Attachment A - Outreach Summary Comprehensive Micromobility Program.pdf

December 2021 
COMPREHENSIVE 
MICROMOBILITY 
PROGRAM  
Community Outreach 
Summary Report 
Attachment A

Table of Contents 
• Executive Summary 
• Background 
• Outreach Process 
o Online Survey 
o In-Person Events 
• Results 
o Online Survey 
o In-Person Events 
• Discussion  
• Key Takeaways 
 
• Appendix A: Online Survey Questions 
• Appendix B: Code Book for Online Survey Comments 
• Appendix C: Online Survey Comments

Executive Summary 
Micromobility is a term to describe any lightweight, relatively low-speed vehicle that 
may be powered by an electric motor such as traditional bicycles, electric bicycles and 
electric scooters. In the past few years, the shared micromobility industry has grown 
immensely around the world as companies deployed fleets of shared micromobility 
vehicles in cities. In September 2019, the City of Phoenix launched the e-Scooter Pilot 
Program which allows companies to operate a shared e-scooter service on City streets 
within the downtown area under a permit-based program. At the October 20th, 2021 
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee, the Street Transportation 
Department proposed a Comprehensive Micromobility Program to replace the pilot 
program in April 2022. Subcommittee directed staff to conduct community outreach to 
ensure the public approved of the program.   
Staff crafted an outreach plan that aimed to reach a wide range of community members 
throughout the proposed expansion. The key areas staff aimed for input were the 
proposed boundary expansion, parking requirements and the variety of vehicles to be 
offered. Staff engaged with the community through both an online survey and through 
tabling events at public events.  
A total of 209 responses were collected through the online survey and staff collected 
over 830 dot poll interactions from community members at the four in-person outreach 
events. Input gained from both the online survey and all four outreach events 
demonstrate support for the comprehensive micromobility program as proposed to the 
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee. The public also voiced a 
need for more supportive infrastructure for all micromobility users such as protected 
bike lanes and additional public bike racks. For vehicle types, e-bikes and e-scooters 
were consistently popular with survey respondents in both the online survey and 
through the in-person dot poll which is in line with national trends. Still popular, albeit 
by a smaller number, were traditional pedal bikes. Several respondents left comments 
emphasizing the return of a traditional bike share program with the departure of the 
Grid Bike Share program last year. The public also showed support for the inclusion of 
adaptive micromobility vehicles such as the adult tricycle.

Background 
Micromobility is a term to describe any lightweight, relatively low-speed vehicle that may be 
powered by an electric motor. Common forms of micromobility today include traditional 
bicycles, electric bicycles, electric stand-up scooters to name a few. They are typically used for 
short trips and can augment other modes of transportation by providing “first-mile/last-mile” 
solutions for public transit users.  
 
 
 
Figure 1. Micromobility: 
another vital piece to 
the transportation 
system 
 
In the past few years, the shared micromobility industry has grown immensely around the 
world as companies deployed fleets of shared micromobility vehicles in cities. Locally, Phoenix 
introduced the GRID Bike Share program within the central City in 2014, which enjoyed great 
success initially but eventually resulted in the vendor electing to cease operations in Phoenix in 
December 2020, citing a drop in demand and a changing landscape in the micromobility 
industry. By 2017, dockless bike share programs emerged as an alternative to station-based 
(docked) bike share systems. Due to backlash from the public, who saw the proliferation and 
scattering of these bikes as a public nuisance and eyesore, cities began strongly regulating or 
even prohibiting dockless bike share systems within their jurisdictions.  
 
 
 
Figure 2. Phoenix GRID Bike 
Share introduced in 2014

In 2018, e-scooters entered the micromobility market in a similar manner as dockless bikes. 
Although very popular with some residents, this newest iteration of shared micromobility came 
with a host of issues, including safety concerns for riders and non-riders. Similar to dockless 
bikes, there were public nuisance and eyesore issues, primarily due to improperly parked e-
scooters blocking pedestrian pathways, which has been especially hazardous to the disabled 
community.  
The latest form of micromobility to enter the market has been electric-bikes (e-bikes). Like their 
traditional counterparts, e-bikes still require the rider to operate the pedals for the electric 
motor to turn on and assist in propelling the vehicle. The rise of e-bikes coincided with the fall 
of traditional bikeshare. Data shows that shared micromobility users tend to favor e-bikes over 
traditional bikes so vendors have largely ended their offering of pedal bikes. 
Currently, e-scooters are the only micromobility option in Phoenix, with the launch of the 
Downtown Shared Electric Scooter Pilot Program (e-scooter Program) in September 2019. This 
e-Scooter Program allows companies to operate a shared e-scooter service on City streets 
within downtown Phoenix under a permit-based program. Most recently, in March 2021, 
Council approved an extension of the Program through March 31, 2022, to support 
micromobility options in downtown Phoenix while allowing staff time to explore a more 
comprehensive program to include additional choices, including the possible return of pedal-
powered bike share.  
 
Figure 3. E-Scooter Pilot Program on Phoenix.gov 
As the City moves from a downtown area e-Scooter Program to a permanent, expanded, and 
more comprehensive micromobility program, several elements of the existing e-scooter 
Program need to be evaluated. Street Transportation staff conducted research to understand 
best practices of micromobility programs in various peer cities in order to design a program 
that best suits the needs of Phoenix. The major focus areas of discussion include operational 
boundaries, type of micromobility devices, fleet size limits, parking requirements and 
addressing equity in availability of micromobility options. These findings were used to propose 
a program to the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee on October 20th,

2021. The subcommittee’s feedback directed staff to conduct outreach to ensure residents 
impacted by the boundary expansion were in favor of the proposed program. 
Outreach Process 
Staff crafted an outreach plan that aimed to reach a wide range of community members 
throughout the proposed expansion. The goal was to collect input through a variety of methods 
and to engage with people at public events. The key areas staff aimed for input were the 
proposed boundary expansion, parking requirements and the variety of vehicles to be offered. 
A list of survey questions was drafted for use in both an online survey format and some form of 
in person interactive format. 
Online Survey 
The primary means of collecting feedback was through an online survey hosted on Survey 
Monkey (see Appendix A). Staff posted a link to the online survey on the e-Scooter webpage of 
Phoenix.gov. The link to the survey was also distributed to local advocacy groups, council 
offices and on social media via the Street Transportation Twitter account (@StreetsPHX). The 
survey was open from November 
5th until November 30th. The survey 
was offered in both an English and 
a Spanish format. 
Note: while the survey was meant 
to close on November 30th, a few 
responses were collected through 
December 2nd and were included in 
the results. 
Figure 4. Micromobility Survey 
Link on Street Transportation 
Twitter Page (to the right)                                                                          
 
Figure 5. Micromobility 
Survey Link on 
Phoenix.gov/Scooters 
Webpage (to the left)

Outreach Events 
The secondary means of collecting input was through in-person outreach events. Staff searched 
for existing public events to expedite the outreach process and to meet people where they 
already were. Staff secured a spot at the following four events: 
• 
Roosevelt Row First Friday – November 5th 
• 
19North Community Clean Up – November 13th 
• 
Meet Midtown – November 13th 
• 
Spaces of Opportunity Farmer’s Market – November 20th 
 
 
Figure 6. Map of Community Outreach Events Attended by 
City Staff

Figure 7. Outreach at Roosevelt Row First Friday on November 5th 
 
Figure 8. Community Outreach at 19North Community Clean Up Event on November 13th 
 
