Provisional Strategic Evaluation - Auckland Council › licences-regulations › Docume… · conditions around maintenance and reporting of incidents, Lime scooters were allowed

Rental e-scooter trial Provisional Strategic Evaluation

Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation 3

Table of Contents

1 Context ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 4

1.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4

1.1.2 A brief history of the trial................................................................................... 4

1.2 Purpose of the report .............................................................................................. 5

1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Approaches adopted by other cities ........................................................................ 7

1.4.1 International ..................................................................................................... 7

1.4.2 New Zealand .................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Responsibilities and legislative framework ............................................................. 9

2 Analysis and advice .................................................................................................... 11

2.1 What we found out through the trial ...................................................................... 11

2.1.1 Usage data ..................................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Public survey .................................................................................................. 15

2.1.3 Safety and accidents ...................................................................................... 16

2.1.4 Public feedback .............................................................................................. 20

2.2 Strategic alignment ............................................................................................... 24

2.2.1 Transport and access ..................................................................................... 24

2.2.2 The natural environment ................................................................................ 32

2.2.3 Urban form and communities ......................................................................... 34

2.2.4 Economically successful city .......................................................................... 35

3 Evaluation summary ................................................................................................... 37

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 39

4 Rental e-scooter trial: Provisional Strategic Evaluation

1 Context

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Introduction

In transport, as in most parts of society, technology is changing the way we do things. Two of the

biggest transport trends of recent years has been the increase in “shared” services, facilitated by

advances in IT and mobile phone technology, and the growing popularity of micro mobility devices1

often powered by lightweight electric motors.

These trends combined in the first e-scooter rental scheme in San Francisco in late 2017 before

spreading to urban areas across North America and around the globe. Auckland Transport was

approached in 2018 by several rental e-scooter companies seeking permission to operate in

Auckland.

Permission is required, depending on location, under the Auckland Council and Auckland

Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaws 2015 (the bylaw) which regulate the use of

public places for commercial activities and events.

While the operating model, technology and impacts of rental e-scooters were still relatively new in

both local and international contexts, it was clear there was the potential for them to contribute to

the strategic outcomes described in the Auckland Plan.

It was determined that a finite trial period would be the most appropriate means of managing e-

scooter rental schemes and provide time to learn and gather data to inform a regulatory position for

the future management of such schemes. This would be in keeping with the approach described in

the Auckland Plan2. After which, the trials impacts would be evaluated to inform future decision-

making processes and subsequent licence decisions.

The trial period ends on 31 March 2019. A decision needs to be made by then on whether to

continue to issue licences to e-scooter rental schemes in Auckland.

1.1.2 A brief history of the trial

In October 2018, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (the council) agreed to a trial of

rental e-scooters for a three-month period through a license issued under the bylaw.

In October 2018 the council issued a Mobile Trading Licence for Lime to operate 1,000 scooters for

3 months on a trial basis. Licenses were also issued to Onzo and Wave.

While appearing popular with users, safety concerns were quickly raised by the public, media and

some elected officials. These concerns primarily focused on the appropriateness of e-scooter use

on footpaths and on the irresponsible use of e-scooters by their users in such situations. In

response to this AT and the council ran a public safety campaign encouraging safe use of e-

scooters, while Lime ran specific events intended to raise awareness of safe rider use.

In January 2019, the trial was extended to 31 March to allow further data to be collected.

1 Note on terminology: There is no agreed term for these types of devices; though the most common, which this report uses is the term ‘micro mobility’. 2 Auckland Plan 2050, Outcome: Transport and Access, Focus area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology


In mid-February staff became aware through media reports of potential safety issues regarding

locking wheels, resulting in a number of accidents and injuries to e-scooter riders.

The council and AT formally requested information from Lime relating to the incident and other

issues. After several requests for information and a failure to provide the council and AT with

satisfactory safety assurances, the council and AT suspended Lime’s license until satisfied that the

wheel locking issue had been resolved.

In late February information was provided by Lime which indicated the issue had been resolved.

The information satisfied the council and AT’s concerns and, subject to new, more stringent

conditions around maintenance and reporting of incidents, Lime scooters were allowed back on the

streets in early March.

In mid-March Wave deployed 500 e-scooters to operate until the end of the trial on 31 March 2019.

Wave was the only other operator to launch as part of the trial. Onzo decided not to launch.

1.2 Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the trial of rental e-scooters in the context of the strategic

objectives for the city and describe the key findings from the trial period.

The focus of the work undertaken during the trial period and of this evaluation is on helping inform

decision making about future licensing decisions for rental e-scooters in Auckland. This report itself

does not make recommendations, merely providing the information from which a recommendation

and decision can be made.

This report is focussed on understanding the role e-scooter rental has played in the Auckland

transport network during the trial period and how well their operation has aligned with the strategic

objectives of the council. It has not looked at more operational matters such as the administration

of the licence and specific licencing conditions.

1.3 Methodology

The performance of the trial must be considered in the context of the strategic objectives for the

city. The council’s principal strategic document is the Auckland Plan 2050 (the Auckland Plan)

which sets the direction for how Auckland will grow and develop over the next 30 years. E-scooter

rentals have the potential to contribute to, or detract from, the ability to achieve a range of

outcomes across the plan.

There are four main areas of the Auckland Plan which are particularly relevant to assessing the

impact and desirability of e-scooter rental schemes (Table 1).

Strategic directions Aspects to be considered

Transport and Access

Auckland Plan (AP) Outcome: Transport and Access

Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods and services; and

• Increase in travel choice

• Accessibility

• Replacement of car trips

• Impact on use of public transport, walking and cycling


Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland

Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection

Focus Area 1: Make better use of existing transport networks

Focus Area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology

Focus Area 4: Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders

• Efficiency of use of space

• Safety:

o Actual & perceived

o Users & non-users

• Equitable access

The Natural Environment

AP Outcome: Transport and Access


AP Outcome: Environment and Cultural Heritage

Direction 1: Ensure Auckland’s natural environment and cultural heritage is valued and cared for

• Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions

• Vehicle efficiency

• Life cycle of vehicles and batteries

• Vehicle collection, charging and distribution process

Urban Form and Communities

AP Outcome: Belonging and Participation

Focus area 1: Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in, and enjoy community and civic life

AP Outcome: Homes and Places

Focus area 5: Create urban places for the future

• Support for a quality compact urban form

• Quality of life

• Accessibility of public spaces

• Enjoyment of the city

• People-focused and universal urban design

Economically Successful City

AP Outcome: Opportunity and Prosperity

Direction 1: Create the conditions for a resilient economy through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity

Focus area 1: Harness emerging technologies and ensure equitable access to high quality digital data and services

• Changes in accessibility for different sections of society

• Increased spending

• Time savings

• Medical costs

Table 1

Worthy of particular note here is Focus area 3 under the Transport and Access outcome:

‘Maximise the benefits from transport technology’. This focus area highlights the potential benefits

of technological innovation but also cautions:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/auckland-plan/opportunities-prosperity/Pages/default.aspx


“that these technology advances could create negative effects […] Realising benefits

from technology will require us to focus on trials, safety, enabling regulation and

supporting infrastructure.”

This trial has been a real-life example of this approach in action. While the learnings from this trial

will inform future licencing decisions in the short-term, they should also in the longer term inform

potential future regulatory changes and infrastructure funding prioritisation and design.

The report draws together a range of data and evidence and considers it within this strategic

context. This data includes:

• General usage information from Lime via their online “Insights” dashboard

• Detailed trip data for Lime e-scooter trips taken between 14 October 2018 and 22

February 20193

• Results of a representative survey of Auckland residents and of Lime users by Kantar

TNS

• Public feedback received via the council’s ‘EScooterProgramme’ email address

(including Lime-prompted feedback submitted by Lime users via the Lime app) as well as

other standard council communications channels

• Death and Serious Injury figures from NZTA’s Crash Analysis System

• ACC data on claims received before and during the trial period.

Given the timing of the initial licencing decisions which are required to be made, it has not been

possible to consider data from the entire trial period or to complete the full analysis of the data we

have received. As such, this report is a provisional assessment of the trial and further insights are

likely to be gained over time as further analysis of this and new data is completed.

1.4 Approaches adopted by other cities

1.4.1 International

The first e-scooter rental schemes launched on the west coast of the United States in late 2017. In

the 18 months since, e-scooter rental schemes have been introduced to well over 100 cities across

North, Central and South America, Europe, Israel, Australia and New Zealand.

The introduction of scooters in many of these cities has been met with considerable public and

media interest as well as a fair share of controversy. To start with this tended to be due to their

appearance in several cities on streets without the appropriate permission. Over time the

companies have increasingly worked with cities and now usually operate within the regulatory

framework set out for them, either as part of a trial or through iterating licenses. Nevertheless,

questions have remained as to their role in the transport system and their health and safety

impacts. In Auckland, three operators were issued with short-term licenses for a trial period of just

over five months, to help understand and inform the future management of licenses for e-scooter

rental schemes

Due to the relatively short time frame since their first launch, evidence on the impacts of e-scooter

rental schemes is still limited. However, what evaluations there are have identified several benefits

3 A full analysis of this data has not been possible in the time available; in particular spatial analysis of trips.


for cities, such as increased travel options, replacement of car trips and reduced car ownership4.

Cities, such as Santa Monica, though have also faced challenges with the integration of e-

scooters, including safety concerns over e-scooter use on footpaths, incorrect parking behaviour

and a lack of sufficient safe infrastructure for e-scooters.

