Micromobility for first and last mile access to public transport: institutional perspectives from Perth, WA

ABSTRACT

The rapid uptake of small electric personal mobility devices, collectively referred to as micromobility, has created a challenge for planners, policymakers and regulators seeking to mitigate externalities and integrate these modes into urban transport systems. First and last mile access to high frequency and reliable public transport has been identified as one area that micromobility can contribute. However, to successfully address the first and last mile problem, micromobility requires supportive institutions across the transport system and mobility spaces that constitute first and last mile access. Using Perth, Western Australia as a case study, this research draws on a Delphi Survey with transport planners and policymakers, exploring the institutional dimension of first and last mile for micromobility. The research shows that planners and policymakers should focus on the broader eco-system of rules, regulations and practices that contribute to first and last mile access, paying attention to the spatial and social context of cities. Key issues to enhancing micromobility in first and last mile access are connectivity and safety, both for micromobility users and other road and street users.

Practitioner pointers:

• Planners and policymakers seeking to integrate micromobility into the urban transport task should consider the whole set of institutions that make up FLM journeys, encompassing land use planning, street and road networks, station facilities and public transport services.

• Both formal institutions, representing laws and regulations, and informal institutions, including social practices, education, and enforcement, are important to consider.

• Planners and policymakers should adopt innovative and flexible approaches such as trials and evaluations to ensure that micromobility does not lead to unsustainable outcomes for urban transport systems.

KEYWORDS:

• Micromobility
• smart mobility
• institutions
• institutional change
• first and last mile access

Introduction

Australian households experience varying levels of access to high frequency and reliable public transport (Scheurer, Curtis, and McLeod 2017). There is evidence that first and last mile (FLM) access is a significant factor influencing public transport use (Buys et al. 2012; Cao et al. 2021). FLM refers to trips taken from point of origin to high frequency public transport (first mile) and from public transport to the journey destination (last mile) (Romm et al. 2022). FLM access can often be a significant barrier to the use of public transport, with many potential riders requiring motorised or assisted mobility for distances to high-frequency public transport too far to comfortably walk (Abduljabbar, Liyanage, and Dia 2021; Cao et al. 2021; Lee et al. 2021). The FLM problem is particularly evident in low-density urban areas, where large station catchments and park-and-ride facilities often encourage the use of private vehicles for FLM journeys, and in many cases for the entire trip (Buys et al. 2012; Romm et al. 2022). The extent of the FLM problem is generally dependent on trip characteristics, such as travel cost and time, and the characteristics of the built environment, including the network connectivity, quality of path infrastructure, and land use intensity (Lu, Prato, and Corcoran 2021; Van Acker and Triggianese 2020).

Micromobility has been identified as a potential solution to the FLM problem. Micromobility refers to personal vehicles that are light, speed restricted (usually under 45 km/h) and designed for short-distance trips under 15 kilometres (Liao and Correia 2020; Lo et al. 2020). Although encompassing conventional and electric modes, including bicycles, micromobility often denotes electric scooters (e-scooters), electric skateboards (e-skateboards) and a variety of other personal mobility devices. The use of the term ‘micromobility’ first became prominent in 2017, as e-scooter shared schemes became established in cities in the U.S. and then in Europe from 2018. There has since been continued growth in shared schemes and personal ownership of micromobility (Haworth, Schramm, and Twisk 2021). In Australia, shared e-scooter schemes have been in place since 2018, with the first scheme launched in Brisbane. Most major Australian cities have shared e-scooter schemes and private ownership of e-scooters has increased rapidly (Coulter 2022). Along with the growth in micromobility use, the low cost and flexible nature of micromobility positions it as a potential solution to the FLM problem. Facilitating the use of micromobility for FLM access to high-frequency public transport has been suggested to achieve a range of benefits including reducing road congestion and mitigating the environmental impacts of trips by car (Boglietti, Barabino, and Maternini 2021).

Local transport institutions can play an important role in facilitating micromobility for FLM access to high-frequency public transport. North (1990, 3) defines institutions as ‘the rules of the game in a society, or more formally are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’. Transport institutions influence the function and performance of transport systems by setting the parametres for possible action such as setting a broad policy agenda, establishing protocols and processes, defining rules and sanctions, establishing contracts, developing and communicating knowledge, and shaping and responding to social practices. Marsden and Reardon (2018) describe how the rapid adoption of new technologies, like electronic personal mobility devices in urban transport systems, can create uncertainty for planners and policymakers and that it is critical institutions are suitably flexible to appropriately regulate evolving patterns of urban transport. Institutions can become established and entrenched, working in ways that create additional externalities or hinder the potential of emerging patterns of mobility. Institutions are also dynamic, and critical junctures may emerge where there is an opportunity or compulsion to change. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, required urban transport systems to rapidly adapt to the disruptive social and economic reorganisation and restriction to movement that emerged in the global response to the pandemic. Temporary bike lanes, car-free streets and low-traffic neighbourhoods were implemented quickly in cities around the world to allow social distancing and increased use of local streets during restrictions to travel. This created a temporary ‘policy window’, or moment of potential institutional change, where walking, cycling and micromobility were advocated for (Harris and McCue 2022). There are challenges to transport planners and policymakers in formalising and optimising new technologies within current urban governance contexts and failure to respond to these challenges risks locking car-dominant transport institutions and travel behaviour.