Figure 9. Community Outreach at Meet Midtown Event on November 13th

Figure 10. Outreach at Spaces of Opportunity Farmer's Market on November 20th 
 
During each of these events, participants were invited to take part in a dot poll. In this form of 
outreach, individuals were provided dot stickers to vote on their preference (see below). Staff 
was available to walk members of the public through the poll and answer any questions about 
the program. This form of outreach can be incredibly effective as it allows for dialogue and can 
ease any concerns about the program. 
Results 
Online Survey 
A total of 209 responses 
were collected through 
the online survey. 
Participants were asked 
five multiple choice 
questions, one “check all 
that apply” question and 
three free response 
questions to allow for 
additional comments. 
How Often Do You Use 
Shared Micromobility? 
Online survey participants were first asked how often they use shared micromobility. Most 
respondents (36 percent) stated they used it a few times a week. On the other end of the 
spectrum, a large portion of respondents (29 percent) stated they never use shared 
36%
19%
16%
29%
How Often Do You Use Shared 
Micromobility?
A few times a week
A few times a month
A few times a year
Never
Figure 11. Results from Question 2 from Online Survey

micromobility. The remaining participants stated they were somewhere in the middle, a few 
times a month (19 percent) or a few times a year (15 percent). 
If You Have Never Used Shared Micromobility, Would You Use It If It Were Available in Your 
Area? 
To follow up on the 
previous question, this 
question was crafted to 
understand if availability 
of this service 
contributes to the lack 
of use. Slightly more 
respondents (54 
percent) answered “No” 
versus 46 percent 
stating, yes, they would 
use shared 
micromobility if it were 
available in their area.  
Do You Prefer an Expansion of The Micromobility Area with The Lock-To Parking Requirement 
or Keeping the Boundaries with the Corral-Based Parking Requirement? 
The next question was 
one of the core 
questions of the survey 
that attempts to 
understand the 
community’s appetite 
for an expansion of the 
program boundaries 
with the 
implementation of the 
lock-to requirement. A 
majority of online 
survey respondents (61 
percent) were in favor 
of the expansion with the 
46%
54%
If You Have Never Used Shared 
Micromobility, Would You Use It If It 
Were Available in Your Area?
Yes
No
39%
61%
Do You Prefer an Expansion with the Lock-To 
Parking Requirement OR Keeping the 
Boundaries with the Corral-Based Parking 
Requirement?
Keep the current
boundaries
Expand the
boundaries AND only
allow "lock-to"
parking outside of
downtown
Figure 12. Results from Question 3 from Online Survey 
Figure 13. Results from Question 5 from Online Survey

lock-to requirement while only 39 percent wished to keep the program as is.  
If You Are Interested in an Expansion of The Micromobility Area, Which Option Do You Prefer? 
This follow-on question asked 
respondents which version of 
the expansion they preferred, 
a one-mile buffer or a two-
mile buffer along the light rail 
corridor. An overwhelming 86 
percent of respondents 
preferred the larger two-mile 
buffer over a 14 percent that 
liked the smaller one-mile 
buffer.  
Which Vehicle Type Would 
You Be Most Likely to Use? 
(Select All That Apply) 
Another core question to the survey attempted to understand the types of vehicles the 
community would like to see offered in the micromobility program. The four options presented 
were: traditional bicycles, electric-assist bicycles (e-bikes), electric scooters (e-scooters) and 
adaptive micromobility vehicles. Respondents were able to select all the vehicles in which they 
were in favor. E-bikes and e-
scooters virtually tied as the 
most popular option as each 
vehicle took 34 percent of 
the vote. Traditional bikes 
earned 23 percent of votes 
while only nine percent of 
participants voted for 
adaptive vehicles. 
Figure 15. Results from 
Question 9 from Online 
Survey 
 
14%
86%
If You Are Interested in an Expansion of 
the Micromobility Area, Which Option 
Do You Prefer?
A one-mile expansion
along the light rail
corridor
A two-mile expansion
along the light rail
corridor
Figure 14. Results from Question 7 from Online Survey 
23%
34%
34%
9%
Which Vehicle Type Would You 
Be Most Likely To Use?
Traditional bicycle
Electric-assist bicycles
(e-bikes)
Electric scooters (e-
scooters)
Adaptive
micromobility
vehicles

If You Selected "Adaptive Micromobility Vehicles", What Type of Vehicle Would You Be 
Interested in? 
Adaptive micromobility vehicles is a broad category that captures various types of vehicles that 
cater to the disability community. Bringing in adaptive vehicles is one step toward a more 
inclusive program. Participants were asked which type of adaptive vehicle they prefer. Most 
respondents (46 percent) wanted to see adult tricycles in the program. Eighteen percent of 
participants voted for recumbent bicycles followed by 15 percent who wanted to see 
handcycles in the program. Twenty-two percent voted for the other category however most of 
these responses were “N/A” or “neither”. Some respondents asked about cargo bikes within 
the Other category. 
 
Figure 16. Results from Question 10 from Online Survey 
Online Survey Comments 
Alongside providing preferences on the proposed program, respondents were given the 
opportunity to provide comments. Questions 6 and 8, respondents were asked if they had 
comments on parking requirements and the boundary expansion options, respectively. 
Question 11 was the last question and asked for overall comments. The comments were 
analyzed and sorted based on themes and subthemes. Together with the results, they present a 
full picture of the community’s feedback on the proposed comprehensive micromobility 
program.  
15%
18%
46%
21%
If You Selected "Adaptive Micromobility 
Vehicles", What Type Of Vehicle Would 
You Be Interested in?
Handcycle
Recumbent Bicycle
Adult Tricycle
Other (Please Specify)

Table 1. Themes Identified from Question 6 Comments 
Comments Regarding Boundary Expansion/Parking Requirements 
After being prompted with the question of whether individuals preferred and expansion of the 
boundary with the lock-to requirement or maintaining the current system, online participants 
were offered the opportunity to provide a comment.  
The first main theme identified was Support for Boundary Expansion. These comments 
supported an expansion of the boundary however a large majority of comments were in favor 
of the expansion but did not support the lock-to requirement. The next grouping of comments 
showed general support for a boundary expansion. A small number of comments under this 
theme supported the proposed program with a boundary expansion and the implementation of 
the lock-to parking requirement.  
 
Theme 1: 
Support for 
Boundary 
Expansion
Subtheme 1: Boundary Expansion 
without Lock-To Requrement
"I am in favor of expanding the boundaries but NOT 
allowing "lock to" parking inside or outside downtown 
Phoenix. Painted parking areas or other technology 
that achieves the same effect."
Subtheme 2: General Support for 
Expansion
"I would ride/use these services way 
more if the boundaries were extended, 
or best, eliminated. "
Subtheme 3: Expansion with Lock-
To
"I think this is fantastic, maybe something by bus stops 
close to major intersections for a person to pick up the 
device.  That way they can use the bus and then use this 
device."
Theme 2: 
Comments 
Unrelated to 
Question
Subtheme 1: Support for More Bike 
Infrastructure
"expand bike and scooter infrastructure 
so pedal bikes can also have more 
parking options"
Subtheme 2: Supportive of 
Micromobility
"Loving the scooters! They're so great 
and convenient!"
Subtheme 3: Opposed to 
Micromobility
"Other cities I have visited with e-scooters the riders are a 
menace to traffic and pedestrians. Most do not follow safety 
rules. Scooters left scattered. Would prefer to not have these in 
Phoenix."
Subtheme 4: Miscellaneous
"Wish there was a comprehensive app to pay 
for any mass transit or rentable micro mobile 
option.  Just feels like too many companies to 
keep track of"
Theme 3: Support for Current System
"Seems that the system currently in place works well."