Due to this rapid rate of adoption and the varying regulatory positions from which cities have been

starting, there is also limited consistency in the approaches cities have adopted and even less

clarity on best practice. A summary of the main issues cities have identified and the approaches

they have adopted is attached as appendix 1.

1.4.2 New Zealand

Since October 2018, several New Zealand cities have permitted Lime to operate an e-scooter

rental scheme as the first e-scooter sharing operator in New Zealand. Wave has launched as a

second operator in Auckland in March, and e-scooter operators Flamingo and Jump have been

selected for an e-scooter trial in Wellington. Further e-scooter operators Blip, Onzo, Fuutr, Scoot

and Goat have also shown intentions to launch e-scooters in New Zealand in the future. Across

New Zealand, cities have chosen different approaches to manage the licensing and operation of e-

scooter schemes.

Christchurch

Lime launched in Christchurch in October 2018, at the same time as Auckland, with 700 e-

scooters. After a 3-month trial, Christchurch Council decided to issue a 12-month permit for Lime,

starting in March 2019. The permit allows Lime to increase their fleet to 1000 e-scooters in

Christchurch. Fees are charged per square meter taken up by each vehicle ($86.25 per vehicle), in

accordance with the Christchurch public streets enclosure policy. The council also agreed on an

overall fleet cap of 1600 e-scooters to allow for the possibility of future operators in the city.

Hutt Valley

In December 2018, Lime introduced 600 e-scooters to the Hutt Valley on a 12-month permit, with a

permit fee of $150.

Dunedin

Lime launched in Dunedin in early January with 300 e-scooters. Instead of issuing a permit, which

is not required under Dunedin’s policies, Lime has signed a memorandum of understanding with

the city, which includes guidelines about the location and placement of parked scooters.

Wellington

In February 2019, Wellington City agreed a licensing process that allows up to two 18-month

licenses for e-scooter share operators in the city, with an initial 600 to 800 vehicles each. For the

initial trial phase, Wellington city chose the two operators Flamingo and Jump to start operation in

June 2019. As a license condition, operators were required to ensure that e-scooters are not

permitted to be used in a list of locations within the city.

4 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719


Permit type Fleet cap Operators Fee structure5 Areas of use

Auckland (trial period)

Trial license (Oct 2018 - March 2019)

Lime with 1000 e-scooters, Wave with 500

• Lime

• Wave

(Onzo was issued a license but did not launch)

Mobile trading license fee

Lime:Inner city and outer suburbs

Wave: City centre and fringe, geofenced low-speed zones with a 15kmh speed limit in specific areas in city centre

Christchurch

12-month permit

(commencing March 2019)

1600 between operators

Lime (1000 e-scooters)

(open to several operators)

Fee per amount of vehicle space

($86.25 / vehicle)

No restrictions

Hutt Valley

12-month permit (Dec 2018)

Lime with 600 e-scooters

Lime


Permit fee ($150)

Hutt Valley Area

Wellington

18-month permit (6 months trial + possibility of 12-month extension (June 2019)

Min 600, max 800 per operator

Max. two operators:

• Jump

• Flamingo

• Interim fee ($45) per scooter during trial, agreement of a longer-term fee yet to be made

• Investment in a $10,000 awareness campaign

Wellington city, Operation not allowed at specific areas (and times) with high pedestrian numbers

Dunedin

Memorandum of Understanding (Jan 2019)

Lime with 300 e-scooters

Lime


No fees Dunedin city

Table 2

5 For permit period


1.5 Responsibilities and legislative framework

Responsibility for the regulation and control of rental e-scooters sits across a range of central

government agencies, local government and private companies.

In New Zealand <300 watt e-scooters are classed as ‘wheeled recreational devices’. They are not

considered to be motor vehicles, and like e-bikes they are not required to go through entry

certification or be licensed or registered for use6.

The requirements for the safety of e-scooters as products are covered under the Fair Trading Act

and the Consumer Guarantees Act (a device must be fit for purpose), administered by MBIE.

Specific requirements for the safety of the batteries and battery chargers are covered by the

Electricity (Safety) Regulations, administered by Worksafe.

The requirements for safe use of e-scooters on roads, shared paths and footpaths is covered by

the Road User Rule, administered by the NZ Transport Agency and enforced by Police.

To trade in a public space e-scooter rental companies must obtain a license under the separate

Auckland Transport (for roads and footpaths) and Auckland Council (for parks and civic spaces)

Trading and Events bylaws. The extent of control the council and AT have over e-scooter rental

schemes is limited to the issuance of licenses and the imposition of conditions under these bylaws.

Separate speed limits for footpaths (compared to the general road carriageway) and mandatory

wearing of helmets are not able to be set or required under this bylaw.

To use a rental e-scooter, riders must comply with road user rules, separate Auckland Transport

and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance bylaws and the rental company’s terms of use.

A summary of the legislative and regulatory responsibilities and framework is set out in appendix 2

6 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/vehicle-types/low-powered-vehicles/

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/vehicle-types/low-powered-vehicles/


2 Analysis and advice

2.1 What we found out through the trial

2.1.1 Usage data7

To date during the trial, over 220,000 people have taken over 1.05 million trips on rental e-

scooters. The number of rides and riders each week has stayed fairly steady throughout the trial

period, with a gradual increase in the relative number of rides per rider (Figure 1).

Each e-scooter was used for around 9-9.5 rides per day.

Figure 1

7 A note on the data: For the purposes of this report it has been necessary to place an end point on the data to be analysed shorter than the trial period itself. This date has been largely determined by reporting timeframes and the withdrawal of Lime e-scooters from Auckland streets on 22 February 2019. As such the data analysed in this report is for the period 14 October 2018 to 22 February 2019 unless mentioned otherwise. There are a number of caveats which must be noted about the period over which this data was collected:

• The school and Christmas holiday period fell during the middle of the trial period;

• University semesters almost completely fall outside this time; and

• The period only covers the summer months (of a very dry summer).


Most users were occasional users with 60% of riders during the trial period using the e-scooters

five times or fewer and only 14% of users using rental e-scooters 15 or more times (a frequency of

not quite once a week over the 19 weeks covered in this report). On a weekly basis just under 40%

of users tended to use the e-scooters only once a week while almost 20% of users used them five

or more times a week (Table 3).

Table 3

The median duration of trips was 8.72 minutes and the median distance 1155 metres. 25% of trips

were less than 5.05 minutes in length and 642m in distance with 75% of trips being under 16.3

minutes and 2058m8.

Around 5000-7000 trips were made each day on the rental e-scooters.

Day to day the levels of e-scooter rental use closely mirrored pedestrian activity levels in the city

centre9 (Figure 2). While on an average week, e-scooter use increased as the week went on

peaking on Friday (Figure 3).

There were slightly different patterns

of use between weekdays and the

weekend (Figure 4 and Table 4). On

weekdays while there was a notable

spike of, what was most likely,

commuter use around 8am and 5pm,

the busiest periods were during the

middle of the day. The main periods

of use were between 12pm and 6pm

on weekdays and 11am and 4pm on

weekends.

8 The trip data received from Lime contained a considerable number of anomalies (for instance around 7.5% of trips had a distance of zero metres). Most of these trips were removed for the purposes of analysis, leaving 803246 trips, but it remains unclear if they were valid trips with measurement or recording issues, or an error without a trip being made (for instance a scooter which refused to unlock but still recorded a ‘trip’). 9 https://www.hotcity.co.nz/city-centre/results-and-statistics/pedestrian-counts

Rider frequency

Number of trips during trial

Proportion of riders Number of trips per week

Proportion of riders

<3 42% <2 38%

3-5 18% 2-3 26%

5-15 26% 3-5 19%

15-30 8% 5=< 17%

30=< 6%

Figure 2

https://www.hotcity.co.nz/city-centre/results-and-statistics/pedestrian-counts


Table 4

While clearly popular, e-scooters remained a small proportion of the total trips in the trial area. The

average 6000 trips per day across the trial area (which is focused on the city centre and fringe) is

roughly equal to:

• 20% of the trips by bus which start and finish within the City fare zone (roughly the city

centre and inner fringe areas);

Trip start hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

0 45 50 52 50 54 98 116

1 27 33 28 32 34 72 74

2 16 16 18 23 22 48 54

3 10 11 12 15 13 28 34

4 9 13 11 15 15 26 32

5 26 34 26 35 34 28 31

6 75 95 97 109 116 52 45

7 153 195 216 231 266 90 73

8 295 344 379 406 474 154 128

9 237 256 286 280 345 253 247

10 260 260 310 297 367 373 381

11 325 344 404 401 489 478 472

12 462 465 553 550 655 506 525

13 454 461 543 543 639 542 535

14 422 440 503 494 582 509 494

15 432 440 507 538 561 479 421

16 442 485 522 541 555 417 367

17 436 488 504 536 506 364 296

18 340 369 378 414 392 326 256

19 283 326 326 337 329 294 250

20 239 276 269 289 289 265 224

21 143 158 158 169 193 191 152

22 92 102 105 114 149 161 100

23 68 74 72 83 120 136 74

E-scooter use by time of day

Figure 3 Figure 4


• 5% of all public transport trips which start and/or end in the City fare zone;

• the number of bike trips made into and out of the city centre;

• the number of pedestrian trips along the southern side of Shortland Street10 (measured

between High and O’Connell Streets);

The average 592 trips started during the weekday AM peak period meanwhile are equivalent (and

probably contribute in part) to under 1% of the 74000 trips made into the city centre between 7am

and 9am on weekdays during the trial period11.

