “FLM” issues primarily focus on the travel from home or workplace to the closest transit station (2016). Micro mobility is the key to improve the chain of transit between the house or workplace to the transit station. According to the study from Denver Public Works, the users of e-scooters ride an average of 0.92 miles, and the users of bike share ride an average of 1.52 miles (2019). These averages support that micro mobility is a good option of “FLM” transit. Riding micro mobility for 1 mile may take 10 to 12 minutes at 7 miles per hour (includes 1 to 2 minutes for stop); it is not a long time, and this helps residents feel that riding micro mobility for “FLM” trips is acceptable. More significantly, setting appropriate locations of parking areas and docks and improving micro mobility as an “FLM” transit option is essential. In Millcreek, the public transportation which most residents rely on is UTA Bus; it services almost the whole primary area of Millcreek. Setting parking areas and docks of shared mobility close to bus stops, within a walkable distance, is a good idea. There are two reasons: easy to access and a large service area. According to Figure 15, the blue and yellow areas mean radius is within 0.25 and 1 mile from bus stations. 0.25 miles is a good recommendation for defining a walkable distance. According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s statement, 0.25 miles is a walkable distance, and it is usually used in the experiments of 23 24 Graph 11: “Hive Pass” (Source: Hive Pass) Figure 15: Radius Area within 0.25 and 1 mile from Bus Stations in Millcreek (Data Source: Utah AGRC) MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- residents’ behaviors in urban areas (2016). Passengers can take micro-mobility devices by walking less than seven minutes from the bus stations. The parking areas and docks are better set on the primary sidewalks because residents can find them easily. of micro mobility pilot program. Finally, receiving feedback from the pilot program and improving the issues in the further official micro mobility program. WHAT’S NEXT? 25 26 WHAT’S NEXT? After identifying the factors which are essential in making micro mobility successful, and analyzing current circumstances of Millcreek, the city enjoys great potential in implementing a successful micro mobility project. Micro mobility is a new and relatively immature transit mode; it comes with opportunities and issues. Some recommendations were discussed above, such as prioritizing deployed areas, identifying an appropriate mode for deployment, increasing affordability of using- mobility services, and improving the connections between micro mobility and public transit; however, there are various topics that are valuable to discuss for improving micro mobility in the future. Cities could focus on increasing safety such as wearing helmets and building more buffered bike lanes to improve the riding experience of micro mobility. Moreover, developing the education of using micro mobility correctly by social media and other modes could be a potential topic for further development. Micro mobility provides many benefits for cities; it decreases the demand on driving vehicles, and encourages residents to use a healthy and sustainable transit mode for travel and commuting. Millcreek is a growing suburb, and it is full of ambition in implementing micro mobility. A micro mobility pilot program is a good start for Millcreek. It will help the city to identify the advantages and challenges during the program, and supports administrators to create more appropriate and effective decisions in the future. Distributing educational materials and discussing micro mobility in the city council meeting could be the first step. Then, asking supports from other suburbs and cities, which have implemented micro mobility, to create a rough draft MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 pdf/Creating-Walkable-Bikeable-Communities.pdf Wang, Odoni, (2016). Approximating The Performance of a “Last Mile” Transportation System. Transp. Sci. 50, 659–675. BIBLIOGRAPHY 28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguilera-García, Gomez, & Sobrino, N. (2020). Exploring The Adoption of Moped Scooter-Sharing Systems In Spanish Urban Areas. Cities, 96 doi:10.1016/j. cities.2019.102424 Austin Public Health. (2018). Dockless Electric Scooter- Related Injuries Study. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_ Study_5-2-19.pdf Census Bureau. (2017). 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from Currey, (2019). Helping Communities with Smart Mobility. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from [EMAIL REDACTED] Denver Public Works. (2019). Denver Dockless Mobility Program Pilot Interim Report. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from denvergov/Portals/705/documents/permits/Denver- dockless-mobility-pilot-update-Feb2019.pdf Irwin, (2017). After Three Years, Here’s How Tampa Bay Coast Bike Share Has Performed. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from news/2017/12/06/after-three-years-heres-how-tampa-bay- coast-bike.html. Kou, Wang, Chiu, S. F. & Cai, H. (2020). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction From Bike Share Systems: A Model Considering Real- World Trips and Transportation Mode Choice Patterns. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153 doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.104534 Lime. (2018). One Year Report. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from Official_One_Year_Report.pdf Montgomery, (2019). E-Scooters As a First-Last Mile Solution. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s63r5c3t National Association of Community Transportation Officials. (2017). Bike Share in the U.S.: 2017. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from statistics-2017/ Peters, & MacKenzie, D. (2019). The Death And Rebirth of Bikesharing in Seattle: Implications For Policy and System Design. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 130, 208-226. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.012 Populus. (2018). The Micro-Mobility Revolution: The Introduction and Adoption of Electric Scooters in the United States. Retreived January 6th, 2020, from www.populus.ai/micro-mobility-2018-july Portland Bureau of Transportation. (2018). 2018 E-Scooter Finding Report. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from article/709719 Reilly, K. Noyes, & Crossa, A. (2020). From Non- Cyclists to Frequent Cyclists: Factors Associated with Frequent Bike Share Use in New York City. Journal of Transport and Health, 16 doi:10.1016/j.jth.2019.100790 Sam Schwartz Engineering. (2017). Culver City Bike Share Feasibility Study. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from fhwahop16022.pdf Smith, Schwieterman, J. (2018). E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-development/ research-and-publications/Documents/E-ScooterScenarios MicroMobilityStudy_FINAL_20181212.pdf The City of Austin. (2018). City of Austin, Dockless Mobility Community Survey Report. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from Transportation/Dockless_Mobility_Community_Survey_ Report_2-28-19.pdf The City of Culver City. (2018). City of Culver City Interim Operating Agreement. The City of Draper. (2019). Micro Mobility License Agreement of Draper. The City of Long Beach. (2019). Shared Micro-Mobility Program, 2019 – 2020. The City of Millcreek. (2019). Millcreek City Center Master Plan. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from millcreek.us/DocumentCenter/View/874/Millcreek-City- Center-Master-Plan---Adopted-June-10-2019-PDF The City of Sandy. (2019). Micro Mobility License Agreement of Sandy. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Creating Walkable & Bikeable Communities. Retrieved November 20th, 2019, from MAKING MILLCREEK BETTER MICRO MOBILITY IN MILLCREEK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- IMAGE CREDITS 29 IMAGE CREDITS “Hive Pass”, GREENBike. Retrieved from greenbikeslc.org/hivepass “LimeBike raises £50m to boost bike-sharing plans”, SmartCitiesWorld news team. Retrieved from smartcitiesworld.net/news/news/limebike-raises-50m-to- boost-bike-sharing-plans-2220 “Saying Goodbye to the Fleet of Lime Bikes”, The City Hall of Miami Springs. Retrieved from miamisprings-fl.gov/community/saying-goodbye-fleet- lime-bikes ---PAGE BREAK---