This research examines the current institutional context and views of key stakeholders relevant to FLM access to public transport in Perth, Western Australia. It recognises that the potential capacity for micromobility to address the FLM problems is shaped by institutions that enable and constrain decision-making regarding investment in urban transport systems, and consequently travel choices and behaviour in FLM trips. The research provides an overview of FLM access to public transport stations in Perth, through the lens of institutional change. While this research project was being designed and conducted, the WA traffic legislation and codes were updated to provide guidance on the regulation and use of micromobility (referred to as e-rideables) in Western Australia. As of the 16th of December 2021, the Western Australian Road Traffic Code 2000 (RTC) was changed to permit micromobility devices to be ridden on a carriageway, bicycle path, or shared path at a maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour, and 10 kilometres per hour on footpaths. A Delphi Survey with transport professionals from Perth, WA was used to explore the current and emergent opportunities and barriers to the use of micromobility for FLM access in this context of institutional change. For this research, micromobility is defined according to the definition of e-rideables from WA’s RTC. This definition includes e-scooters, e-skateboards and a range of other small electric vehicles, as these modes are treated the same under the existing RTC, separate from bicycles and e-bicycles.

Background

Micromobility and FLM access

Using micromobility for FLM trips offers several benefits according to the research and policy literature. E-scooters and other personal mobility devices allow users to travel further than walking and are low cost compared to other modes (Baek et al. 2021; Liao and Correia 2020). This means that they can provide an alternative to private motor vehicle use for short-distance trips and consequently address a range of transportation objectives (Abduljabbar, Liyanage, and Dia 2021). The benefits of congestion relief are based on the capacity of micromobility to replace car trips (Fan and Harper 2022). As Kager, Bertolini, and Te Brömmelstroet (2016) state regarding bicycle access to stations, the combination of two modes opens the possibility of these modes of travel beyond what their capacity affords and therefore offers additional ways of competing with auto-dependence.

FLM access to stations involves a chain of links and nodes, connecting households to public transport stations through multiple transport links, and then from destination stations to final destinations (Kager, Bertolini, and Te Brömmelstroet 2016). Travel choices in FLM access to public transport are shaped by a range of factors. Venter (2020) identified seven: personal security, comfort in wait areas, legible information, safe crossings and paths, pedestrian comfort, access trip time and distance, and the costs of the access trip. FLM travel behaviour is shaped by the relative access, speed and comfort of different modes of travel. There are also temporal dimensions to FLM access. Public transport services catering to peak hour travel are often prioritised and travel outside peak is subject to delay and sometimes unsafe at night. Different groups of micromobility users can demonstrate different times of travel throughout the day (Kong, Jin, and Sui 2020). FLM access may be facilitated through shared micromobility schemes or the use of personally owned micromobility devices. Station-based shared mobility schemes have been proposed as one solution to facilitate FLM access to stations (Shaheen, Cohen, and Broader 2021). Shared micromobility schemes are often a key component of many Mobility as a Service (MaaS) schemes (Bozzi and Aguilera 2021). There has also been an increase in the ownership of mobility devices. Personal micromobility devices and shared micromobility devices may have different patterns of use compared to shared schemes.

There are more general barriers and enablers to the use of micromobility relevant to FLM access that are emerging in the research. The modest price of devices, safe and accessible urban mobility environments, and supportive policies and programs have been identified as key enablers of micromobility (Abduljabbar, Liyanage, and Dia 2021). Conversely, low density and car-dependent neighbourhoods can be barriers to access to using micromobility for transport for individuals (Meng and Brown 2021). For shared scheme operators, barriers to the implementation of shared micromobility schemes include the risk of theft and vandalism, battery recharging and costs associated with redistributing bikes to optimise markets (Abrams 2019).