Figure 17. Graph of Boundary Expansion/Parking Requirement Comment Subthemes 
 
The second main theme identified was regarding comments unrelated to the question. For 
example, the first subtheme included comments where respondents expressed a desire for 
more infrastructure improvements to support bicyclists and micromobility users on roadways. 
Respondents indicated they desire more protected bicycle lanes and public bike racks. Another 
group of respondents expressed opposition to the micromobility program or micromobility 
vehicles in general. The last subtheme was the miscellaneous group of comments that did not 
inform our survey results.  
A single comment expressed support for the current system including the existing boundaries 
and the corral parking requirement and was categorized on its own.  
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Boundary
Expansion
without Lock-
to
Requirement
General
Support for
Expansion
Expansion
with Lock-to
Support for
More Bike
Infrastructure
Supportive of
Micromobility
Opposed to
Micromobility
Miscellaneous Support for
Current
System
Boundary Expansion/Parking Requirement 
Comment Subthemes

Table 2. Themes Identified from Question 8 Comments 
Comments Regarding Boundary Expansion Versions 
In Question 8, participants were asked for additional comments on the proposed boundary 
expansions, either the one-mile or two-mile expansion.  
The first main theme focused on comments related to the boundary expansion. The first 
subtheme that emerged was support for a larger boundary expansion than the proposed 
versions. Some respondents specifically asked for a small area be included in the expansion 
while a significant number expressed a desire for city-wide expansion. The next group of 
comments expressed general support for an expansion but did not specify how much of an 
expansion they would like to see. The third subtheme voiced support for the proposed 
boundary expansions. The last subtheme voiced opposition to any sort of expansion of the 
program boundary. 
Theme 1: 
Responses 
Related to 
Boundary 
Expansion
Subtheme 1: Support for Larger 
Boundary Expansions Than 
Proposed
"Yes, micromobility is most helpful for midrange 
travel. One mile is definitely not sufficient for 
exploiting the potential range of micromobility. 
Two miles seems like a better starting point, if 
not more." 
Subtheme 2: General Support for 
Boundary Expansion
"The larger the area, the greater impact and 
usability the scooters will have for any users.  The 
network effect is critical for success and limiting 
car usage."
Subtheme 3: Support for Proposed 
Boundary Expansions
"I would live to use this expansion." 
Subtheme 4: No Expansion 
Preferred
"This program should be kept to the downtown 
area"
Theme 2: 
Responses 
Unrelated 
to 
Boundary 
Expansion
Subtheme 1: Support for More Bike 
Infrastructure
"The more micromobility options the better. But 
please consider adding micromobility lanes/more 
bike lanes in this area"
Subtheme 2: Other Concerns
"Kinda curious how you guys are extending this 
into Tempe and Mesa....? How's that working? 
Are Tempe and Mesa going to be able to weigh in 
on this survey?"
Subtheme 3: General Support for 
Micromobility
"Micro-mobility has been an incredible change 
for our cities transportation on reducing our 
carbon footprint "

Figure 18. Graph of Boundary Expansion Comment Subthemes 
The other main theme from these set of comments were grouped as responses unrelated to 
the boundary expansion. The first main subtheme was support for more bike infrastructure 
within the city. Several respondents took the opportunity to reiterate their desire for more bike 
lanes. The second subtheme included comments that voiced other concerns about the 
program. These comments ranged from concerns about the lock-to requirement to concerns 
about scooters presenting a hazard to pedestrians. The last subtheme included comments that 
were generally in support of the micromobility program. 
Additional Comments 
The three main themes emerged in this last question: comments about the micromobility 
program (the proposed program or e-scooter pilot program), comments about city policies and 
other. In the first subtheme under Program Related, respondents took this opportunity to voice 
discontent with the program as proposed. Some comments in this category included discontent 
with micromobility in general. The next subtheme was the opposite as respondents voiced 
general support for the program as proposed. The third subtheme was comments that provided 
additional suggestions for the program such as recommending the city be mindful of privately 
owned vehicles or requiring a minimum number of vehicles during the summertime. The last 
subtheme included comments that specifically emphasized the return of a bike share program.  
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Support for
Larger Boundary
Expansions Than
Proposed
General Support
for Boundary
Expansion
Support for
Proposed
Boundary
Expansions
No Expansion
Preferred
Support for More
Bike
Infrastructure
Other Concerns General Support
for Micromobility
Boundary Expansion Comment 
Subthemes

Table 3. Themes Identified from Question 11 Comments 
The next main theme from this question were comments related to city policies in relation to 
micromobility. The subthemes under this included rider/user safety, support for more bike 
infrastructure and broader transportation goals. Respondents were mostly concerned with the 
existing street design that they feel is unsafe for micromobility users. Additional calls were 
made for more bike infrastructure. People also pushed for larger changes to policy to reduce 
automobile dependance. One last main theme was for other comments with responses that 
were uneasy to categorize.  
Theme 1: 
Program 
Related
Subtheme 1: Discontent 
with Program (As Proposed)
"Please be more progressive and stop the restrictions and 
limitations."
Subtheme 2: General 
Support for Program as 
Proposed
"The shared scooters are very helpful to me.  they are 
convenient for short trips, to and from the bus stop, etc."
Subtheme 3: Additional 
Suggestions for Program
"Require a minimum number of vehicles to be available 
during summer, as even though ridership drops during 
that time, the people who rely on these vehicles need 
them."
Subtheme 4: Emphasized 
Bike Share
"Would love to see a bike share 
back in Downtown Phoenix" 
Theme 2: 
Policy 
Related
Subtheme 1: Rider/User 
Safety
"Riding scooters in downtown Phoenix can be scary at 
times. There needs to be a shift in the car centered 
culture of the locations served by the light rail."
Subtheme 2: Support for 
More Bike Infrastructure
"More noticeable spots to lock your bicycle"
Subtheme 3: Broader 
Transportation Goals
"Every trip not taken in a car saves society money, lower 
taxes, lower fuel costs, less time wasted in traffic 
congestion.  Be a city of the future."
Theme 3: Other
"Go Cardinals"

Figure 19. Graph of Overall Additional Comments Subthemes 
 
In-Person Events 
Street Transportation staff 
collected over 830 dot poll 
interactions from community 
members at the four in-person 
outreach events. Respondents 
were presented with four 
questions that were intended to 
mirror the online survey but 
condensed for an in-person 
setting. The results from all four 
events were consolidated for 
analysis. 
Figure 20. Results from Question 1 of In-Person Dot Poll 
The first question asked community members how often they utilized micromobility vehicles. 
Staff received 165 poll dot responses that ranged from respondents operating micromobility 
vehicles a few times a week, to never using micromobility. Just 10 percent of survey 
respondents used micromobility vehicles more than once a week while 19 percent of 
respondents used them a few times a month. A larger number of respondents, 33 percent, 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Discontent with
Program (As
Proposed)
General Support
for Program as
Proposed
Additional
Suggestions for
Program
Emphasized Bike
Share
Rider/User Safety Support for More
Bike Infrastructure
Broader
Transportation
Goals
Other
Overall Additional Comments Subthemes
10%
19%
33%
38%
How Often Do You Use 
Micromobility?
A few times a week
A few times a month
A few times a year
Never

stated they only used micromobility vehicles a few times a year whereas 38 percent of those 
surveyed said they have never used a micromobility vehicle.  
 