E-scooter trips during the trial period then have formed a small but perceptible portion of inner city

trips. They are dwarfed by the number of walking trips in the area but are a notable number when

compared to PT trips starting and finishing within the inner-city area (where most e-scooter trips

start and finish).

The average speed of trips taken was 8.4kph, with 95% of all trips averaging under 15.5kph

(Figure 5).

These numbers are the average

speed though, and would not

accurately reflect the top, or even

average moving speed, of e-

scooters12. These averages

would be distorted by waits for

traffic signals, especially for short

trips. This is reflected in the

longest 75% of trips (over 642m)

being 50% faster on average

than the 25% of shortest trips.

The impact of weather

Auckland has experienced fine

settled weather since the start of

the trial which has provided little

chance to observe the effects of inclement weather on the popularity of the scheme. In fact, during

the period 15 October 2018 to 23 February 2019 Auckland only experienced more than 10mm of

rain on 12 days, with only four of those days being more than 20mm and only one of these being

above 25mm13. Of these four days of more significant rainfall, two of these were Christmas Eve

and Christmas day which are likely to have lower levels of use anyway (evidenced by city centre

pedestrian counts about 40% lower than average).

Based on the data available there is some suggestion of reduced rates of use during inclement

weather. Compared to the average number of trips on the same days of the week without rain, trip

numbers were about 10-20% lower. As this is based on limited data, no firm conclusions can be

reached.

10 https://www.hotcity.co.nz/city-centre/results-and-statistics/pedestrian-counts 11 AT screenline results for October 2018-January 2019 12 It is hoped that further analysis of trip data will enable some understanding of actual moving speeds. This hasn’t been able to be done in time for preparation of this report. 13 Source: www.accuweather.com

Figure 5

https://www.hotcity.co.nz/city-centre/results-and-statistics/pedestrian-counts


2.1.2 Public survey

NZTA along with Auckland and Christchurch councils commissioned Kantar TNS to run a survey of

residents and e-scooter users in both Auckland and Christchurch (the Kantar survey)14. This was

conducted during December 2018 and early January 2019. The general residents survey was

weighted to be representative in terms of gender and age while a ‘booster’ sample was also

collected of Lime users to ensure a sufficient sample size of those users15.

The survey was undertaken before the issues with wheels locking up on Lime e-scooters became

known. It’s unclear how this may have affected people’s responses and what their views are now.

The main feedback from the survey was:

• Some additional trips have been made that would not have been made without e-scooters.

• E-Scooter trips are seen as most efficient/fastest travel option.

• The majority of trips replace walking trips with around a quarter replacing car trips.

• Footpaths, shared paths and separated bike lanes were the preferred places to ride (with

almost equal preference).

• The main negative aspects of e-scooters identified was the risk, or perceived risk, they

pose to pedestrians while in use and the clutter they cause when not in use.

• There was general agreement on the continuation of e-scooter rental operation among both

users and non-users.

14 As a survey of ‘claimed behaviour’ some caution should be taken with these exact figures as respondents may not accurately identify or be able to recall what they would have done in an alternative situation. Nevertheless, the results provide a guide to rough proportions and numbers. 15 The Lime user boost sample was excluded from all reporting at a general resident’s level to ensure that the figures were not skewed towards Lime users.


2.1.3 Safety and accidents

Deaths and Serious Injuries

The standard measure of road safety outcomes used by local councils, Central Government

agencies and New Zealand Police is the number of deaths and serious injuries16 (DSIs) which

have occurred. It is also the primary road safety key performance indicator for AT. Data on DSIs is

collected and reported by police before being recorded in the Crash Analysis System (CAS)

managed by the NZTA.

This system however, is very motor vehicle centric and holds little information on e-scooter

crashes. Information on non-motor vehicle crashes are usually only captured where they are

involved in a high severity, on-road crash involving a police investigation.

16 Serious injuries include fractures, concussions and other similar injuries but not minor cuts, bruises etc.

Key responses

E-scooter integration into transport system

• 45% of users made a trip they wouldn’t have otherwise made without a shared

e-scooter

• 21% of e-scooter users mainly use them to get to or from public transport

• 46% of users chose to take an e-scooter trip because it was the fastest and/or

most efficient travel option for them

Replacement of other modes

• 51% of users replaced a walking trip with a shared e-scooter trip, while

24% of users replaced a trip in a motorised vehicle (private car/motorcycle or

rideshare such as Uber, taxi)

8% of users replaced a public transport trip and

2% of users replaced a bike/e-bike trip

E-scooter user preferences

• footpaths (52%), shared paths (50%) and separated cycle lanes/paths (49%)

are the most preferred places for users to ride an e-scooter

Potential barriers for non-users to riding e-scooters

• service price increase - 48% of non-users

• e-scooter ban on footpaths - 42% of non-users

• compulsory helmet use - 24% of non-users

• fewer available e-scooters - 23% of non-users

• continuation of e-scooter ban from designated cycle lanes - 22% of non-users

Overall perception

• respondents perceived the hazard for pedestrians (27%) and vehicles being dumped on footpaths (25%) as the most negative impacts of e-scooters

• most e-scooter users as well as non-users agreed that e-scooters should continue operating


Nevertheless, it is a regularly used measure of safety and, as shown below, does capture a

number of deaths and serious injuries each year for other non-motor vehicle modes. The table

below indicates that of the crashes recorded in the last 5 years involving cyclists, pedestrian and

“wheeled pedestrian” classes only 1 of the 790 DSIs in the Auckland region as involving an e-

scooter17 (Table 5).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand

Total

People on bikes 39 55 42 55 46 237

People on foot 87 115 106 130 101 539

Skateboarder 0 4 2 1 1 8

Electric Scooter 0 0 0 0 1 1

Push Scooter 1 1 2

Mobility Scooter 1 2 3

Grand Total 128 176 151 186 149 790

Table 5

ACC claims

The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has records of a far greater number of accidents,

mainly due to its recording of injuries from accidents of all severities, but has some limitations

which restrict its usefulness, including:

• It is not usually used as a road safety indicator, so it is difficult to compare the risks of e-

scooters to other activities and transport modes.

• It relies heavily on accurate reporting by claimants (i.e. Did they mention an e-scooter or

just call it a scooter? Did they accurately identify the cause of the crash i.e. personal loss

of control could be due to excess speed, poor footpath/road condition, or just a loss of

balance); and consistent and accurate interpretation and recording by ACC staff reading

the claim.

• It is difficult to determine the proportion of incidents which involved rental e-scooters as

the ACC data, like the CAS above, does not differentiate between accidents involving

public rental e-scooters and privately-owned ones.

Nevertheless, it does allow us to shed some light on the relative level of risk and injury of e-

scooters both to other forms of scooter and to other road users.

From the ACC data it can be seen that e-scooter injuries increased around the commencement of

the trial and dropped off following the withdrawal of Lime e-scooters. While Lime was operating the

rate of claims was roughly 45% of that of regular foot scooters (Figure 6).

17 DSI data often takes three months to be available in the CAS. As such data for 2018 may not include December, or even part of November.


Figure 6

Figure 7

The relationship in the data to the introduction and removal of Lime e-scooters suggests that the

majority of e-scooter trips in Auckland are made on rental e-scooters, though the level of claims

still being received two weeks after Lime e-scooters were removed suggests some level of base

usage which did not previously exist (though may also reflect belated claims).


While this may seem large, when

compared to the accident rates for similar

modes it can be seen that this is a

relatively small number (Figure 7). As set

out in Table 6 this number is equal to 69%

of skateboard claims and 17% of cycling

related claims for the same period.

Most accidents appear to be caused by a

personal loss of control rather than an

external factor, suggesting most accidents

are the fault of the user rather than the

device or infrastructure (Table 7). There is

the possibility though that this may not

have been accurately recorded by either

the claimant, or by ACC; an example of the

difficulties in relying on ACC data.

Lime wheel locking

These figures include a mix of accidents

causes, including presumably the wheel

locking fault which affected Lime’s e-scooter

fleet.

This appears to have been a fault of the

software Lime uses rather than the e-

scooters themselves. It highlights one of the

additional complexities and therefore

potential risks of the rental e-scooter model

compared to private ownership.

Nevertheless, there is little evidence yet that

this is a widespread issue with the rental e-

scooter model, rather Lime’s specific

software (and/or it’s interrelationship with

their hardware).

While this issue has demonstrated the need

for improved reporting and response

processes as a part of any future licensing

decisions, there is not enough evidence at

this stage to indicate that this is sufficient

reason to prevent all e-scooter rental schemes form operating.

Pedestrian safety

The safety of pedestrians has been one of the biggest concerns of the trial period. Given the

privacy reporting requirements of ACC the exact number of accidents to occur in these weeks is

unknown, however it is somewhere between three and nine (inclusive), and most likely on the

lower side of this range.

Number of claims

Percentage of e-scooter

claims relative to other modes

E-scooters 745

Foot scooters 1646 45%

Running/

Jogging 11327 7%

Vehicle

Mentioned 29020 3%

Skateboarding 1079 69%

Cycling 4413 17%

Table 6

Accident Cause Number

Loss Balance/Personal

Control 677

Collision/Knocked Over by

Object 16

Loss of Control of Vehicle 8

Twisting Movement 20

Slipping, Skidding on Foot 11

Pushed or Pulled 12

Tripping or Stumbling 11

Puncture 7

Not provided <4

Medical Treatment ..