The increase and emerging patterns of micromobility use also have implications for the sustainability benefits of FLM access. There is the risk that micromobility competes rather than complements other more sustainable modes, replacing short trips that may have been conducted by walking or cycling, or public transport ridership for longer trips. In Norway, Fearnley (2022) found that trips by shared e-scooters were primarily replacing walking trips, reducing rates of physical activity in people’s daily travel. The claim that e-scooters can assist in decarbonising urban transport is also being questioned. In a whole of life cycle analysis of the emissions of shared e-scooter schemes, Hollingsworth, Copeland, and Johnson (2019) found that shared e-scooter schemes can be responsible for up to 65% more emissions than the modes they replaced. E-scooter schemes can also introduce new disparities in access, including who has ready access to the vehicles and the competencies for mobility (Fitt and Curl 2020). Although e-scooters are generally well considered in cities, they are often featured in media as clutter in pedestrian access ways (James et al. 2019). E-scooters may be a more significant barrier to some pedestrians more than others, particularly people with disabilities.

Urban transport institutions and their role in shaping FLM access for micromobility

Planning for enhancing FLM access with micromobility requires that we pay attention to the institutional dimensions of micromobility in the context of FLM. Marsden and Groer (2016) distinguish formal institutions, consisting of laws, regulations, rules and governance structures, and informal institutions, represented by ideas, values, norms, and practices that together shape social action. Both formal and informal institutions contribute to the set of rules that governs and shapes urban transport systems. Institutions also play an important role in shaping the capacity of existing urban systems to adapt to new forms of urban mobility and for new forms of mobility to be shaped to address policy goals (Homrighausen and Tan 2016; Marsden and McDonald 2019). Transport planners and policymakers are being challenged to adapt institutional regimes to respond to the increase in micromobility and other technologically driven mobility changes associated with ‘smart mobility’ (Marsden and Reardon 2018). These challenges include regulating the supply of shared schemes, setting road rules, ensuring equipment safety standards, mitigating pedestrian conflict and access rights, and ensuring data security for shared schemes and MaaS. Preparation for the uptake of increased use of micromobility requires an investigation and reflection on the rule structures that exist to enable and constrain mobility in different ways.

As FLM trips are constituted by a variety of potential transport modes, mobility networks and spaces, and nodes connecting various links (Kager, Bertolini, and Te Brömmelstroet 2016), numerous institutions may play a role in shaping FLM access. These institutions include property development, public infrastructures, traffic management, facilities management and social infrastructure (education and social competencies for mobility). Any planning or regulatory actions requires the coordination of multiple stakeholders across these diverse institutional ecosystems. Institutions are also dynamic and continual states of change, often incremental, but sometimes rapid and disruptive. Alston (1996) describes states of institutional change as the results of bargaining between supply (government) and demand in society (actors of change). The institutions that are currently emerging in response to the growth of ‘smart mobility’ and other disruptive technologies in Australian cities are in a state of flux, and the response from planners and regulators is slow (Curtis et al. 2019). Institutions are often path dependent and resistant to change once established and institutional inertia and stability can be a major barrier to the uptake of new modes of mobility (Low and Astle 2009). Radical institutional change may occur as a result of exogenous shocks that lead to fundamental changes to institutional frameworks.

The relationship between micromobility and public transport can be characterised in different ways, such as where micromobility might substitute for public transport trips, complement existing services, or might be fully integrated into a public transport system (Kong, Jin, and Sui 2020). Integration requires an institutional framework that supports the opportunity for safe, efficient and convivial movement of people using micromobility, whilst addressing the externalities that micromobility may impose on others. Regulation and intervention by governments may be achieved through proactive planning, gathering of data, or imposing rules of use on shared micromobility providers. Private sector vendors of shared schemes exhibit different business models, fleet sizes, distribution strategies and price points (Riggs, Kawashima, and Batstone 2021). Interventions into transport markets of shared micromobility schemes can be achieved by defining areas for transport, setting restrictions on access and speed, vendor caps and requirements for clearing vehicles. However, institutions are shaped by higher order agendas, reflected in the broader political economy and cultural systems that are reflected in the design and operationalisation of rule structures. The neoliberal agenda influencing current transport institutions raises issues of transparency, equity, weak strategic planning, poor community engagement, and risks rendering public sector planners ineffective in steering innovations like autonomous vehicles and micromobility (Curtis et al. 2019).

Research approach

This research assesses the current potential to utilise micromobility to address FLM access in Perth, WA, through the perspective of the various institutional rules and conventions that enable or constrain micromobility. The Perth metropolitan area is located on the west coast of Australia with a population of approximately 2.1 million people. The city is characterised by low-density suburban development, with a relatively small central business district surrounded by sprawling residential areas. The metropolitan region is served by a suburban rail system, supported by integrated feeder bus network and a generous supply of park-and-ride stations. A Principle Shared Network, located primarily adjacent to rails and major highway infrastructure, provides movement network for bicycles and pedestrians, and is increasingly utilised by micromobility devices. As of December 2021, the Western Australian Road Traffic Code 2000 (RTC) was updated to permit micromobility devices to be ridden on an unmarked road carriageway, bicycle path, or shared path at a maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour. These modes may also be ridden on a footpath at a maximum speed of 10 kilometres per hour. The changes to the RTC were introduced prior to the commencement of the research and, although they provide an important context and insight into the issues, were not the primary focus of the research.