Figure 21. Results from Question 
2 of In-Person Dot Poll 
 
The second survey question was 
two-pronged and presented 
respondents with the choice of 
either keeping the current 
micromobility operation boundary 
with corral parking or expanding 
the current boundary and allow 
for “Lock-To” parking outside of 
the downtown area. Corral parking 
requires micromobility users to park vehicles in a specific corral like area near sidewalks 
whereas lock-to parking requires users to physically lock their vehicles after use. Most 
respondents, 86 percent, want to expand the micromobility usage boundary while also allowing 
for a “lock-to” parking model outside of the downtown area. 
 
 
Figure 22. Results from Question 3 
of In-Person Dot Poll 
The third dot poll question asked 
respondents their preference for a 
one-mile or two-mile boundary 
expansion for micromobility usage 
along the light rail corridor. An 
overwhelming number of 
respondents, 85 percent, preferred 
a two-mile boundary expansion.  
 
14%
86%
Which Micromobility Parking 
Model Do You Prefer?
Keep the current
boundary with corral
parking
Expand the boundaries
AND allow "Lock-To"
parking outside of
downtown
15%
85%
Which Boundary Expansion 
Do You Prefer?
One-mile boundary
expansion along the
light rail corridor
Two-mile boundary
expansion along the
light rail corridor

Figure 23. Results from Question 4 
of In-Person Dot Poll 
The last survey question asked 
respondents to choose the 
micromobility vehicle they were 
most likely to utilize when traveling 
around Phoenix. This was the only 
question where participants could 
“select all that apply” and vote on 
multiple micromobility vehicles like 
a traditional bike, electric bike, 
electric scooter, or an adaptive 
micromobility vehicle. Staff received 334 community responses for this dot poll survey 
question. Just 20 percent of respondents stated they would utilize an adaptive form of 
micromobility vehicle and 23 percent would use an electric Scooter. A large number of 
respondents, 27 percent, said they were most likely to use a traditional bike.  The electric bike 
was the micromobility vehicle residents were most likely to use with 30 percent of respondents 
stating this was their preferred mode of micromobility transportation. 
Discussion  
Input gained from both the online survey and all four outreach events demonstrate support for 
the comprehensive micromobility program as proposed to the Transportation, Infrastructure 
and Planning Subcommittee. Based on the comments received, though, a sizable number of 
individuals did not agree with the implementation of the lock-to requirement. It was seen as a 
potential barrier to wider adoption of micromobility use. While many comments reflected 
disapproval of lock-to, the public appears to favor an expansion of the program boundary. 
Online survey participants were less in favor (61 percent vs 39 percent) compared to the in-
person dot poll (86 percent vs 14 percent). In contrast, participants not only overwhelmingly 
preferred the larger two-mile buffer along the light rail corridor in both survey formats. 
Moreover, many comments also expressed a desire for further expansion than proposed. 
Respondents that did express discontent with the proposed program indicated that the 
proposal did not expand from the e-scooter pilot program enough in scope.  
The public also voiced a need for more supportive infrastructure for all micromobility users, 
bicyclists included. This theme emerged in each comment section in the online survey. Time 
and time again, respondents demanded more protected bike lanes throughout the city to not 
only create a safe space for micromobility users but also as to remove potential conflicts with 
27%
30%
23%
20%
Which Micromobility Vehicle 
Are You Likely to Use?
Traditional Bike
Electric Bike (E-Bike)
Electric Scooter (E-
Scooter)
Adaptive
Micromobility Vehicle

pedestrians. Additionally, it was stressed that more public bike racks would be needed if the 
lock-to parking requirement was adopted. On a larger scale, others called for changes to how 
city streets are designed to better accommodate all users.  
The program currently only allows for e-scooters to operate in the downtown however, as 
mentioned, other micromobility vehicles are in demand. E-bikes and e-scooters were 
consistently popular with survey respondents in both the online survey and through the in-
person dot poll. This is in line with national trends demonstrating increased adoption of e-bikes, 
both privately-owned and shared. Still popular, albeit by a smaller number, were traditional 
pedal bikes. Several respondents left comments emphasizing the return of a traditional bike 
share program with the departure of the Grid Bike Share program last year. As for adaptive 
vehicles, the most popular option selected was the adult tricycle.     
Key Takeaways 
• 
The community expressed a strong desire for an expansion of the boundaries outside of 
the downtown area 
• 
Respondents highlighted concerns that the lock-to requirement complicates renting 
micromobility vehicles and deters ridership  
• 
Seventeen respondents expressed a desire for a much larger expansion than the 
proposed two-mile buffer along the light rail corridor 
• The public wants to see more supportive infrastructure for all micromobility users such 
as protected bike lanes and additional public bike racks 
• 
E-bikes and e-scooters are the two vehicle types most likely to be used based on 
community feedback, but traditional bikes are still in demand 
• 
When asked about specific adaptive micromobility vehicles, several respondents asked 
for adult tricycles

APPENDIX A 
MICROMOBILITY ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONS 
1. Would you like to take this survey in English or Spanish? 
a. English 
b. Español 
 
2. Micromobility refers to any small, lightweight vehicle that generally operates at a speed of 15 to 
20 miles per hour. Vehicles can include traditional bicycles, electric-powered bicycles (e-bikes), 
electric scooters (e-scooters) and many other vehicles which can be privately-owned or rented. 
How often do you use micromobility? 
a. A few times a week 
b. A few times a month 
c. A few times a year 
d. Never 
 
3. The current e-scooter pilot program requires riders to park vehicles in designated “corrals” in 
downtown Phoenix. Corrals work well in dense, downtown areas but they make the system hard 
to use in less dense areas. Another parking method is the “lock-to” requirement where users 
must lock the vehicle to a bicycle rack or other permanent fixture. The “lock-to” requirement 
could work for areas outside of downtown. Do you prefer an expansion of the micromobility 
area with the lock-to parking requirement OR keeping the boundaries with the corral-based 
parking requirement? 
a. Keep the current boundaries 
b. Expand the boundaries AND only allow “lock-to” parking outside of downtown 
Comments (Free response) 
 
4. The proposed expansions of the micromobility area are meant to complement the existing and 
future light rail routes. Micromobility can be a tool for connecting riders to transit. If you are 
interested in an expansion of the micromobility area, which option do you prefer? 
a. A one-mile expansion along the light rail corridor 
b. A two-mile expansion along the right rail corridor 
Comments (Free response) 
 
5. The current e-scooter pilot program only allows for e-scooters. The proposed micromobility 
program seeks to add e-bikes, traditional bikes, and adaptive bikes (for the disability 
community). Which vehicle type would you be most likely to use (select all that apply)? 
a. Traditional bicycles 
b. Electric-assist bicycles (e-bikes) 
c. Electric scooters (e-scooters) 
d. Adaptive micromobility vehicles 
(if D is selected) What type of adaptive vehicle would you be interested in? 
[FREE RESPONSE] 
 
6. Any other concerns that need to be addressed/incorporated in the plan?

[FREE RESPONSE] 
 