All others 17

Table 7


Perceived safety

While the reality is that there have been few accidents in Auckland serious enough to require

treatment under ACC, public feedback, as well as anecdotal comments and observations, suggest

many more unrecorded near misses or minor (non-injury) crashes. These minor incidents, along

with e-scooters silent propulsion system and potential speed which can lead to their unexpected

appearance, has caused concerns amongst some people for their safety.

Perceptions of levels of safety are often as important as the actual levels as people make

decisions based on their perception rather than the reality (though hopefully one informs the other).

In this case it is clear from the public feedback received and comments reported in the media that

some portion of the community are concerned with their safety. The exact scale of this though is

uncertain.

The public feedback received has included reports of some of the more vulnerable members of

society feeling so unsafe that they are not prepared to leave their house.

2.1.4 Public feedback

While not undertaking formal consultation on the trial or e-scooter rental schemes in general, the

council has received a large amount of feedback on the trial. The majority of this feedback was

received as a result of a campaign orchestrated by Lime itself.

During the temporary suspension of Lime’s licence, due to the wheel locking fault, Lime used its

app to encourage users to send a pre-written email to the council, in support of Lime scooters (a

copy is attached as appendix 3). More than 6000 e-mails were sent via the Lime app. Most of

these were in the form provided by Lime, though a portion of people edited the proforma text to

add their own opinions.

In addition to the feedback initiated by Lime further feedback was received via the more standard

communication channels, such as the council’s online enquiry platform or the dedicated

‘EscooterProgramme’ email-address set up by the council.

At the time of writing the council has received the following pieces of feedback:

• 5666 proformas

• 665 unique or amended proforma

• 78 other sources/complaints

The main feedback themes are:

• Safety

• Transport

• Fun

• Environment

• Convenience

• Affordability

• Access

The graph below shows the key themes mentioned in feedback from the standard Council

communication channels as well as customised emails sent via the Lime app.

This feedback has not been received as part of a formal consultation procedure and should not be

taken as such. It provides some insight into the views and position of the public but is neither


necessarily the views of all who would submit on a public proposal, or a representative sample of

all Aucklanders.

Figure 8

Nb. Excludes proforma submissions sent via the Lime app.

The opinions captured were:

• 6050 in support of the e-scooter sharing scheme (384 individual submissions and

5666 Lime proforma submissions)

In the customised feedback in support of e-scooters, all key themes listed above were

mentioned with safety and transport mentioned most frequently. In relation to safety the

careless behaviour of a few e-scooter users was referred to as the main cause of

negative public perception. Comments related to transport mostly referred to e-scooters

as a more reliant and more efficient alternative to Auckland’s public transport system, as

well as a replacement for personal car trips. Use of e-scooters for daily commutes were

also mentioned.

Other supporting comments highlighted the fun/enjoyment of e-scooter rides,

environmental benefits such as reduced traffic emissions, high convenience and

affordability of e-scooters, as well as improved access within the city.

• 142 with qualified support or which were neutral with suggestions

A high proportion of the more neutral or qualified feedback called for improvements to e-

scooter regulations or expressed support for Lime only in the case that certain conditions

were met. Most feedback providers in this group referred to accidents and safety risks.

The most frequently requested changes were speed restrictions for e-scooters, the repair

of Lime’s software malfunction and provision of safe vehicles in general, legal obligation

to wear helmets, provision of helmets with e-scooters, as well as an ACC levy paid by

Lime.


• 87 opposing e-scooter

sharing scheme

Safety was also the main

concern for of feedback

providers who opposed e-

scooters. Opponents most

frequently referred to the

number of e-scooter-related

ACC claims. Other frequently

mentioned issues were the

risks of e-scooter use posed

to pedestrians on footpaths,

near-misses and accidents

that cause serious injuries,

and irresponsible user

behaviour. Several e-scooter

opponents highlighted the

obstacles that parked e-scooters on footpaths can pose to people with disabilities.

For a high number of feedback providers, safety concerns were the main motivation for sending

individual feedback or complaints. Many submitters of the Lime feedback also commented on

safety issues possibly in part because the feedback was sent in response to Lime’s license being

suspended on safety grounds.

The five key issues most frequently mentioned in relation to safety were:

• Speeds: Feedback providers emphasised that e-scooter users riding at high speeds put

both users and pedestrians on footpaths in danger. Non-users highlighted the frequency

of accidents and near-misses caused by fast e-scooter riders, ultimately leading to

pedestrians not feeling safe. Speed restrictions were a common suggestion.

• Lime’s software malfunction: Most commonly mentioned by e-scooter users who

stressed the necessity of guaranteeing faultless vehicle safety to prevent accidents and

serious injuries.

• Helmets: Feedback providers often pointed to the danger of e-scooter use without the

use of helmets. Opinions differed on whether helmets should be legally required when

riding scooters, whether they should be provided with rental scooters, or whether they

are the user’s responsibility.

Figure 9


• Irresponsible user behaviour:

Both users and non-users

perceived irresponsible riding

behaviour as a high safety risk.

Users frequently emphasised

that the majority of e-scooter

users ride sensibly with only a

few riders using e-scooters

irresponsibly and thus drawing

negative attention to e-scooters.

• ACC claims: People opposed or

with reservations on e-scooters

commonly associated e-scooter-

related accidents with a high

number of ACC claims made. A

commonly suggested condition

for the continuation of e-scooter

sharing schemes was an ACC

levy paid by operators.

Table 8

Top 5 reasons for negative safety perception

for users:

19% - Goes too fast / hard to control speed

16% - No safety equipment / helmets

13% - Uneven road / footpath surface

13% - Competing for space with others

12% - Scooter related i.e. small tyres, hard to

control

Top 6 reasons for negative safety perception

for pedestrians:

36% - Riders drive too fast

26% - Worry about being hit / injured

15% - Unsure when coming i.e. silent / blind

corners

14% - Can't trust all to ride safely / responsibly

13% - Lack of control among some riders

12% - Inconsiderate to pedestrians / too close

Excludes Lime's proforma emails

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

High speeds Lime's vehiclemalfunction issue

Helmets Irresponsibleuser behaviour

ACC

Safety-related issues

Support Neutral/qualified support Opposition

Figure 10


2.2 Strategic alignment

2.2.1 Transport and access

The main strategic theme rental e-scooters will have an impact on is, most obviously, transport.

The transport system, the way people get around and their ability to access jobs and other

opportunities. E-scooter rental schemes could impact these matters in many different ways and as

such this section is broken down into sub-sections aligned with the directions and focus areas of

the Auckland Plan.

Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods and services

Improving the ability of people to access opportunities and undertake activities is a key goal of the

Auckland Plan and other relevant strategic documents. Greater wellbeing and economic growth

are both facilitated by increasing people’s access to jobs, recreation activities and each other.

The e-scooter rentals contributed in three chief ways to an increase in accessibility during the trial.

1. They increased the speed people could travel without a car, allowing them to travel further and

access more opportunities.

The median speed of trips was 8.1kph, this is approximately 50-100% faster than the average

person’s walking speed (4-6kph) meaning people could access an area two to four times larger

than if they had walked for that same length of time.

2. While the bike already offers transport at this speed, it is clear from the level of demand for e-

scooters (to buy for private use and rent) that they offer something privately owned bikes and

bike share don’t. The primary reasons for this are most likely:

• Less effort than cycling (at least on level ground);

• Not having to wear a helmet;

• Less intimidating than bikes/e-bikes to people that haven’t ridden a bike for a while, or

ever;

• A safer perceived riding environment for the rider as they are allowed on the footpath.

3. The rental model itself is also an important component making these micro mobility devices

more accessible to people, with relatively low costs for use (at least compared to purchasing

one or taking a taxi/uber) and easy accessibility allowing for spur of the moment decisions.

The Kantar survey appears to back up this increase in accessibility with 45% of Lime users

claiming to have undertaken a trip they wouldn’t have otherwise made without a rental e-scooter.

Induced demand such as this is seen when travel is made easier in some way, enabling a trip to be

made that previously wouldn’t have been worth it. This suggests that some form of barrier to travel

was removed or reduced thereby increasing the level of accessibility.

Summary: Rental e-scooters have improved accessibility for the general population by

providing an alternative to walking which is around 50-100% quicker. Their rental model, of

having e-scooters readily available, also enables spur of the moment trips.


Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland

As the Auckland Plan notes:

“Many of us lack reliable, safe and affordable choices about how we travel. This

means we often depend on using private vehicles for most trips.”

A key direction of the Auckland Plan and Central Government’s Policy Statement on land transport

(the GPS) is increasing the range of transport choices people have to reduce reliance on the

private motor vehicle.

As a non-car mode of transport, e-scooters have the obvious potential to contribute to achieving

this goal. The rental model itself, which seeks to ensure an e-scooter is available when required,

also reduces the need to plan ahead and provides greater flexibility and choice for the way people

travel.

Evidence from the trial suggests this is the case, though maybe not to as great a degree as would

have been hoped.

In the Kantar survey when asked about their most recent ride 24% of the users would have

otherwise made the trip in a motor vehicle (be it a privately-owned car, motorbike or a taxi/ride

share). This figure of 24% is not dissimilar from the figures Lime itself has stated publicly from their

own surveys18.