The research approach draws on three assumptions. Firstly, institutions may exist across multiple domains reflecting the various components of transport systems that make up FLM access – facilities management, street network design, traffic engineering and land use planning, for example. Secondly, favourable inter-domain institutional relations are necessary to enable the functioning of micromobility within the various transport domain that makes up FLM access. Thirdly, local institutions are dynamic and evolving, and actively shaped by institutional actors and change agents who work within rigid but changeable institutional structures to achieve objectives and goals (Beunen and Patterson 2019).

A Delphi Survey was carried out with transport planners and policy officers working across various institutions relevant to FLM access in the Western Australian transport system. The Delphi method was developed by the RAND corporation in the 1950s and was originally used by the military in strategic decision-making. The technique is used as a reliable means to establish consensus amongst expert stakeholder groups (Rowe and Wright 1999). Delphi methods use multiple staged surveys and controlled feedback that captures participants’ reflections on group knowledge rather than solely relying on initial responses to the survey. Reflection on group findings and deliberation are intrinsic to Delphi methods, making them useful for establishing knowledge of rapidly changing, uncertain or complex fields (Melander 2018). Although commonly used to work toward consensus by encouraging participant reflection on the group responses at multiple stages, Delphi methods can be adapted for a variety of purposes (Hasson and Keeney 2011). The Delphi technique has been used in the field of transport planning previously on topics including commercial freight (Lindholm and Ballantyne 2016), transport indicators (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, and Yigitcanlar 2019) and the governance of public transport (Hirschhorn 2019). This study adopts a Delphi Survey to capture a variety of responses from across institutional fields, before drawing on a reflection of feedback from the first round to gain a more holistic perspective on FLM access from participants.

Participants were selected through the process of expert sampling, involving contacting organisations involved in key aspects of FLM access across transport systems land use planning, facilities management and urban design. The sample included individuals from the Department of Transport (5), Main Roads WA (4), Public Transport Authority (1), DevelopmentWA (the State Government urban development agency) (2), Western Australian Local Government Association (1), various Local Governments (3), and transportation consultancies (10). Most government representatives were officer or senior staff level, with three participants at director level or higher. The initial set of questions focused on opportunities and barriers to micromobility in general and specifically related to FLM access to public transport. The second round of questions was established following the analysis of the first round of questions and focused on establishing a rich set of institutional factors. Round One of the Delphi Survey involved twenty-six participants and Round Two involved twenty-one participants from the initial round.

The Delphi Survey was administered through an online questionnaire on the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire design was informed by the literature review aligned with the research objectives. After the responses were collected from the first questionnaire, the results were collated and analysed, and a summary report was created. This report was distributed back to the participants alongside the second questionnaire to enable reflection on the first round of questions. Limited options to closed questions were ranked by participants according to their importance and open-ended questions were provided for greater depth. Closed questions were analysed using descriptive statistical analysis. Open-ended questions were the largest component of the questionnaire and their responses were coded inductively and analysed using a thematic approach.

Perth Delphi survey findings

The first stage of the Delphi Survey focused on establishing participants’ views on the causes of FLM access problems, recent changes to rules of micromobility use, barriers to micromobility use and potential solutions to overcoming barriers to use. Participants were first invited to provide input on whether they believed the use of micromobility would be an effective solution to the FLM problem in WA. Participants were generally supportive of the potential for micromobility to address FLM access for people living outside a walkable station catchment. Of the twenty-six respondents, seventeen stated that micromobility has the potential to address the FLM problem, seven reported that it would partly address this issue, and two stated that it was not viable. The ability of micromobility devices to overcome urban structural barriers and the lack of alternatives was reported as the primary reason for support. As one representative from local government stated:

Yes. Railway stations are generally isolated from urban development by planning rules (for example, road and railway reserves in the Metropolitan Region Scheme). Micromobility devices may be sufficiently fast to overcome the distances required to reach … anything. On high-frequency bus routes, development has generally not been pushed as far away, so micromobility devices could make quite an effective combination with these services.

Other respondents were more sceptical towards the ability of micromobility to address the FLM problem due to access afforded by the primary movement network for bicycles, micromobility and pedestrians. One participant highlighted that the primary shared network infrastructure in Perth is located along railway lines, leading to competition between PT and micromobility trips:

The issue is that the Primary Network competes with Public Transport. For example, e-scooting to the CBD along the Mitchell Fwy Principal Shared Network is an alternative to catching the train.

