Electric Kick Scooters on Sidewalks in Virginia but Not in California? A Review of How States Regulate Personal Transportation Devices

Every weekday morning in San Francisco’s SoMa district, a stream of workers disembark from the city’s commuter rail station carrying an assortment of small, wheeled devices—kick scooters, electric skateboards, hoverboards, and more—which they then use to roll on to their offices. These “personal transportation devices” (PTDs)—also called micromobility or microtransit—encompass a growing set of devices that provide low-speed, flexible mobility for individual travelers. In recent years, the number of PTD types and their use has exploded with the introduction of new devices. This Perspective reports findings from a research project reviewing how these PTDs are regulated in the vehicle codes for the 50 states, District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories

How and Where Should I Ride This Thing? “Rules Of The Road” for Personal Transportation Devices

In recent years, “Personal Transportation Devices” (PTDs) have exploded onto streets and sidewalks. These small devices transport individual persons at slow speeds and are either human-powered or motorized. Examples include electric (kick) scooters, skateboards, e-skateboards, roller blades, and Segways. One key to successfully integrating PTDs into community streets will be the implementation of consistent and suitable regulations over user behavior: “rules of the road” for PTD riders. To help local officials identify appropriate rules for rider behavior, this report documents and analyzes existing PTD regulations across 176 jurisdictions and then presents recommendations for a set of state-level “rules of the road” designed to balance safety and freedom of movement for all road users, including PTD riders.To identify the current state of PTD rules of the road, we documented and analyzed the existing regulations at three levels of government: all 50 states and 5 U.S. territories, 101 cities, and 20 college campuses. This review found that PTD users operate in a murky regulatory environment, with rules often poorly defined, contradictory, or altogether absent.Results of this analysis, a literature review, and interviews with 21 stakeholders, were used to craft a model state-level regulatory code that aims to introduce consistent and well-grounded regulation of PTDs. The general philosophy underpinning the model legislation is that PTD rules should protect public safety, permit PTD use as a convenient travel option, be easy to understand and remember, allow for new devices without new regulations, and be based on facts about PTD use and users. Working from these principles, core recommended elements of the recommended PTD regulations are as follows: states should set comprehensive regulations for PTD riders (with local gov-ernments given flexibility to limit certain uses when necessitated by local conditions); PTDs should be regulated as a class, not device-by-device; and PTD users should be permitted to ride on both streets and sidewalks, subject to rules that protect safety and free movement for all travelers

Surveying Silicon Valley on Cycling, Travel Behavior, and Travel Attitudes

This report presents the results from a March 2020 survey of Santa Clara County residents about their current travel behavior, overall thoughts on travel, and opinions about various forms of transportation in particular. While the instrument inquired about all modes of transportation, the survey was particularly focused on attitudes and behavior related to cycling. A total of 1,009 responses were included in the analysis. Overall, the study confirms that private motor vehicle travel dominates, with approximately 90 percent of respondents reporting that they drive in an average week and own cars. However, the results also show greater use of alternatives than the census data indicate by virtue of greater trip types captured here compared to the American Community Survey. This survey shows that approximately 13 percent of respondents ride a bicycle for any purpose in an average week. Results from the attitudinal questions point to strong demand for automobile use, but they also illustrate several problematic aspects of an auto-dominated transportation system. Similarly, for cycling, the survey results indicate general support for the idea of more cycling, but they highlight several notable barriers. Notably, the survey was a ministered in the field from March 6 through March 13, 2020, prior to COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders covering the study area

Accessibility of Bay Area Rail Transit Stations: An Evaluation of Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development

Many groups have been pushing for a shift from automotive oriented transportation and land use, to transit-oriented transportation and land use. These groups have many valid reasons. However, just as it is fair to point out issues about auto travel, so too is it fair to see how transit performs at meeting certain goals. This paper examines the important characteristic of accessibility afforded to travelers. This is quantified through the calculation of accessibility indexes for stations, for the specific case of two existing rail systems and four proposed rail extensions in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a whole, the four extensions investigated increase regionwide rail accessibility by 18.5 percent, not an insignificant increase. However, the new stations are on average less accessible than their existing counterparts. Two of the four extensions perform well on accessibility measures, either their stations have high accessibility, or jobs around them contribute to high accessibility for nearby stations. The other two extensions however perform poorly on accessibility measures. In a time of limited resources, the accessibility results clearly indicate how the four extensions should be prioritized. The more successful extensions have good access to activity centers. Extensions having good connectivity with other lines can also enhance accessibility if providing significant travel time savings

Where Do Riders Park Dockless, Shared Electric Scooters? Findings from San Jose, California

Dockless, shared, electric kick-scooters started popping up on U.S. city streets without warning in 2017. Reaction to the shared scooters came swiftly and strongly. On the one hand, the scooters have proven popular with riders, attracting investment capital and expanding service to additional cities. But others have been less enthusiastic, with a central complaint being how shared scooters are parked. This perspective explores the extent to which parked shared scooters pose a problem to others on streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, using empirical evidence documenting where scooters have been parked in downtown San Jose, California

Carbon Catcher Design Report

Overview. The design of the overall Carbon Catcher project can be separated into four distinct systems, each of which is assigned a specialized committee. The committee names and responsibilities are listed below: Air Mover The overall goal for the Air Mover committee is the design of the turbine assembly. As the overall goal of the project is to collect and separate carbon dioxide from the air, one of the most important parts is to actually get the air to pass through the carbon-catching membrane. Passive air would not give a significant enough yield rate to make the carbon dioxide collection rate impactful, thus air must be sucked through a vacuum/turbine. Membrane The goal of Membrain is to create a membrane that can filter out CO2 through various methods. These methods are limited, due to there being such variety, to certain techniques and membrane material types that have been decided, prior, by the committee. Most membranes will be geared towards utilizing temperature and pressure along with gaseous speed and flow rate. In addition, examining certain treatments, such as regeneration of material, and replacements will be looked into as well, to see how it fares in sustainability. Carbon Storer The Carbon Storer committee will design a store and transport system for fluid CO2 after it is extracted from the atmosphere. Primary considerations include geological solutions, cost-effective materials, and analysis methods to improve overall capacity and efficiency. Additionally, the committee will select an environmentally and economically sustainable method of recycling the captured CO2. PyControl The PyControl committee will design a series of sensors and actuators, which will primarily support the sequestration and pipeline systems present in the Carbon Storer Committee and direct air capture system in Air Mover. The design can be broken into four control layers: Input/Output, Field Controllers, Data, and Supervisory. Goal The overarching goal of Carbon Catcher is to design a cost-effective, scalable atmospheric carbon dioxide removal system that is capable of being deployed in a variety of urban environments and may fit a variety of different customer requirements or requests