Shared micromobility systems deliver key benefits to urban and urbanizing areas, including serving first- and last-mile connections, improving accessibility to public transportation, and reducing reliance on personal vehicles.
But the development of micromobility systems presents unique challenges, including issues of safety, the potential “clutter” of dockless systems, equity, and regulation.
Micromobility Best Practices: Facilities, Design, Safety, Revenue Generation, and More
We asked a panel of transportation and mobility experts to weigh in on some of these issues. The panel includes David Reed, Founder & Principal, SustainMobility. SustainMobility is a transportation planning and consulting firm based in Boston, MA, focused on integrating active and sustainable transportation with the built environment. Also featured are two mobility management experts from Wells + Associates: Courtney Menjivar (VP of Mobility Management + TDM) and Marie Cox, TDM-CP (Principal).
Q (David Reed): What advice do you have for developers, building owners, and landlords in how to design for, store, and safely charge micromobility vehicles and facilities on their sites?
A: People are increasingly using micromobility as a way to move around our cities, towns, and campuses. This growth in adoption, especially e-bikes and e-scooters, has created both an opportunity and an obligation for real estate stakeholders to proactively address storage, charging, and accessibility needs.
Whether designing a bike room from scratch, adding, or upgrading in an existing building, ground level access is crucial. Layouts should allow for easy entry and maneuvering, materials should include slip-free floors, bright colors, and artwork, and thoughtful design can take what is otherwise a windowless space and turn it into an inviting place. If ground level access is not possible for the site, avoid relying on small elevators and freight elevators. If it’s more convenient to drive a personal car and park, then the bike room will not be the asset and valuable amenity that it could be.
An indoor or outdoor bike room provides the security and peace of mind that parking and locking up on the street cannot. Bike rooms should have keycard access, be well lit, and have security cameras. To accommodate for the rise in e-bike and e-scooter charging needs, property owners and landlords should provide outlets, charging posts or racks. To mitigate the risk of fire from lithium ion batteries, each property should have a strict requirement that only UL-certified batteries can be charged onsite. Each facility should be fire rated with fire suppression equipment onsite, and clear policies and training for tenants and building managers. A full guideline document on safe charging and storage of e-bikes and e-scooters, published by SustainMobility, is available here. Local fire codes and regulations are evolving quickly, so making sure that your property is keeping up to date with them is paramount.
Many cities now have bike parking requirements and have removed or loosened car parking requirements. This means that the amount of space that is allocated per tenant is more profitable for smaller vehicles, like micromobility. A car parking space can cost $50,000 to $100,000 per space in most markets. Outweighing the costs and benefits is an important calculation to do with each property in each unique location. Ultimately, proactive micromobility design can save money while attracting and retaining tenants.
Q (Marie Cox): When a municipality or development decides on a certain type of micromobility, such as bikeshare, e-scooters or other motorized methods), how do they go about determining the proper vendor for their needs?
A: When e-scooters were first introduced into many markets, cities had to be reactionary to micromobility. However, a lot of lessons were learned from this that provide municipalities and developments an opportunity to be proactive and select the right vendor.
For example, these experiences provided a great deal of data about where people wanted to go, the types of trips using micromobility services, and who is using the service. While the process will be different for a city versus a developer, both should have a clear goal in mind: what are the top one to two things they want to accomplish with the introduction of micromobility service?
A lot of considerations will flow from this, such as: Who do they want to serve? Based on this, does this make sense as a docked system, dockless, or hybrid approach? Where is it important that these services be placed? Is there supportive infrastructure around those areas to make it comfortable, safe, and desirable to use the service, and if not, how will this be resolved? How will the rider data be shared back with us? For electric bikes and scooters, how will charging be approached?
Asking these kinds of questions can help cities and developers make sure any selected vendor is aligned with their objectives for the best outcome.
Q (David Reed): One issue that arises with shared micromobility infrastructure relates to safety, specifically around shared pathways in urban areas. How can these issues be properly addressed?
A: Safety on shared paths or separated bikeways is absolutely a real concern as the number of higher speed e-bikes and e-scooters increases. Most states have classified micromobility vehicles into Class 1, 2, and 3, and should restrict highest speed Class 3 models from shared-use paths. States, cities, and campuses should set specific rules for where each type can operate to minimize conflicts. Establishing a clear hierarchy of transportation modes is essential for safety for all, with pedestrians given top priority, and micromobility after that.
Lower speed limits, ideally 20 to 25 mph on local streets, combined with physical traffic calming measures like raised crosswalks and lane narrowing, can be helpful for car speed management. The infrastructure should reflect the local context, and separated bike lanes should be used where speed differences are high.