Participants were invited to rank what they believe to be the most significant causes of FLM problems from a set of factors identified in the literature. Figure 1 shows low-density urban form (42%) and the absence of adequate and connected infrastructure (34%) were most frequently ranked as the primary cause of FLM problems by most participants. Restrictions on taking personal mobility devices on public transport received no rankings as the most important cause, with 65% responding that it was the least important cause. E-scooters and other personal mobility devices in Perth are not permitted on buses but permitted on trains, except on peak morning services to the city and peak afternoon services away from the city. The mixed responses recorded in the rankings did not indicate a prevalent cause for the FLM problem out of the four options presented, suggesting that FLM is a multi-dimensional component of urban transport.

Figure 1. Perceived causes of the FLM problem in Perth, WA.

Participants were then asked to reflect on the new legislation governing e-rideables. Of the twenty-six respondents, twenty considered the updated legislation would support micromobility. Some saw the legislation as necessary to address safety for micromobility riders and other road and path users. One transport consultant highlighted the importance of regulating the speed of travel:

While speed limits on electric ridable devices may appear to inconvenience the rider and increase journey time – they are important to ensure the safety of the rider and others around them. To be accessible, micromobility must be inclusive to a variety of users (at varying levels of skill), speed limits reduce the likelihood of accidents and the severity of collisions where they occur.

One respondent suggested that the restrictions on speed would not be a barrier because it was only one of many things that shaped people’s decision to use micromobility, and factors such as the low cost and flexibility of travel were important attractors, but not influenced by the legislation. Respondents also highlighted that rules would not be a barrier because they would not be strictly enforced, and any assertion of a rule would be to manage extreme violations. Enforcement of speed limits and illegal practices was referred to as difficult to execute, with many ‘grey areas’ that would create confusion and suppress demand for the initial purchase of micromobility devices. One ‘grey area’ was the ambiguity in the categorisation of paths and their associated permitted speeds.

The distinction between a ‘shared path’ and a ‘footpath’ is a bit fuzzy. Since 2016, people of all ages may legally ride on footpaths. This means that virtually all ‘paths’ can be considered ‘shared paths’ unless specifically signposted. It is unclear what this means from a legal perspective.

Ambiguity in the interpretation of laws was also a reason provided for why the legislation might be a barrier. A participant referred to the additional complexity of having separate cycling rules and was disparaging of the differentiation between the micromobility laws and cycling laws.

The research participants identified several other barriers that hindered micromobility FLM access in their open responses. These are related to spatial, connectivity and regulatory challenges (see Table 1).

Table 1. Barriers to using micromobility for FLM access.

Type of barrier	Barrier	# Participants that referred to barrier N = 26
Spatial	Absence of connected secondary network	8
	Path quality and design	5
	Safety concerns for potential riders	5
	Urban amenity	2
	Car priority	2
	Intermodal conflict – roads	2
	Intermodal conflict – footpaths	2
Node/connectivity	End of trip facilities – general	12
	Not permitted on buses or peak hour PT	11
	End of trip facilities – at bus stations/stops	2
	Lack of shared mobility schemes	1
Other	High purchase costs	4
	Difficult to regulate	2
	Lack of integration across local governments	2
	Limitations of speed	1

The most prominent spatial issue related to the lack of a secondary network to support micromobility, cyclist and pedestrian movement to the first tier network, the Principal Shared Path. Secondary networks often use local streets and protected (and ideally) separated path infrastructure on higher order roads to connect to activity centres and the first tier network. In 2022, the WA Department of Transport was in the process of rolling out the initial stages of its secondary tier, Long Term Cycling Network, and this was referred to as addressing the limitations of the current situation. The frequent reference to the lack of end of trip facilities, especially secure storage at stations, and barriers to bringing micromobility devices onto public transport, highlighted the importance of connectivity across FLM trip chains.

The first round concluded by asking participants about what factors they consider would support the use of micromobility for FLM. Firstly, participants were invited to rank what they believe to be the factors that would lead to the most significant uptake of micromobility for FLM to high-frequency public transport from the pre-defined responses shown in Figure 2. Fifteen (58%) participants stated that planning for separated path infrastructure would lead to the most significant uptake of micromobility for FLM access to high-frequency public transport from the pre-defined responses and 12 respondents considered station design standards as their second option. Whereas fifteen respondents indicated that amending the RTC to enable users to travel at greater speeds was the most insignificant of the options. The importance of pro micromobility policies that formally encoded practices to promote safety and access (Abduljabbar, Liyanage, and Dia 2021), was mixed.