This figure is also backed up by the general usage data. Most short trips are, and without e-

scooters would be, made on foot. Most of the 43% of e-scooter trips under 1000m (10-12 minutes’

walk) and many of the further 19% of trips under 1500m (15-20 minutes’ walk) are likely to have

replaced walking trips rather than use of a motor vehicle19. Beyond this distance (the remaining

38%) it is more likely that these e-scooter trips are replacing private vehicle trips20.

Rental e-scooters then are contributing to reducing motor vehicle trips to some degree and

providing a genuine transport alternative for certain trips.

However, it is less clear if they are contributing to the healthy, vibrant and equitable aspects of this

goal. Healthiness and vibrancy are addressed below under the Focus Area 4 heading, and in the

section on Urban Communities; this section will look a little more at the equitability of this increase

in travel choices.

Equity of accessibility

Given the geographic focus of the trial on the city centre and fringe (as well as a small number

along Tamaki Drive and on the north shore) there has been limited chance to observe the

popularity or effectiveness of rental e-scooters in less central, more suburban areas.

18 22% in one case (Lime Year-End Report); and around one third of trips in a second instance (Lime executive: We apologise - and our scooters are safe’ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12206910 retrieved 05.03.2019) 19 These figures (both of walking trips replaced and trip lengths) may in part reflect the city centre location of the trial. Given the relative inconvenience of using a car in the city centre most trips are made on foot, and therefore it is unsurprising to see that these are the majority of tris replaced. In the suburbs where driving is easier and more frequent this result may not be replicated. It is not possible to tell from the trial at this point. 20 It is not clear from the trial why rental e-scooters are proving most appealing for these short trips. Presumably at a certain point beyond 1500m the characteristics of other options, such as comfort and cost, prove more attractive. Further work could consider this, including whether a change to charging rates could better target car trips.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12206910


Likewise, the trial area has been focused on some of the more affluent areas of the region, which

are also some of the best served by public transport. This has not provided the chance to see how

well the scheme would contribute to an increase in travel choice for lower-socio economic areas,

and in particular those which have a poorer level of travel choice.

Questions therefore remain about how affordable and accessible e-scooters are for those with less

money or without a debit/credit card or mobile phone. Measures to address these issues have

been trialled in cities overseas, as outlined in appendix 1, and could be considered for Auckland if

e-scooters rental companies are allowed to continue to operate.


Improving the safety of the transport system is one of the principal strategic goals of both Auckland

Council and Central Government. It has also been the primary focus of concerns raised as part of

the public discussion and media reporting on the trial.

In evaluating the safety outcomes of the trial, the actual and perceived safety of both users and

non-users needs to be considered.

As with all data it is also useful to consider some of these absolute figures in a wider context to

ensure a considered perspective.

Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSIs)

As mentioned in section 2.1.3 DSIs are the standard measure of road safety and under the ‘Vision

Zero’ approach adopted by the council and AT these life-ending, or changing, crashes are the

primary focus of safety activities.

There was only the one recorded DSI in the Auckland region in the first month or two of the trial21.

Comparatively, during 2018 there were approximately four cycling and eight and a half pedestrian

related DSIs per month. Nevertheless, there are some limitations in using DSI data for this

evaluation, primarily the under reporting of non-vehicle related rashes and the small number of

recorded incidents. Some further understanding can be gained by looking at ACC data of claims

received.

Actual safety of users

As described in section 2.1.3, there were 745 claims made to ACC between the 14th of October

2018 and 23rd of February 2019 for e-scooter accidents in the Auckland region.

Discounting a portion of these injuries for private use, the rate of ACC claims works out to be about

one claim every 1450 rides22. At the average ridership rate from the trial period of 0.2 rides per

rider per week, an average user could expect to have an accident on an e-scooter (resulting in an

21 Data was only available until November 2018 at time of writing 22 Depending on the assumptions made the range of claim rates is 1 per 1100 to 1700 trips.

Summary: As a new and different transport mode e-scooter rentals have increased travel

choice in those areas in which they have been trialled. This increase though has been limited to

these areas. If expanded given their cost and reliance on technology to access they could still

exclude many portions of the population.


ACC claim) every 136 years. Even if taking one ride a week at this rate a user would only have an

accident every 27 years. In saying this however, at this rate a frequent user of rental e-scooters,

who uses them twice a day, could expect to have an accident requiring an ACC claim every three

years.

It is difficult to compare these figures to other activities and transport modes given the limitations of

the ACC data which have already been mentioned, as well as the trouble with comparing modes

which can be used both recreationally and for transport.

With these caveats in mind though when compared to the accident rates for similar modes this is a

relatively small number. The 745 e-scooter related claims made in the Auckland region during the

trial period compares to 1079 skateboarding claims, 1646 foot-scooter claims and 4413 cycling

claims for the same period.

Converting these accurately to a relative level of risk requires more information on the level of

these modes/activities than we currently have. In saying that, these other activities are likely to

have a higher level of use/participation than e-scooters, and as such it is likely that e-scooter use is

less safe to the user than most other modes.

From what little information is available looking at cycle claim rates, cycling appears probably

about 10-20 times safer on a per minute basis and 3-7.5 times safer on a per trip basis than rental

e-scooter use during the trial period23. However, it remains safer than other activities such as skiing

and playing rugby24.

Given the lack of experience many users would have with e-scooters, an elevated level of

accidents was anticipated during the trial; accident rates may settle down to some degree as

people’s familiarity with the devices and their own ability improves.

Actual safety of non-users

While not using e-scooters, many non-users, and in particular pedestrians, are exposed to

potential safety risks from the use of e-scooters.

As set out in section 2.1.3 there have been few accidents in Auckland serious enough to require

treatment under ACC. Given the privacy reporting requirements of ACC the exact number of

accidents is unknown, however it is somewhere between three and nine (inclusive), and most likely

on the lower side of this range.

Perceived safety

As part of the Kantar survey, undertaken before the wheel locking fault became known, 78% of

users said they felt safe using an e-scooter and 21% unsafe. From the sample of the general

population 51% of pedestrians felt unsafe when sharing footpaths with e-scooters and 39% safe.

In the public feedback received, safety was the single most mentioned issue. For a high number of

feedback providers, safety concerns were the main motivation for sending individual feedback or

complaints. Many submitters of the Lime feedback also commented on safety issues possibly in

23 Based on figures in the Christchurch City Council ‘Draft micro-mobility discussion paper’; Chieng, M., et al., How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand? Journal of Transport & Health (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.008i; and Tin Tin et al., Completeness and accuracy of crash outcome data in a cohort of cyclists: a validation study’, BMC Public Health 2013, 13:420 24 Chieng, M., et al., How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand? Journal of Transport & Health (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.008i

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.008i


part because the feedback was sent in response to Lime’s license being suspended on safety

grounds.

Perceived safety continues to have a real impact on some residents, especially the more

vulnerable, with some reports of residents feeling so unsafe that they are not prepared to leave

their house. The exact scale of this is unclear, but the curtailing of even one person’s ability to

leave their house clearly runs contrary to the council’s strategic goals.

Vision Zero

Focus Area 6 of the Auckland Plan’s Transport and Access section is to ‘Move to a safe transport

network free from death and serious injury’. This focus is based on the ‘Vision Zero’ approach to

road safety which aims to eliminate transport-related deaths and serious injuries. This approach

accepts that people make mistakes and seeks to minimise the harm from any mistakes.

Given the limited number of deaths and

serious injuries to date it may be that e-

scooters are a mode well aligned with this

approach, or it may be that the trial has not

been in place for a sufficient time for any

issues to become clear.

Nevertheless, the same general approach

can be applied to e-scooter use. Under the

Vision Zero approach it is recognised that

crashes and accidents do happen, and that

the system should be made safer to reduce

the severity of crashes.

In the case of e-scooters the most obvious

response is the separation of e-scooters from

non-like modes, in particular pedestrians and

motor vehicles. This however will not happen

immediately. In the meantime, consideration

should be given to the fact that, given the

disparity in weight between them, the impact of an accident between an e-scooter and a motor

vehicle is more likely to have severe repercussions than that between an e-scooter and a

pedestrian (Figure 11). Under this approach, if a choice must be made between the two then the

footpath is the preferable of the two.

Summary: Insufficient safety and usage data makes it difficult to compare the risks of e-

scooters to other activities and transport modes. There is definitely some risk from using e-

scooters and they appear less safe than other alternative transport modes; however, they

appear to remain safer than some other socially acceptable activities.

For non-users there appears a relatively small level of actual risk of injury, but there is

anecdotal evidence of a greater number of near misses. There is a strong perception of risk

and a feeling of lack of safety amongst some people, especially the more vulnerable.

Figure 11


Focus Area 1: Make better use of existing transport networks

Most of Auckland’s future transport footprint already exists today. Growth in travel demand will

need to be accommodated within this footprint. To move more people and more trips in the same

amount of space we need to be much smarter about how we get around.

Given their size e-scooters are relatively efficient forms of transport. Sharing many similar

characteristics with the bicycle (particularly their general size and speed) they are likely to be able

to move a similar number of people in the same amount of space. This would mean they are

approximately seven times as space efficient as the private motor vehicle, but less efficient than

moving by foot or in dedicated public transport space (Figure 12).

Figure 1225

In addition to this, e-scooter rental schemes appear in theory to be complementary to other space

efficient modes, such as walking, cycling and public transport. As is covered in more detail below in

Focus Area 4, e-scooter rental schemes have the potential to support public transport, as well as

less directly walking and cycling.