7. Would you like to receive updates on the Micromobility program? If so, please enter your name 
and contact information. 
[FREE RESPONSE] 
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Micromovilidad  
 
1. Le gustaría tomar esta encuesta en inglés o español?  
a. Inglés 
b. Español  
 
2. Micromovilidad se refiere a una modalidad de transporte que ocurre a través de vehículos muy ligeros 
como patinetes eléctricos, monopatines eléctricos, bicicletas compartidas y bicicletas con asistencia y 
varios otros tipos de vehículos se pueden comprar o rentar. Normalmente estos vehículos tienen una 
velocidad de 15 a 20 millas por hora. ¿Cada cuando usas la micromovilidad?  
a. Pocas veces a la semana 
b. Pocas veces al mes 
c. Pocas veces al año 
d. Nunca 
 
3. El programa de los scooters electrónicos (o patinetes electrónicos) requiere que una persona 
estacione el vehículo en un área conocida como un “corral” en el centro de Phoenix. “Corrales” 
funcionan bien en áreas chicas de la ciudad donde hay mucha gente, pero hace que el programa sea más 
difícil de usar en áreas grandes de la ciudad donde no hay tanta gente. Otra manera de estacionar 
requiere que las personas “cierren” el vehículo a un portabicicletas u otro accesorio de estacionamiento 
que sea permanente. El requiso de “cerrar” un vehículo pudiera funcionar en áreas afuera del centro de 
la ciudad. ¿Prefieres que haiga una expansión del área de micromovilidad con la función de “cerrar” el 
vehículo a un portabicicletas o que se mantenga el uso de un “corral” para estacionar el vehículo?  
a. Mantén los limites actuales  
b. Expanda los limites actuales y solo deja que se “cierren” los vehículos afuera del centro de Phoenix.  
(Comentarios)  
 
4. La propuesta de ampliación del área de micromovilidad debe de complementar el camino actual y los 
caminos del futuro del tranvía. Micromovilidad puede ayudar a conectar a las personas con el tránsito 
público. ¿Si fueras interesada en la ampliación del área de micromovilidad, cual opción te gustaría más? 
a. Una ampliación de una milla alrededor del corredor del tranvía

b. Una ampliación de dos millas alrededor del corredor del tranvía  
(Comentarios)  
 
5. El programa actual de los scooter electrónicos (o patinetes electrónicos) solo se enfoca en el uso de 
esos mismos vehículos. El programa del micromovilidad agregaría las bicis tradicionales, bicis 
electrónicas y también bicis para gente con discapacidades. ¿Cuál tipo de vehículo usarías? (Selecciona 
las que te apliquen)  
a. Bicicletas tradicionales  
b. Bicicletas electrónicas  
c. Scooters electrónicos (o patinetes electrónicos) 
d. Vehículos para gente con discapacidades  
(si la D es seleccionada – ¿Qué tipo de vehículos para gente con discapacidades te interesan?) 
 
6. ¿Tienes otras preocupaciones que se deberían de incluir en este plan?  
 
7. Te gustaría recibir actualizaciones sobre el programa de micromovilidad? Escriba su nombre e 
información como correo electrónico, numero o dirección para poder contactarnos con usted.

Theme 1: Support for Boundary Expansion
Comments expressing support for boundary expansion
Subtheme 1: Boundary Expansion without Lock-to Requirement
Comments expressing support for a boundary expansion without implementing the lock-
to requirement
Subtheme 2: General Support for Expansion
Comments expressing general support for boundary expansion
Subtheme 3: Expansion with Lock-to
Comments expressing support for a boundary expansion and implementing the lock-to 
requirement
Theme 2: Comment Unrelated to Question
Comments that do not address a boundary expansion
Subtheme 1: Support for More Bike Infrastructure
Comments expressing a desire for more infrastructure improvements for 
bicycle/micromobility users on roadways (e.g. protected bike lanes)
Subtheme 2: Supportive of Micromobility
Comments expressing support for the micromobility program or micromobility in general
Subtheme 3: Opposed to Micromobility
Comments expressing opposition to the micromobility program or micromobility vehicles 
in general
Subtheme 4: Miscellaneous
Comments about the survey or comments about other topics outside of micromobility
Theme 3: Support for Current System
Comments expressing support for the existing program boundary and corral parking 
requirement
Theme 1: Responses Related to Boundary Expansion
Comments related to boundary expansion
Subtheme 1: Support for Larger Boundary Expansions Than 
Proposed
Comments expressing support for a larger boundary expansion than proposed/city-wide 
expansion
Subtheme 2: General Support for Boundary Expansion
Comments expressing general support for boundary expansion
Subtheme 3: Support for Proposed Boundary Expansions
Comments expressing support for the proposed boundary expansions
Subtheme 4: No Expansion Preferred
Comments expressing opposition to any sort of boundary expansion/keeping current 
boundary
Theme 2: Responses Unrelated to Boundary Expansion
Comments unrelated to boundary expansion
Subtheme 1: Support for More Bike Infrastructure
Comments expressing a desire for more infrastructure improvements for 
bicycle/micromobility users on roadways (e.g. protected bike lanes)
Subtheme 2: Other Concerns
Other comments unrelated to boundary expansion
Subtheme 3: General Support for Micromobility
Comments expressing general support for micromobility
APPENDIX B
QUESTION 6: COMMENTS REGARDING BOUNDARY EXPANSION/PARKING REQUIREMENT
QUESTION 8: COMMENTS REGARDING BOUNDARY EXPANSION VERSIONS
Code Book for Online Survey Comments