Figure 2. Perceived factors that would lead to an uptake in micromobility for FLM access to public transport.

Participants were then invited to identify opportunities to increase micromobility ridership by recommending amendments to regulations, design standards and policies. Recommendations were varied and included utilising shared micromobility schemes at stations to facilitate FLM access and adapting path design and regulation of use to facilitate the safer and/or greater uptake of micromobility. One participant from a transport agency identified the importance of separating different road and path users according to the function and speed of their mode of travel rather than the specific mode, to future proof the network to accommodate emerging modes of transportation.

Rather than separating road users according to their mode (i.e., pedestrians, micromobility device users, people-on-bicycles and motorised traffic), I'd be interested to see all road users separated by their functional characteristics (i.e., speed). Although they're both on bikes, a fast cyclist is functionally closer to a car than the average person on the average bike; the same way that someone going for a slow ride with the kids is functionally closer to a pedestrian than the average bicycle rider.

The increased activation of streets and the public realm in activity centres and urban hubs was suggested as a strategy to support the use and attractiveness of micromobility in station precincts. The reference to activation intimates that micromobility is seen as contributing to the conviviality of streets. The repurposing of car parking in station precincts was put forward as one way that activation could occur.

Other suggestions of ways that institutions could be refashioned to better support micromobility included the use of subsidies to support the purchase of micromobility devices to support climate action. Behavioural change initiatives were recommended to encourage the uptake of micromobility. The WA Department of Transport’s ‘Your Move Program’ was referred to as a program that could be implemented to support user training and build skills and confidence. Other respondents also suggested enhancing driver awareness of micromobility and introducing road training for micromobility as part of developing competencies in the community.

Following Round 1 of the Delphi Survey, a second survey was distributed to participants. This survey contained a summary of findings from Round 1 and additional questions relating to the key themes identified in Round 1, with a focus on establishing a rich field of institutional elements that could improve micromobility FLM access to public transport. The summary centred on two key issues that were found to capture a representation of the variety of responses to stage one: connectivity and safety. These themes were presented to the participants in a way that reflected a holistic representation of FLM access, covering the range of links in the trip chain from origin to destination, and back again.

The first issue of connectivity was presented to the participants who were then asked to suggest changes that could be made to improve the current status of micromobility in the urban transport task through improvements to connectivity Of the twenty-one respondents, twelve stated that improving path infrastructure was the most important issue, four reported that permitting micromobility on public transport would improve connectivity, and four identified that a coordinated effort between different levels of government and agencies was important to improving network connectivity. Land use planning in new suburbs and station precincts was identified as a necessary condition for improving current micromobility FLM access, with one transport director noting:

Satisfactory provisioning of facilities through planning (e.g., structure plan development) is critical so new growth areas are established with the right conditions and future retrofits aren't required.

The Department of Transport’s Long Term Cycling Network was also identified by four transport planners as a means of improving path network connectivity throughout Perth:

This is complex and not solvable easily and quickly. Improving networks is the collective responsibility of the state government, local government and developers; preferably with Federal funding support. Measures such as the Long-Term Cycling Network are important for setting priorities.

Addressing poor amenity and improving the safety of the urban environment was also raised as a means of facilitating trips by micromobility to address FLM problems. One participant connected this issue to the need for an integrated approach, across the key links in the active transport network:

An integrated program focused on the outcome of improving active transport access to PT is needed. Pathways are often poorly maintained, have inadequate lighting, are secondary in access priority, and can have poor CPTED design outcomes. Perth still has a ‘Car is King’ approach to planning, which I believe is worse in outer areas where traffic speeds are often higher along key road links and the road reserves are wider, encouraging greater speed and an often hostile environment for active transport users.

The issue of safety and intermodal conflict was then presented to the participants for their response and suggested improvements to the various rules that guide behaviour on paths and roads. According to a third of participants, enforcing speed limits for both private motor vehicles and micromobility was key to improving safety outcomes. One participant pointed to a deeper culture of ownership over the street that defined the current attitudes and behaviours of different road and path users:

In general, I believe culture is the major issue in Perth. Car and drivers of other private vehicles often see roads as being dedicated to them, which can result in aggressive behaviour. Some cyclists and micromobility users treat shared paths and other locations in a similar fashion. Cumulatively this causes many people to be uncomfortable or to feel unsafe using these modes, resulting in continued dependence on private vehicles.

The provision of education to improve micromobility user behaviour was noted by eight participants as a means of improving safety outcomes through improving the competencies of the use and knowledge of the principles governing the safe use of devices. One participant from a transport agency stated:

I think there needs to be an active education campaign around sharing of the existing infrastructure between pedestrians and micromobility users, as we have previously seen around on-road cycling information and education campaign. With the increased use of micromobility equipment, both the users of this equipment, and others sharing the space with them (vehicle drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) need to understand their rights, responsibilities, and consequences.