The most important time for the transport network to be used efficiently is during peak times when

demand to travel is highest. While usage of e-scooters shows a clear increase at peak times, they

are still used more frequently during the middle of the day suggesting they may not be contributing

to this objective as much as they could.

In saying this, routes in high density locations such as the city centre can experience some level of

congestion throughout the day and the temporal and spatial extent of this will likely only increase

over time as Auckland continues to grow and demand for space intensifies. The types of trips that

are likely being taken on e-scooters during this time, such as running errands and getting between

meetings, are also often poorly served by existing transport options and this option may help fill a

gap.

25 Asian Development Bank, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (2011) Changing Course in Urban Transport: An Illustrated Guide.


Feedback received from the public described a number of ways in which the rental e-scooters were

being used including providing an alternative to “inefficient” PT system, the car or ‘Uber’ trips, and

being used as part of a daily/ regular commute.

Focus Area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology

Technological changes bring with them great opportunities, but also carry risks that may either

prevent some of the potential benefits from being fully realised or else create perverse and

negative effects.

This trial period has been a good example of the approach set out in the Auckland Plan of

encouraging innovation and supporting the testing of new transport ideas.

The trial and its evaluation has improved our understanding of the possible role e-scooter rental

could play in Auckland’s transport system, as well as identifying a number of possible changes to

the licensing scheme (in the short term), land transport rules (in the medium term) and to

infrastructure (in the medium and longer term) that could address some of the adverse effects and

help realise the positives.

There remains a lack of certainty around some of the impacts and the best approach to take in

managing any possible future schemes. Given this lack of certainty, if it is decided to continue

issuing licences a further trial period, or longer licence with review points, could be appropriate.

This especially applies to matters which have not been able to be covered in the trial, such as the

impact in outer suburbs and lower socio-economic areas, and to any interventions or changes to

the licenses which may be made, such as the number of e-scooters in more suburban areas.

Focus Area 4: Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders

While the Auckland Plan sets a strategic direction of increasing travel choice, it also identifies a

specific focus of increasing the popularity of walking, cycling and public transport. The reasons for

this are manifold but include the efficiency and effectiveness of both modes at moving large

Summary: E-scooters are a relatively space efficient mode of transport and they have the

potential to move large numbers of people in a limited amount of space. During the trial, they

have not been heavily used during the times when efficient movement is most important, but

have been most used in the locations where this is important.

Summary: This trial period has been a good example of encouraging innovation and

supporting the testing of new transport ideas. The trial has not produced conclusive results, and

as such, if it’s decided to continue a further trial period, or longer licence with review points,

should be considered.


numbers of people and, in particular for walking and cycling, the considerable health benefits which

result from incorporating exercise into day-to-day routine and activity26.

For these reasons these modes must remain the priority for the region, and new interventions

should not undermine this focus and the benefits this emphasis is expected to achieve.

As summarised above, over 50 percent of respondents in the Kantar survey stated that their most

recent e-scooter trip would have otherwise been made on foot. While some of these trips may have

been new trips which otherwise would not have been made, it is likely that a significant proportion

of e-scooter rental trips have replaced walking trips. While replacing a 10-12 minute walk (the

median e-scooter trip distance) may seem relatively harmless, it is one third of the recommended

minimum daily amount of physical activity27. Short bouts of exercise, such as this, built into a day

are also one of the most effective methods of staying active and maintaining good health.

Rental e-scooters may then at first glance seem to have a negative association with rates of active

travel, however the situation may not be quite so clear cut. Firstly e-scooters are at least a partially

active mode as they require some level of activity to use. Unless going up a hill this is unlikely to be

to the level of walking or cycling but is more than sitting in a car.

E-scooters could also play a role in reducing an individual’s car reliance, allowing them to reduce

the number of vehicles they own and/or car trips they take. People’s daily travel choices are often

heavily influenced by their single most difficult trip leg. While it may be the case that four out of five

trip legs could be made without a car, if the fifth does require it, for instance because it’s longer or

must happen quickly, then they will often use the car for all five. E-scooter rentals can fill some of

the gaps in the (car-free) transport system allowing more people to live with fewer cars.

Furthermore, as is clear from the trial the best location for e-scooter use is in separated “cycle”

facilities, with modes of a similar speed, size and weight, and away from pedestrians and motor

vehicles. While it is unclear at the moment how this trend will translate into funding decisions, it is

clear there is supressed demand for this type of mode. If this demand supports the case for more

and better cycleways it could, by creating a safer environment for cyclists, indirectly encourage

greater cycle use.

In relation to public transport, 8% of users (in the Kantar survey) reported replacing a public

transport trip with their most recent e-scooter trip and 19% have used public transport less due to

e-scooters. On the flip side though, 7% of people28 claimed to have used public transport more and

21% to mainly have used e-scooters to get to or from PT.

As these results suggest, and as claimed by the e-scooter companies themselves, e-scooter rental

schemes should support public transport by providing a first and/or last leg service. As a result of

their speed and reduced effort (compared to walking) they effectively increase the catchment of

stations allowing people from further away to connect to public transport.

26 Celis-Morales Carlos A, Lyall Donald M, Welsh Paul, Anderson Jana, Steell Lewis, Guo Yibing et al. Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2017; 357 :j1456 Shaw C, Keall M, Guniey H. What modes of transport are associated with higher levels of physical activity? Cross-sectional study of New Zealand adults. Journal of Transport & Health 7 (2017) 125–133 She Z, Kimg D M, Jacobson S H. Is promoting public transit an effective intervention for obesity?: A longitudinal study of the relation between public transit usage and obesity. Transportation Research Part A 119 (2019) 162–169 27 https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/food-activity-and-sleep/physical-activity/how-much-activity-recommended 28 Combined Auckland and Christchurch surveys, as it wasn’t reported just for Auckland. The 19% figure for reduced public transport use in the previous sentence is solely for Auckland.

https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/food-activity-and-sleep/physical-activity/how-much-activity-recommended

https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/food-activity-and-sleep/physical-activity/how-much-activity-recommended


There are some challenges to this role however, as the current rental e-scooter model works best

when serving trips from busy nodes such as bus stations and other activity centres (such as town

and shopping centres). Trips to these centres from less dense locations are much more difficult to

serve. The current model then serves last leg connections (from public transport stations) and first

leg trips from busy locations (such as the city centre and employment centres around the city

fringe) to public transport well, but less so from the suburbs to these areas.

Some companies, such as Bird, are looking at addressing the morning first leg issue by allowing

users to have e-scooters delivered to their door29. This however, was not part of the Auckland trial,

and it is unclear if it is practical, effective or viable here or overseas.

Overall alignment with transport and access

Based on evidence from the trial period to date, e-scooter rental schemes appear broadly aligned

with the council and AT’s strategic transport objectives.

During the evaluation period e-scooters appear to have improved accessibility, especially by non-

car modes; increased travel choice; and served as a relatively efficient mode of transport. While

there is some evidence of e-scooter trips replacing walking trips, more broadly and longer-term the

situation is likely more nuanced.

These positive, and neutral, outcomes are countered by concerns with the safety of the devices

and users. Compared to other transport modes the level of serious incidents has been low,

although the rate of more minor incidents requiring some form of medical treatment is likely higher.

The actual physical safety of non-users has been pretty good, but there remains a strong

perception amongst at least part of the population that their level of safety has been reduced. In

the most extreme cases this has led to some members of society being restricted to their house.

2.2.2 The natural environment

Minimising the harmful environmental and health impacts of the transport system is a key direction

of the Auckland Plan. Emissions from the transport sector make up almost 40% of Auckland’s

emissions30 (Figure 13).

As explained above the e-scooter rental trial has seen two to three hundred thousand car trips

replaced by e-scooter trips. With New Zealand’s largely renewable electricity supply and the small,

29 https://bird.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360019188812-Bird-to-Work 30 Auckland Council Low Carbon Auckland: Annual update 2017

Summary:

• There is some evidence of e-scooter trips replacing walking trips and PT trips

• E-scooters require some level of effort to use, and are likely to indirectly support

car free (or light) living, and the case for more protected cycle infrastructure.

They may also support public transport by enabling first and last leg trips.

https://bird.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360019188812-Bird-to-Work


light design of the e-scooters (meaning that whatever the

power source is they will be much more efficient to move

than a car), they have definitely contributed to a reduction

in vehicle emissions.

This has resulted during the trial period in approximately

92,659 fewer kilograms of CO2 being released into the

atmosphere31.

However, e-scooter rental schemes are not entirely

emissions free. As part of their operating model, most, if

not all, rental e-scooters are collected each night, charged

(if needed), and returned to the streets the next morning,

usually with the use of a car or van. These trips are likely

to be far less than the number of vehicle trips replaced by

e-scooter trips, but conversely they will generally be longer

and as such will negate some of the emissions benefits

outlined above.

This also isn’t the only way the scheme could impact on the

environment, and the end result is not so clear cut. E-

scooters have a limited lifespan. Reports from overseas have

suggested lifespans of 2-3 months are not uncommon32 for

rental e-scooters, with one report even suggesting an

average lifespan of under 30 days33. Lime’s release of their

new model earlier this year (yet to reach Auckland)

trumpeted “prolonging its lifecycle up to six months”34,

suggesting this current 2-3 month figure may not be way out.

This also appears to be backed up by the data from the trial

to date. Of the e-scooters launched in October 2018, 50%

operated for under 90 days, although 20% were still in operation on the 22nd of February 114-131

days later (Figure 14 and Figure 15).