By treating micromobility as part of a comprehensive transportation system, and not merely striping a bike lane without any protection on a busy road, safety becomes the top priority, versus only car volume and throughput.
Q (David Reed): While you are based in North America, can you share any insights from other countries in how to foster micromobility solutions for urbanizing communities?
A: I recently took a trip to South Korea and Japan, and I was impressed with how so much of their transportation systems have been designed from the ground up, at human-scale.
For example, Seoul’s approach of separating streets by function rather than trying to accommodate everything everywhere makes sense. They have high-speed car corridors with protected sidewalks and bike lanes, alongside narrow shared streets where cars crawl at 8-foot lane widths. This eliminates the common North American problem of trying to make every street serve every mode poorly.
What struck me most was how different streets look without cars parked everywhere. In Tokyo, where 86% of streets can’t fit more than one car, this constraint actually creates safer, more human-scaled environments. When you remove street storage for private cars, you free up enormous space (and investment) for more sustainable mobility infrastructure.
North American cities can start by converting parking lanes to protected bike lanes on key corridors, helping to fill gaps in the micromobility networks that research shows are essential for mode shift. Though it can be a hotly contested issue in some cities and towns, other countries around the world have seen high increases in bike and transit mode share by simultaneously making it safer to ride on two wheels while making driving on four wheels less convenient.
Cities designed for humans rather than car storage and fast movement require a reimaging of how streets function and who they serve. Our North American cities can absolutely make these changes with the right commitment and approach.
Q (Courtney Menjivar): How can micromobility be a revenue generator within real estate developments?
A: Micromobility in real estate isn’t just a sustainability add-on; it can offer real estate developers a powerful way to generate revenue and boost asset value. Beyond pay-per-ride and subscription fees, developers can tap into sponsorships, branding opportunities, and even carbon-credit incentives in some regions.
By reducing the need for expensive parking infrastructure, micromobility frees up land for higher-yield uses and supports premium rents and faster lease-ups. The result is a future-ready amenity that enhances ESG credentials, strengthens tenant appeal, and drives both immediate income and long-term property value.
Q (Marie Cox): First/last-mile connection, or perhaps even just simplified, speedier connections to public transit, are becoming more prevalent and in demand. How do developments integrate such infrastructure into transit networks?
A: You’re right – in fact, nearly 75% of riders use micromobility to connect to transit, according to the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association’s (NABSA) Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report. Properties facing the first/last mile challenge can support residents by offering micromobility stations – including partnering with their city to incorporate any public micromobility system (e.g., properties incorporating a Capital Bikeshare station outside their building), developing designated scooter or dockless bikeshare parking areas (to reduce curbside clutter and demonstrate the property accepts and encourages these options), or investing in a fleet for their residents to use.
Depending on a property’s location, opportunities may exist to create a revenue source with the latter option – allowing residents to use the amenity for free or at a highly subsidized rate while collecting fees from the public who may want to use the system. Beyond micromobility, there are additional options – such as shuttles, Uber/Lyft programs, microtransit, and other solutions – so it is important to think about what is best for your property and audience and how people want to connect with their transit options.
Q (Courtney Menjivar): Affordability, equity, and accessibility can be an important factor in the deployment of micromobility systems. Are their best practices to adhere to in these areas?
A: Creating truly affordable, equitable, and accessible micromobility programs requires intentional planning and inclusive policies. We can adopt best practices, such as offering discounted fares based on income, ensuring cash payment options, and strategically placing vehicles and charging stations in underserved areas, rather than just in busy commercial zones.
Collaborating with community organizations to identify local mobility needs is essential, as is the inclusion of adaptive devices such as seated scooters and e-trikes for individuals with disabilities. By focusing on fair pricing, thoughtful location strategies, and universal design, we can transform micromobility systems into reliable and inclusive transportation solutions that uplift our entire communities.
Q (Marie Cox): In terms of transportation demand management programs that aim for vehicle trip reductions, does data show that micromobility programs help to reduces car dependency in developments?
A: NABSA’s recent State of the Industry report shows that 35% of shared micromobility trips replace a trip that would have been taken in a vehicle. In 2024, there were 225 million micromobility trips. To put this in perspective, that is nearly 80,000 car trips diverted to micromobility options, which is a powerful number.
When e-scooters first entered the DC market, I had a friend who lived in an apartment in a dense, transit-oriented community but drove everywhere. One day, they came to me and said, “I love the scooters – I can go everywhere without having to drive or park.” This is just one story, but I remember being so impressed at how e-scooters really reduced some barriers that spoke to drivers, such as wanting to get places more quickly and conveniently than they could using other modes, and were shifting behavior among people who drove everywhere.