However, ignorance of the rules was not the result of a limited understanding of the rules, with another participant noting the issue of users wilfully ignoring laws and rules:

People are not following the rules regardless of the legislation that has been introduced in December 2021. I have witnessed many people using electric scooters without helmets and riding on roads that are over 50 kilometres per hour during peak hour traffic. It is great that the legislation was introduced, but there will always be people who will do what they want and put themselves at risk.

Participants were finally asked to reflect on the findings from Round 1 and evaluate whether they considered the current transport policy context proactive in shaping policies, reactive to trends in micromobility users, or resistant to supporting micromobility. No participants considered the current institutional context as restrictive. Twenty respondents considered that the policy environment in WA could be described as reactive and only one respondent stated that policy setting has been proactive.

We have recent legislative change and good awareness campaigns; however, there was an obvious use of private devices before the change and there was a degree of regulatory ‘catch up’.

Over a third of participants suggested that a lack of public awareness of micromobility policies and rules was their reason for describing the current micromobility policy as reactive.

Outside of the industry, I don't think many people are aware of the legislation surrounding micromobility. The policy settings themselves are good but communicating this to the general public should be high on the ‘to do’ list.

Overall, the second round of the Delphi Survey reiterated findings from the first round but also revealed that the current state of institutions has changed for the better but needs more socialisation and integration into broader planning for new urban areas, network infrastructure, streets and places.

Discussion

The research shines a light on the perspectives of institutional actors on the capacity for micromobility to address FLM access to public transport in Perth, WA. Participants generally agreed that micromobility has the potential to address FLM if improvements to the institutions that support micromobility access are made.

Network and spatial connectivity to stations was a reoccurring theme in the research findings. Disconnected path infrastructure and limited storage at stations and stops, in combination with restrictions on carrying micromobility devices on public transport, were identified as key barriers to the uptake of micromobility for FLM. The importance of connectivity in the survey identified by the respondents reiterates the need to look at FLM as a whole trip, from origin to destination. Connectivity across the chain of trips encompassing FLM access can be incorporated into institutions at the broader planning stages of master planning, subdivision and development assessment, as well as ongoing management schedules and the upgrading and adaptation of the physical design of micromobility spaces.

Safety, both for micromobility users and other path and road users, was another key theme of the research. Intermodal conflict on shared paths, mixing with cars in high-speed environments, and poor user behaviour were the primary safety concerns noted in the Delphi Survey. The absence of formal institutions to regulate and shape issues of safety for micromobility and other street users is also sustaining unsafe environments for micromobility users, as there has been an absence of infrastructure and education initiatives to improve the safety of micromobility (Marsden and Reardon 2018). The research indicated that more informal institutions may co-exist with and support formal regulations, where discretion may be exercised in the enforcement of the rules. Extreme violations of the laws were considered likely to be policed, whilst minor violations may be ignored. Issues relating to safety will therefore be likely to shape the ongoing formation of institutions in WA, relating to debating the social implications of balancing movement-focused goals and the risk of road conflict and trauma.

The research highlights five key areas regarding institutional design and planning for micromobility in FLM. Firstly, the context of FLM trips is essential to consider. The institutions that shape the capacity for micromobility to accommodate FLM access are conditioned by the spatial, built and social context. For example, FLM access can vary across a regional context. This research showed that stations close to the city or key activity centres may be less attractive for FLM, as micromobility users choose to travel to their destination without using PT. This issue may be exacerbated in Perth due to reasonably good major shared path infrastructure, located adjacent to rail lines.

Secondly, integration and simplification of formal rules structures are needed. The findings pointed to confusion and lack of awareness amongst the community about the current rule structures, stemming both from ambiguities over the interpretation of the rules and the coherency and clarity of the rules. Some of this confusion is related to poor communication and engagement, and some are about the complexity of rules for roads in general. Participants suggested better integration between micromobility and bicycles to formalise a secondary tier to separate micromobility (including cyclists) and pedestrians. This could have its own rules about speeds and conventions regarding the sharing of road space on lower order roads.

Thirdly, education and engagement with communities can assist in the socialisation of new regulations and rules about micromobility use across FLM trips. Homrighausen and Tan (2016) suggest that community support for rule structures is critical to nurture a willingness to change routine travel behaviour. The importance of cultivating community support was evident in the research suggesting that the design of an institutional framework to support FLM for micromobility is conditioned by societal norms (informal institutions). The current hegemonic position of automobility and transportation by private vehicle evident in Perth, and similarly other similar car-dependent cities, will likely persist as an important informal institutional barrier to the widespread adoption of micromobility (Dowling and Simpson 2013). Although the amendment of the RTC is a step towards promoting the safe use of micromobility as an alternative to private motor vehicles, a much broader systemic change is required within the informal institutions that underpin transportation in car-dependent cities like Perth.