31 Assuming one third of e-scooter trips have replaced a car trip, and using the ‘Car – Default’ figure recommended by the Ministry for the Environment and available at: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/guidance-voluntary-greenhouse-gas-reporting-2016-data-and-methods-2014 32 https://www.wsj.com/articles/scooter-startups-cool-fundraising-wheels-1544356923 33 https://qz.com/1561654/how-long-does-a-scooter-last-less-than-a-month-louisville-data-suggests/ 34 https://www.li.me/blog/lime-s-gen-3-electric-scooter-transform-micro-mobility, accessed 10.03.19

Figure 13

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/guidance-voluntary-greenhouse-gas-reporting-2016-data-and-methods-2014

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/guidance-voluntary-greenhouse-gas-reporting-2016-data-and-methods-2014

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scooter-startups-cool-fundraising-wheels-1544356923

https://qz.com/1561654/how-long-does-a-scooter-last-less-than-a-month-louisville-data-suggests/

https://www.li.me/blog/lime-s-gen-3-electric-scooter-transform-micro-mobility


2.2.3 Urban form and communities

The Auckland Plan envisages a future Auckland with a quality compact urban form and vibrant,

accessible and people-focused urban spaces.

Rental e-scooters support the council’s goal of a quality, compact urban form. They are a space

efficient mode of transport that is particularly complementary of a more compact urban form where

more activities and opportunities are available in closer proximity. They also support the ability for

car free living, reducing the need for carparking and freeing up that land or floor area housing, or

other more productive uses.

For users as well, they can improve the experience of urban life adding a layer of fun to the city. In

the Kantar survey, “fun” was repeatedly the reason for using a rental e-scooter whether it was for

the first time or as a regular user. Likewise, “fun” was clearly the most common single word used

by both users and non-users alike (Figure 16).

Summary: There has been some evidence of emissions benefits though this is offset in part by

their collection and redistribution via cars. These benefits are also likely to be further negated to

some degree by the limited lifecycle the scooters have. How much though is hard to estimate

and will require further work.

Figure 14 Figure 15


Figure 16

As a space-efficient, quiet and low polluting mode of transport, e-scooters conceptually support the

council’s focus on well-designed public places and spaces. They get people out of their cars

creating a friendlier, people focussed public realm and improve the case for separated “cycle”

infrastructure which in turn would help achieve the same result.

However, in the absence of this “cycle” infrastructure and with no proven solution to consistently

ensure safe parking, unsafe use on footpaths and inconsiderate parking can undermine these

benefits. As already covered, e-scooter use on footpaths can lead to perceived/real safety risks for

pedestrians and incorrectly parked e-scooters can reduce access for pedestrians and increase

perceived/real clutter of e-scooters, negatively affecting the image/experience of urban areas.

2.2.4 Economically successful city

The Auckland Plan foresees a prosperous future Auckland that creates conditions for a resilient

economy, through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity.

While it hasn’t been possible to collect definitive evidence of the economic effects of the e-scooter

rental trial it seems likely to have had the following benefits:

• As covered in section 2.2.1, it appears that rental e-scooters are enabling a number of trips

which wouldn’t have otherwise been made. Given the discretionary nature of these additional

trips many of these will have been for social activities, potentially increasing spending on

shopping and hospitality. This is backed up by some of the public feedback received which

Summary: Short-term effects of e-scooter use are likely to have some negative impacts on

urban spaces and communities, as the lack of designated lanes compromises real/perceived

safety for both pedestrians feeling unsafe sharing footpaths with e-scooter users, and e-scooter

users feeling unsafe to share road space with cars. Over time as infrastructure improves, e-

scooter use is likely to have more positive effects on urban space and communities.


made mention of trips to visit local cafes, restaurants and shops, which would not have been

made without e-scooters, and by media reports.35

• As described in section 2.2.1, rental e-scooters have increased travel speeds, compared to

making the trip by foot, potentially improving access to employment opportunities and the

ability of businesses to interact face to face. This is supported by mention in the public

feedback of regular use of e-scooters to get to and from work, and to get between work-related

meetings as a more reliable transport alternative to public transport or the car.

• In a similar vein to the above point, the faster travelling speed of e-scooters will have saved

people time. This saved time will have had value, especially when it was saved as part of a

business trip.

• Rental e-scooters have also acted as a fun and convenient mode for tourists. User feedback

mentioned using e-scooters to explore the city as a tourist or part of a group of tourists,

combining tourist activities across the city.

• The creation of jobs for both direct employees of the companies as well as the contractors

recharging and redistributing the e-scooters.

Conversely the costs appear to consist primarily of:

• Some increase in ACC claim costs. Payment for ACC claims is the purview of central

government and to date they have not shown any concern at the level of claims.

• The inability of some people (including the disabled and elderly in particular) to make trips due

to safety concerns.

• There may be some increased long-term health costs as a result of the reduction in walking

trips but, as covered in section 2.2.1, the actual impact of e-scooters on active travel rates is

unclear.

35 NZHerald: ‘How Lime scooters have impacted retail and shopping around Auckland CBD’ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12208262

Summary: The economic effects of the trial appear modestly positive, given the increase in

trips enabled and improved accessibility due to increased travel speeds, although there is

limited data, and subsequent certainty, on the extent of this.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12208262


3 Evaluation summary

The provisional results of the trial indicate that, broadly speaking, the outcomes of the trial have

been in line with the strategic goals of the council and AT. These results are summarised in the

table on the following page.

The scale of all benefits and costs though have been quite small, in part due to the limited

geographic scale and duration of the trial and as such the ratings below are all relatively neutral.

Short vs long term consideration

This analysis has been based on the trial period and the circumstances under which the trial was

undertaken; in particular, the form of the transport network at the time and the legislative

requirements within which the scheme and users were allowed to operate.

This is clearly not the ideal situation within which e-scooter rental schemes would operate. This

provisional assessment has tried to restrict itself to consideration of the schemes within the current

infrastructural and legislative environment to inform immediate licensing decisions, and not

considered the longer-term potential of such schemes should different infrastructure or legislation

be in place. This could be another piece of work.

It is clear that the most serious negative impact of the trial is the safety impacts, including in

particular the perceived safety impacts to non-users, including the less physically able. This can be

resolved with improved infrastructure, in the form of separated cycle (or micro mobility) lanes, and

this should be prioritised.


Rating Comments

Transport and access36

Better connect people, places, goods and services

• Positive for the general population

Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland

• Reducing motor vehicle trips and providing a genuine transport alternative for certain trips

• Financial and technical barriers may exist for lower socio-economic sectors of society, though overseas examples show possible ways to alleviate this

Maximise safety and environmental protection

-- • Users – Some risk. Less safe than alternative transport

modes, but more safe than other socially acceptable activities

• Non-users – Relatively small level of actual risk; but strong perception amongst some people of risk, especially the more vulnerable

Make better use of existing transport networks

• Light weight and small. Similar road capacity to a bike which is approximately 7 times better than cars.

• Peak time of rental e-scooter use doesn’t match period of general peak demand for travel.

Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders

--

• Directly replaces walking trips

• Some level of effort still required so slightly ‘active’

• Could indirectly support active modes and public transport by assisting car free living, supporting the case for dedicated cycle & e-scooter space and serving first and last leg PT trips

The natural environment

-- • Modest emissions benefits

• Unclear potential lifecycle costs

Urban form and communities

--

• Supports compact urban form

• Immediate impact on public places is mixed – fewer cars & more people, but safety concerns exist while e-scooters share pedestrian spaces

Economically successful city

• Modestly positive due to:

o Additional trips (more money spent shopping etc)

o Improved accessibility (able to access more jobs in same time, make more meetings etc )

o Time savings

Scale: , , , -- , , ,

36 Focus Area 3: Maximise the benefits from transport technology, has not been included as part of this overall evaluation summary. As it relates to this project this Focus Area 3 is more concerned with the process followed (i.e. a trial) rather than the strategic outcome desired. By virtue of being a trial of a new transport technology, the trial is aligned with the approach described in this focus area. Including a rating based on this risks distorting consideration of the long-term strategic alignment with short-term process based considerations.


Appendices


Appendix 1

Summary of overseas approaches

• Safety: To mitigate safety risks presented by damaged e-scooters, many cities request

maintenance records from e-scooter operators (e.g. on a monthly basis, Seattle requests

service histories, information on product recalls, user reports of unsafe or damaged

vehicles, tallies of vehicles taken out of service for repair).

E-scooter rental companies have applied “Geo-Speed Limiting” technology that enables

automatic slowing or stopping of vehicles within specific areas, such as areas with high

pedestrian volumes. This “geo-speed limiting” technology, used in cities such as Santa

Monica, Denver and Austin37, geofences slow speed zones.

In Auckland, safety was addressed in the code of practice that underlies Auckland’s mobile

trading licenses, which requires operators to ensure safety of vehicles and regular repair

and maintenance of vehicles. Additional elements to the trial of Lime’s e-scooters scheme

also requested in-app speed and safety messages for e-scooter users and pop-up

activations in the city centre to give safety-training to e-scooter users. The e-scooter

operator Wave set up a geo-fenced low-speed zone on Queen Street, Wynyard Quarter

and the Viaduct Basin as part of the trial period.