Theme 1: Program Related
Comments related to the existing e-scooter pilot program or the proposed 
comprehensive micromobility program
Subtheme 1: Discontent with Program (As Proposed)
Comments expressing discontent with the comprehensive micromobility program as 
proposed
Subtheme 2: General Support for Program as Proposed
Comments expressing general support for the comprehensive micromobility program as 
proposed
Subtheme 3: Additional Suggestions for Program
Comments that provide additional suggestions on the proposed comprehensive 
micromobility program
Subtheme 4: Emphasized Bike Share
Comments emphasizing a desire for the return of a traditional bike share program (e.g. 
Grid Bike Share)
Theme 2: Policy Related
Comments related to City of Phoenix transportation policy
Subtheme 1: Rider/User Safety
Comments expressing policy changes to improve safety for 
pedestrian/bicyclists/micromobilty users
Subtheme 2: Support for More Bike Infrastructure
Comments expressing a desire for more infrastructure improvements for 
bicycle/micromobility users on roadways (e.g. protected bike lanes)
Subtheme 3: Broader Transportation Goals
Comments expressing broader changes to existing policy for transportation within the 
City of Phoenix
Theme 3: Other
Miscellaneous comments
QUESTION 11: OVERALL ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX C 
Question 6 Comments 
Theme 1: Support for Boundary Expansion 
Subtheme 1: Boundary Expansion without Lock-to Requirement 
Have used Lock-to in San Francisco and it really is not that 
great. Another barrier to keep people from choosing e-
scooters over cars and we need more people getting out 
of cars in the first place! 
Lock to doesn't make much sense. Why would you lock it to 
something? We should be free to leave it otherwise people will 
just lock it without locking to something. don't make it more 
complicated and have us touching more things in a pandemic. 
Lock-to parking will create an additional barrier to entry 
for customers interested in using micromobility vehicles. 
I won’t use this system if I have to lock it to something. 
I only chose keeping the current boundaries because lock 
to makes no sense. These vehicles need to ready available 
for the next rider to use also your limiting where these 
vehicles can be ridden to. If there has to be a bike rack or 
some sort of pole that people are allowed to secure 
something to. They will end up locked to all kinds things 
you don’t want. It will not help the current state of our air 
pollution or get cars off the road if the lock to comes into 
play no one could ride to their homes unless they have 
bike racks outside. It’s just a bad idea. Hundreds of cities 
have these vehicles without these off the wall stipulations 
One of the best features about dockless micro mobility is the 
ease of which you can unlock a device and start a ride. Being 
able to drop off in a "Corral" is also much more preferable than 
having to find a bike rack to lock up a bike or scooter. This 
seems like a step in the wrong direction if requiring riders to 
unlock and lock these devices. 
I'm worried that locking scooters to private property will 
cause other problems and make it difficult to quickly 
move them if/when necessary. 
Current boundaries are a lot more helpful. Lock-to will cause 
many problems 
It will take a lot if money to build the parking rack every 
where. 
I believe lock-to will make scooters less rideable for users as it 
makes something so simple overly complicated. I am not in 
support of lock to whatsoever 
Vehicles with locks are not very successful in other cities.   
The locks often prevent perfectly usable vehicle from 
being available which really affects availability of vehicles.  
Vehicles get locked to one another or to different 
company vehicles which causes a nuisance for riders.  Plus 
it increases the cost of micromobility service. 
I’ve been to other cities with lock to and it’s a mess - scooters 
locked up to people’s fences, Ada areas, staircase railings, trash 
cans/dumpsters, etc. Then you can’t just move it, someone from 
the company has to be called to get it. I don’t think it’s a good 
idea. 
Adding lock-to for micromobility in Phoenix just adds 
another barrier to entry and provides another reason for 
riders to take a car instead. It makes the entire process of 
renting a scooter and parking a scooter more difficult for 
people. 
Requiring lock-to increases the barrier to transportation with 
less benefit. 
Won’t be able to always find a place to lock. No locks. 
This sounds like it would add a step for me to end/start my 
rides, and that isn't something I'm interested in. 
Requiring locks on scooters just introduces an 
unnecessary and cumbersome way to end a ride.  Please 
find a better way to enforce end ride corrals. 
Lock to is crazy. We let cars park ANYWHERE... Scooters would 
be great outside of downtown where I could use slow 
neighborhood streets and canals to get around. Drivers 
downtown need to slow down. 
I have personally experienced riding scooters in markets 
with locks and it is far more restrictive. I often find it 
harder to find scooters and even harder to find places to 
park. When traveling with a group on scooters it’s very 
hard to find a location with enough bike racks to lock all 
our scooters to. Instead, we just take Ubers and Lyfts or 
drive. 
I prefer neither option. I want to expand the boundaries without 
lock-to parking. Why can't we expand the boundaries and use 
corral based parking? It should be easy to do. I have been to 
other cities and they are doing all kinds of innovative things. 
These options dont make any sense at all and are behind the 
times.

Lock to is a bad idea 
Expanding the boundaries would make it easier to use for traffic 
reduction but having the lock to would create more of a 
problem than solution 
Lock-to parking reduces the number of trips I'm able to 
make. It's a friction point when I'm trying to use an 
environmentally friendly form of transit. I hate driving & 
contributing to global warming, but these kind of 
decisions like having to lock up your scooter make me far 
more likely to take an Uber or Lyft and don't help the 
community. 
I am in favor of expanding the boundaries but NOT allowing 
"lock to" parking inside or outside downtown Phoenix. Painted 
parking areas or other technology that achieves the same effect. 
Lock-to sounds like a requirement that the general public 
would never adhere to. 
Locking would be a hinderence for consumers and for the city 
Not sure how you would enforce this 
I would like the expansion with the corrals 
Question 3 answers do not cover my recommendation.  I 
recommend expanding the boundary WITHOUT lock to 
parking requirements 
I just moved here from Germany and the program works 
extremely well without a lock to or corral program, makes it 
much easier for people to actually use it all the way to their 
destination . 
I don't think lock to technology is the best option. 
Parking restrictions have failed and should be removed 
I think the Lock-to rule is reductive and lame. What if I do 
not have a bike rack outside of my home, like 99.9% of 
houses?     Please just make mobility easier, Phoenix is 
consistently so afraid of the worst case scenario that we 
are years behind any other city in terms of shade, 
transportation and more.     Stupid options on this, Jfc. 
Don't take away bike racks from private citizens so that 
corporations can use them. If you want these scooters locked up 
the companies that supply them should fund it. Not get free use 
of public racks 
Locking shouldn't be necessary nor should scooter corrals 
in expanding neighborhoods. 
Expand the boundaries with no corrals or lock down areas 
We allow unrestricted car parking all over town which 
wastes much more space than scooters- there should not 
be restrictions limiting micro mobility parking to only 
certain spots, which makes the system less useful 
Expand the boundaries and loosen the parking restrictions. The 
companies will figure out how best to manage scooter parking. 
Also we need more protected bike lanes to ride scooters safely 
in. Phoenix streets are so dangerous and it's clear the city 
prioritizes cars. 
I don't feel there's enough additional racking 
infrastructure available to allow the lock to method to 
work in it's current form. I am a cyclist, there are few 
enough racks as is. 
I think chasing down the "lock to" scooters would be too 
expensive and people are too dumb. 
Subtheme 2: General Support for Expansion 
I currently own a RAD Power Ebike in 25 months have 
rode 5,500. Ebikes should be allowed in all areas the same 
as regular analog bikes and mountain bikes, including the 
PhoenixMountain Preserves. Thanks! 
I ride my personal bicycle 99% of the time but support the 
expansion as it seems to support folks getting out and around 
downtown, which is always good in my opinion 
Good idea thouh 
I would like to see micro-mobility regulations to expand to other 
similar classes like Onewheels and EUCs. 
Please expand the boundaries asap! People want ways of 
getting around the city without relying on the almighty car  
Boundaries should be expanded to serve neighborhoods 
surrounding downtown Phoenix and along the light rail up to 
midtown and uptown. 
I would ride/use these services way more if the 
boundaries were extended, or best, eliminated.   
Make the scooter program permanent. Expand the area. Add 
more protected lanes for them to safely be used. 
I live slightly west of 7th ave near McDowell and would 
love scooters near me. They would be great for 
neighborhoods just outside of downtown where walking 
can take too much time. 
Expand the boundaries around light rail stations

A full expansion needs to happen so that we all can take it vantage of the program. The current restrictions do not allow for 
us residence throughout the valley to utilize this motive transportation 
Subtheme 3: Expansion with Lock-to 
The boundaries are inconvenient and parking them only in 
the Corrales is inconvenient but I would support locking 
them to fix devices such as signpost, streetlights, and bike 
racks. 
Having these parked anywhere causes a great number of safety 
barriers for individuals with a wide variety of disabilities, 
including but not limited to blindness & mobility impairments    
I frequently saw scooters outside the corral, and it’s 
annoying to walk over them. Can the lock to park feature 
be extended to the corral areas?  
I think this is fantastic, maybe something by bus stops close to 
major intersections for a person to pick up the device.  That 
way they can use the bus and then use this device 
 