Fourthly, practitioners need to remain aware of the potential negative impacts of micromobility when incorporating them into FLM planning. The conflict between path users and increased risks to pedestrians, particularly in mixed mobility environments was frequently highlighted as an issue by the expert panel. Micromobility can also replace trips that would normally be carried out by public transport or active transport, having implications for the health benefits of micromobility schemes. Furthermore, the GHG emissions of micromobility across a whole life cycle can be much worse than the modes they replace (Hollingsworth, Copeland, and Johnson 2019).

Finally, there is potential for improved planning, policy innovation and experimentation to facilitate micromobility FLM access. Participants emphasised that integrated planning for FLM access was needed to guide future infrastructure, education, financial incentives, and other initiatives that have the potential to influence societal norms in travel behaviour, shifting the overall approach of planning from catering to travel by car. The use of trials and policy experimentation were suggested as ways to adjust institutional responses to better accommodate micromobility. Lessons from the pandemic are critical here. Temporary or tactical responses can sway public sentiment, demonstrate benefits and allow fine-tuning of more formal delivery of transport infrastructure for protected infrastructure for bikes and e-rideables.

This research was carried out when changes were occurring to the regulatory framework governing micromobility in Western Australia. Although not the primary driver of this research, the new regulations provided an interesting context for the discussion of institutions for FLM by micromobility. The respondents in this research considered the new regulations were a much needed but reactive response by the government to address the growth in micromobility, which had up to until late 2021 operated within a more informal set of institutions guiding where and how micromobility users travelled. With the changes to the RTC in late 2021, a formal institutional structure was put in place to regulate the increasing use of e-rideables, or micromobility, in WA. The findings suggest that there is potential for the new regulations to address several issues relating to the movement and safety of micromobility devices, however, there were also questions asked about how the rules would be enforced, how community awareness about rules would be promoted, and the redesign of laws to permit micromobility devices to be taken on public transport.

There are limitations to this research that are important to note. Although the research included perspectives from a variety of institutional actors in the spatial planning and management of FLM access, other institutions that play a role in shaping FLM were not captured. These include insurance and liability considerations, policing practices and more informal actors, such as e-scooter clubs, groups and advocacy groups. The Delphi Survey also did not include private sector operators and therefore the findings omit perspective on rule structures from private operators. Interactions between public and private operators can touch on rules relating to vehicle safety, spatial restrictions on use, data security and management practices. Perth has recently seen a modest shared e-scooter scheme introduced but has limited experience with shared schemes, compared to other Australian cities. Whereas these other cities may provide important insights into the question of how micromobility can accommodate FLM access, we believe the case of Perth provides an important perspective on emergent urban transport institutional systems in response to the growth in micromobility.

Conclusion

The absence of a robust and responsive public sector policy and regulatory framework to steer smart mobility initiatives in cities can lead to safety, sustainability, and equity issues in cities (Marsden and Reardon 2018). As new technology and innovations are constantly evolving, institutions must be suitably flexible to appropriately regulate existing and emerging forms of transport, such as micromobility, to integrate them within the urban transport task. This is particularly important as technological change is occurring faster than the capacity of systems to respond to the challenges associated with new modes of transportation. As such, it is important to reframe the process of planning for transport futures by embracing uncertainty. Failing to respond to these challenges risks locking transport institutions into the current state of planning for car-dependency.

This research set out to investigate the potential for micromobility to address the FLM access to public transport in Perth, WA, paying close attention to the institutions or sets of rules that exist to facilitate or constrain FLM access by e-scooters, e-skateboards and other small electric personal mobility devices. The laws and rules around using micromobility in WA had recently changed, prompting the need for research into how the new legislative and regulatory systems might open or close opportunities for FLM access. The Delphi Survey of Perth transport experts showed that planners, regulators, and policymakers saw the potential for micromobility to address the FLM problem in Perth. The research highlighted the connectivity across FLM trips and the safety of micromobility users in mixed mobility environments as critical issues. To improve planning for micromobility in the context of uncertain futures for urban transport systems, institutional responses to facilitate greater use of micromobility in FLM access should respond to the spatial and social contexts, think across institutions to develop coherent rules, assist with building the capacity of the community to communicate rules, monitor for adverse effects, and innovate to integrate actions within existing institutional contexts.

Acknowledgements

The research received approval from Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2022-0021).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).