• Parking: Cities have established a range of different approaches and guidelines for the

parking of micro-mobility device:

o “Furniture zone”: defined by the US based National Association of City Transportation

Officials (NACTO) as “the portion of sidewalk between where people walk and the

curb, often where you’ll find other street signs, street furniture, trees, parking meters,

etc.”38 This is one of the e-scooter parking areas advised by Santa Monica.

o “Micro mobility corrals”, where on-street parking is repurposed to create permanent

and legible parking space for scooters and bikes, e.g. in Santa Monica.

o Geofencing or other digital prohibition for parking in specific areas such as areas with

high pedestrian volumes, set up through the operator’s app, e.g. in Austin and San

Francisco.

Most cities’ policies place the obligation to enforce parking policy on operators and pass

through the costs of managing illegally parked vehicles, such as ticketing and towing3.

Auckland’s Code of Practice also requires operators to ensure correct parking behaviour of

e-scooter users, however it does not recommend specific parking areas but states that e-

scooters should be parked where they do not impede pedestrian and vehicle access.

• Equitable access: In the US especially, e-scooter rental schemes are seen as a way to

improve access for more financially deprived areas that often have low levels of car

37 http://www.govtech.com/fs/Is-Geofencing-the-Answer-to-Cities-Electric-Scooter-Challenges.html; http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/scooter-speeds-to-be-limited-to-8-mph-in-parts-of-ut-campus 38 NACTO, 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NACTO-Shared-Active-Transportation-Guidelines.pdf

http://www.govtech.com/fs/Is-Geofencing-the-Answer-to-Cities-Electric-Scooter-Challenges.html

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/scooter-speeds-to-be-limited-to-8-mph-in-parts-of-ut-campus

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NACTO-Shared-Active-Transportation-Guidelines.pdf

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NACTO-Shared-Active-Transportation-Guidelines.pdf


ownership and poor public transport service. To ensure these schemes serve this purpose,

cities have required:

o that a minimum number/proportion of e-scooters are located in underserved more

deprived areas at the start of each day, as in Portland;

o a reduced rate or exemption from paying for certain trips (such as trips under 30

minutes in length) for people on a low-income, including an agreed low-income

verification process, as in Chicago; and

o the ability to pay for and unlock e-scooters without a bank account and/or

smartphone, as in San Francisco.

No initiatives for equitable access to e-scooters were required from operators in the e-

scooter trial licenses in Auckland.

• Fees: A common mechanism for cities to mitigate the financial impact of managing shared

e-scooter programmes (such as administrative costs, enforcement costs). Three fee

mechanisms are most commonly used, sometimes in combination:

o Annual license fees – implemented by most surveyed cities (e.g. Los Angeles,

Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, etc.)

o Per vehicle annual fees – common additional mechanism (e.g. in Los Angeles,

Chicago, Austin, Seattle, etc.)

o Dynamic fees – tied to numbers of vehicles, trips or stations, per day (e.g. Portland:

25ct per trip, Minneapolis: 1$ per scooter per day)

• Data sharing: New data sharing specifications such as the General Bikeshare Feed

Specification (GBFS) and Mobility Data Specification (MDS) are helping reduce the

resourcing burden on both cities and e-scooter rental companies globally, by providing a

standardised data format. The key data elements requested by most cities are:

o Trip data

o Fleet availability data

o Maintenance and safety records

o Parking compliance data

o Customer experience (these could be conducted by the company or the city itself)

• Fleet and operator caps:

o Fleet caps: Like Salt Lake City, and Nashville, US, nearly all reviewed cities with e-

scooter sharing schemes have instituted a fleet cap (an upper limit on how many

vehicles can be on the city streets). Within this limit, performance caps are used by a

number of cities to align desired program goals with operators’ efforts, reward

operator performance and actively balance supply and demand.

o Operator Caps: The number of operators has a direct relationship to the total potential

vehicles on the streets. While having multiple operators should mean competition,

especially in early markets, there are likely diminishing returns due to increased

compliance work. There is also no evidence of multiple operators leading to a

reduction in price, though competition may be occurring on levels of service (such as


ride quality) which are harder to measure. San Francisco and Seattle are among the

cities that have set a cap for e-scooter operators.

In Auckland, three operators were given licenses for the initial e- trial period, but only two

operators launched within the time.

Permit type Fleet cap Operators Fee structure39 Service area

San Francisco

12-month trial permit

(Oct 2018 – Oct 2019)

1,250 e-scooters between operators, potential increase to 2,500.

Scoot, Skip • Application fee (US$5,000)

• Annual permit fee (US$25,000)

• Public property repair and maintenance endowment

(US$10,000)

San Francisco city centre

Portland40

4-month trial permit (July - Nov 2018)

2,043 e-scooters between operators

Bird, Lime, Skip


• Permit Application Fee (US$250)

• Pilot Permit Fee (US$5,000)

• Per ride fee (US$0.25/ride)

Portland city boundary

Brisbane

Temporary Permit (Nov 2018 – March 2019)

5,000 e-scooters (procurement process will limit cap to 1,000 e-scooters)

Lime

(current procurement process allows 2 operators)

Unknown

(council currently considers $570 annual fee per scooter)

Brisbane city boundary

Vienna

License type unknown, sharing schemes launched starting in September 2018

1,500 e-scooters per operator

Lime, Bird, Tier, Wind, Flash

unknown Geofenced speed restrictions in specific areas with high pedestrian numbers

39 For permit period 40 Portland have recently released their decision, based on the results of their initial pilot, to run an additional trial for a year from 26 April 2019.


International e-scooter regulation

Regulatory environments for e-scooter sharing systems can differ widely across cities and

countries, which makes comparisons between e-scooter permit types and their relevance to

Auckland difficult. Generally, regulation most relevant to e-scooter use relates to the spaces where

e-scooters can be used, e-scooter speed restrictions and helmet use. The following list shows

some examples of e-scooter regulations currently in place in different cities, states or countries.

City/State/

Country

Banned on

footpaths

Banned on

roads

Speed

restriction

Helmet use

required

Drivers’

license

required

Australia -

Queensland

Use on roads allowed

where footpath use is

impractical 12 kmh •

France • 25 kmh

Singapore • 15 kmh

UK •

Use on public roads

allowed only if e-

scooter is registered,

licensed & insured

• •

US - California 24 kmh For under 18

year-olds •

US -

Massachusetts 32 kmh • •

In places like South Australia, New York City and Germany, current regulations prohibit e-scooter

use from public streets, mostly because e-scooters are classified as motorized vehicles which are

prohibited on footpaths, but also do not meet legal safety standards required for road use.

As a response to the worldwide proliferation of e-scooters, several countries/cities chose to adapt

existing regulation to set a regulatory frame for e-scooter use. For instance, Germany is currently

developing a regulatory package under which e-scooters are permitted on public streets after May

2019. The regulation will presumably set a speed limit of 20 kmh for e-scooters, and largely

prohibit e-scooter use on footpaths. Similarly, New York City’s Transportation Committee has

introduced four bills that would legalise e-scooter use below a speed on 15 mph (24 kmh).


Appendix 2

Policy/Legislative framework


Legislative / regulatory / operators powers

Powers Enforcement powers/ penalties

Strength/limitation

MBIE & Commerce Commission

Fair Trading Act 1986

Prevents importation /distribution of dangerous goods

prevent importation, unsafe goods can remove for 9 days

Can ensure unsafe scooters are removed/prevented

NZTA & Police

Road user rule 2004

Safety Behaviour Location specifications

Can issue infringement fines 10-30k fine and further fines of up to $1,500

• Helmets not required

• Not classified as vehicle

• No speed limits (max limit 50kmph)

• Allowed on footpath

• Limited public awareness

• Enforcement challenges

• Can travel in cycle lanes not attached to road

The council/AT

Trading and events in public places bylaw (licence and code of conduct)

Can require operator to help address unsafe behaviour but limited effectiveness

Can approve and decline licence request

impose conditions

Can amend and revoke licence

Court fine on prosecution of up to $20,000 for businesses who breach the bylaw including licensing requirements. Can charge licence fees

• Largely effective

• Requires strong monitoring and oversight

• Can control operator behaviour

• Current licence and code can be updated to strengthen requirements in line with learnings from trial

• Current fees unlikely to support costs of implementation and administration of licence but could be revised

• Cannot control rider behaviour

Public safety and nuisance bylaw

Prohibits nuisance and unsafe behaviour and activities on public places and transport network

No ability to issue

infringement fines

Court fine on prosecution of up to $20,000.

• Rules can address safety and nuisance issues

• Limited public awareness

• Enforcement challenges

Other bylaws Cannot regulate speed on footpaths or roads

As above. • Can’t require helmets

• Can’t set speed limits

• Can’t legally allow on cycle paths attached to roads

Operators


Terms of use Age, Safe riding etc

Can permit use Can set rules

Can sanction of incentivise behaviours

• Relatively weak

• Difficult to enforce

• Sanctions not necessarily binding or effective


Appendix 3

Copy of Lime proforma


Subject: I support Lime in Auckland Dear Mayor and Councillors, Since Lime launched in Auckland, I have been one of nearly 209,343 local riders to hop on a scooter. Together, Auckland riders have made nearly a million trips. Many of these would have replaced a car trip, easing the pressure on our roads. Lime also improves access to many parts of the city not serviced by public transport and encourages people outside to explore our city. I support Lime as a transport option for Auckland. Keep Auckland rolling with Lime! Yours sincerely,

Find out more: visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

Documents

Provisional Strategic Evaluation - Auckland Council › licences-regulations › Docume… · conditions around maintenance and reporting of incidents, Lime scooters were allowed