Theme 2: Comment Unrelated to Question 
Subtheme 1: More Supportive Infrastructure 
Please focus on safety and rules for riding on sidewalks/road. 
road also must be designed to be safe and attractive for 
riders to use! 
More bike lanes, too. 
As a bicycle commuter I'm concerned about vehicles blocking 
sidewalks (I'd rather have bike lanes but the sidewalk is often 
the safer option on streets without a bike lane. ) 
The best thing you can do for scooters is provide safe places 
to use them... by taking space away from cars. 
Make bike lanes protected and put them everywhere! 
Phoenix is a hot city. We need bike garage and public 
showers. 
you need to reduce down the speed limits so people can 
actually use these on the street. 
Please actually add bicycle lanes. Stop this whole sharrow 
stuff and disconnected network 
expand bike and scooter infrastructure so pedal bikes can 
also have more parking options 
Perhaps some corrals could be considered at certain areas 
outside of downtown. 
Also add more micromobility lanes in roadways with 
adequate widths or low enough traffic volumes 
Based on experience in other cities a plan that connects 
neighborhoods to transit stops with scooters via a protected 
bike lane network is a must. These can be an extremely 
important abs useful piece  of the sustainable transport 
network 
Subtheme 2: Supportive of Micromobility 
We'd Like to see the New Bird Scooters make it in to Phoenix 
our city needs more transportation options besides cars 
Spin is by far the best scooters our city has. Great rates and 
reliable product 
If lock-to is required for e-scooters, more bike racks should 
be added 
Yes, expand policy options to better enable owned AND 
shared micromobility options. The docking requirements may 
differ between the two, but our policy shouldn't be solely 
driven by private partnerships that may come and go. I own 
my own equipment and often struggle with 
parking/docking/locking it up. It isn't fair that a single 
company should have superior access to our public  right of 
way. 
Why are there not more scooters and bikes around? Gas is 
so expensive and we are just wasting our lives sitting in 
traffic. Also cars kill people not scooters, I always see 
scooters parked in right places. Why are we not doing more 
to reduce car speeds and add more bike lanes? 
Loving the scooters! They're so great and convenient! 
E-bikes are needed for downtown Phoenix!

I used the Grid share bike program and was extremely disappointed when it ended. I'd love to have another bike share. 
Subtheme 3: Opposed to Micromobility 
Having worked downtown for decades, the GRID bike 
program appeared to me to be not very useful and added to 
downtown 'clutter' - many of the bikes were left away from 
the docking stations and I saw firsthand how regularly they 
were left in disrepair. As for scooters in the downtown area, I 
continually see them left about randomly, including left laying 
down, against buildings, blocking sidewalks, and strewn about 
various areas, despite the vendors saying they could control 
this with technology. It should be fixed before it's expanded. 
Everyday scooters are left outside of corrals blocking 
sidewalks. Scooter riders ride on sidewalks making it difficult 
for pedestrians. Have almost been hit over 15 times. 
Discontinue program all together. Unsafe for pedestrians. 
There is no enforcement mechanism to make sure scooters 
are not ridden on sidewalks. Therefore discontinue the 
scooter program  to protect pedestrian safety. 
I think this will make even more of a mess on our beautiful 
streets and take away from the bikers access to racks 
You can find these abandoned throughout the city and I 
have seen the piles at scrap yards of unclaimed ones no 
need to fund such waist 
In other cities, these scooters and ebikes are left anywhere 
the last rider left it, they block business and private property.  
They are not a solution, and just become another 
inconvenience to citizens imposed by for profit corporations. 
Other cities I have visited with e-scooters the riders are a 
menace to traffic and pedestrians. Most do not follow safety 
rules. Scooters left scattered. Would prefer to not have 
these in Phoenix. 
No one actually uses the parking corrals and they just dump 
the scooters wherever...on the side of the road or in the 
middle of the sidewalk. The city needs to work with the 
businesses to enforce the geofencing so that people can't just 
leave the scooters wherever. 
I would prefer increased public transport rather than 
scooters. They are an okay idea but people are to 
irresponsible with them in the downtown area. Riders block 
pedestrians regularly and cut through traffic causing 
dangerous roadway conditions 
 
Theme 3: Support for Current System 
Seems that the system currently in place works well.  
 
Question 8 Comments 
Theme 1: Responses Related to Boundary Expansion 
Subtheme 1: Support for Larger Boundary Expansion Than Proposed 
Even larger would be better. 
Expand with no boundaries 
Rail mainly goes through wealthier parts of Phoenix. 
Why not expand along major bus routes as well to 
better serve all Phoenicians? 
Why are we limiting the area micromobility can go? 
We don’t limit where cars can go. Transportation 
access or equity? It should be a city wide program. 
Require these private companies to put bikes and 
scooters throughout the city. I shouldn’t have to 
jump in my car to go 1 mile away to the store. 
Include the Capitol Extension of Light Rail - out to 19th 
Ave 
Still extremely limiting 
The expansion should be city-wide or at least 3-4 mile 
buffers around transit 
The 2 mile boundary is great however the consistent 
limitation to provide us who do not drive adequate 
transportation isn’t fair. 
I don’t understand why we would limit the boundaries 
of where one could ride — are cars limited on where 
they can drive? 
What about anyone living outside of the two mile 
boundary? Again extremely poor options and it goes 
to show how pathetic city planning is in regards to 
everything being planned for the worst case scenario 
smh

Please expand the area so more people can use 
scooters 
Mobility shouldn’t just be for downtown and areas 
near the light rail. Most people don’t even use the 
light rail; it’s only a good option for a small minority 
of people. 
I would be in favor of expanding the two mile boundary 
west of I-17 near the Maryland Avenue pedestrian 
overpass 
Not sure I completely understand, but I think it would 
be best to provide as large a footprint for riders as 
possible so we can get to more places. 
Yes, micromobility is most helpful for midrange travel. 
One mile is definitely not sufficient for exploiting the 
potential range of micromobility. Two miles seems like 
a better starting point, if not more. 
this has gone on long enough. expand to the whole 
city 
In all reality I do not think there should be boundaries. Perhaps there should be boundaries where you drop 
them off to start but they should be open and available to everyone throughout the city. Also I own my own 
scooter so it would be nice if my friends could rent them and go further than just downtown. 
Subtheme 2: General Support for Boundary Expansion 
More access in a big city is crucial. 
More expansion means more equitable 
transportation for more people 
I’m not sure that I actually have a preference. I like the 
idea of expanding it around the light rail. 1 mile would 
serve me. 2 miles would serve more people. I would 
favor starting at 1 mile and moving outwards as 
appropriate 
The larger the area, the greater impact and usability 
the scooters will have for any users.  The network 
effect is critical for success and limiting car usage. 
Need more flexibility and expansion on where you can 
go. 
The more space for people to choose to ride 
something other than a car the better. This is the 
most equitable way to allow more people to ride 
micromobility 
The larger area the better.  The general public in 
downtown areas love to use this type of transportation 
I use scooters regularly, so the farther I can ride 
them, the better! 
The larger the area, the better 
More places to ride, more business can make money. 
Any expansion is good. Most expansion is best. 
More access the better 
Making micro-mobility as useful as possible to as many people as possible is how we get reliance on cars and 
their huge cost on society rethought. 
Subtheme 3: Support for Proposed Boundary Expansions 
The neighborhoods encompassed in the two-mile 
expansion would appreciate and use micromobility. I've 
lived in one for five years. 
I feel like a 2 mile corridor would be more beneficial 
to not only the product consumer, but also the extra 
revenue generation due to the extra distance. 
I would live to use this expansion.  
I am not opposed to a 2-mile, but would not use it. 
I think increasing transportation options that aren't 
vehicle related is great. Really want this to work.  
The more alternative transportation available, the 
better. 
Two miles is better. It allows for more flexibility in 
route planning, especially if say, you decide to geo-lock 
certain parts of downtown (like what happened around 
ASU in Tempe) 
a two miles expansion would create a better 
boundary aligning with the city grid (streets) and not 
promote 'dog leg boundaries' parallel to the light rail 
configurations.  
the two mile would be best as it would incorporate the sunnyslope area and the transit center located their but 
then also the foot/cycle traffic that central gets and then also it would enhance the use of the canals with the 
devices for recreation.  Great idea! 
Subtheme 4: No Expansion Preferred

You’re survey is really poor.  There should be no 
extension  
No expansion preferred 
This program should be kept to the downtown area 
No expansion 
 
Theme 2: Responses Unrelated to Boundary Expansion 
Subtheme 1: Support for More Bike Infrastructure 
Same as my previous response: Add bicycle lanes 
Dedicated bike routes 
The more micromobility options the better. But please 
consider adding micromobility lanes/more bike lanes in this 
area 
This must come with road safety for these scooters. Scooters 
should be ridden on the street, but no one will do that if 
design favors car speed over pedestrian and micro-mobolists 
safety! 
Expansion should include all modes--pedal bikes, ebikes, 
scooters.  More protected bike lanes will help to make sure 
they are not ridden on the sidewalk or conflict with cars. 
If people are required to ride these scooters in the 
street/bike lanes, that's never going to happen outside of 
downtown because people drive 55 mph on a 35 mph 
arterial street and there are NO protected bike lanes 
anywhere. This will end up forcing scooter riders to speed 
down sidewalks that are already too narrow--if they exist at 
all--endangering pedestrians and dog walkers. 
The pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is very dangerous. Expanding the range of the program also needs proper 
infrastructure to support it. I want to use the light rail, but the only time I tried biking there I was almost killed by a driver.  
Subtheme 2: Other Concerns 
My concern is the lock to devices impacting the community 
Discontinue program due to pedestrian safety. 
I wouldn’t want to see scooters laying around on the streets.  
Scooters don't do much for transit ridership plus or minus. 
You should focus on scooter trips as scooter trips, not first 
mile/last mile stuff. Besides, headways are too long for 
transfers to be effective. 
Kinda curious how you guys are extending this into Tempe and Mesa....? How's that working? Are Tempe and Mesa going to 
be able to weigh in on this survey? 
Subtheme 3: General Support for Micromobility 
Scooter riding is fun 
Add bikeshare 
Micro-mobility has been an incredible change for our cities 
transportation on reducing our carbon footprint  
Ebikes are great! 
 
Question 11 Comments 
Theme 1: Program Related 
Subtheme 1: Discontent with Program (As Proposed) 
I do not trust most people to use these safely. There 
needs to be strict enforcement for safety. 
The city tried bikes a couple years ago and it ended 
with increased theft and tons of wasted bikes. I do not 
support this 
Come on, do better  
Please be more progressive and stop the restrictions 
and limitations. 
Really disappointed in the way this program was 
handled. We are in a climate crisis and we are over 
regulating clean air micromobility bikes and scooters. 
Our kids are going to pay the ultimate price. Please do 
more to remove car trips by making it easier to use 
these devices not harder. Which looks to be the way 
this is looking. Very disheartening.  
I completely disagree with lock to and it won’t help 
anything  
Discontinue scooter program to ensure pedestrian 
safety. 
I know in Scottsdale these scooters became a menace, 
dangerous to people walking, cluttering paths all over.

Scooters are dangerous for sidewalks.  
 
Subtheme 2: General Support for Program as Proposed 
The shared scooters are very helpful to me.  they are 
convenient for short trips, to and from the bus stop, 
etc. 
Adding a mix of different types of mobility options is 
key. Electric bikes, cargo bikes, regular bikes, and 
scooters.  
We love the growth  
Please expand these program to all modes. Thank you.  
The e-scooters are super important to the community. 
Scooter riding is fun 
Thank YOU for including the disability community with 
this plan.  ! 
 
Subtheme 3: Additional Suggestions for Program 
Thank you for including adaptive modes. Please be 
mindful to be forward-thinking in the inclusivity of the 
micromobility offerings (which may be privately 
owned) including but not limited to hoverboards, 
onewheels, etc. 
Leave the definitions and criteria vague and allow the 
participating companies to innovate. They have a 
financial incentive to produce options that people 
want to use.  
Speed caps should be lifted 
Just expand the system without boundaries 
Love this program and would like to see it expand 
further. 
Require a minimum number of vehicles to be available 
during summer, as even though ridership drops during 
that time, the people who rely on these vehicles need 
them. 
Subtheme 4: Emphasized Bike Share 
I'd love the grid bikes to return if we got a better 
vendor. Most of the equipment was broken for the 
prior bikes and they weren't easy to check out. 
Boston, Minneapolis, salt lake city, Lima peru - so 
many cities have superior bike share options with 
higher quality equipment  
I can't stress how important it is to have an operable 
pedal bike share program across the City, similar to 
what was existing with Grid. although it may not be 
incredibly profitable, it is essential to provide equity 
and accessibility in neighborhoods. Pedal bikes for all 
increase the quality of life and allow for people to 
better explore our City, serving as mini economic 
development engines. 
Would love to see a bike share back in Downtown 
Phoenix  
 
 
Theme 2: Policy Related 
Subtheme 1: Rider/User Safety 
The only way to get wide use of these it to provide 
safe spaces to use them in... by taking space away 
from cars. 
More bike lanes! Also, in busy areas bike lanes should 
be separated from busy vehicle traffic for safety 
purposes. 
This program is destined to fail as long as the apps 
allow people to abandon scooters outside of the 
parking zones and as long as there are close to zero 
protected bike lanes anywhere in this city. Phoenix has 
some of the most clueless, hostile, cavalier drivers in 
this country and I don't feel safe riding a bike on the 
street, much less a puttering scooter. 
The cycling infrastructure in this city is terrifying to 
use. Bike lanes aren't protected and the routes 
randomly start and stop. Even when bike lanes exists, 
they stop right before the intersection for some 
reason. The intersection is where we need it the most. 
I would love to use a bike share, but I also feel like I 
will be killed.   
Please design safer streets. No one wants to ride 
scooters if it's just easier to drive.  
Yeah, please reduce traffic speeds to make the streets 
safer for micromobility. 
Riding scooters in downtown Phoenix can be scary at 
times. There needs to be a shift in the car centered 
culture of the locations served by the light rail. 
Please adopt Vision Zero. Road design must be 
designed to favor these options over cars (reduce 
speed limits, protect bike lanes) or else all you'll have 
is dead pedestrians and cyclists.

I have my own scooter and I do not want to be restricted to just the bike lane. In some instances such as a long 
Central Avenue riding on the road seems dangerous the writing on the sidewalk should be an option when there 
are fewer pedestrians walking. 
Subtheme 2: Support for More Bike Infrastructure 
More bike lanes. These modes won't be popular until 
people feel safe using them. Don't over regulate them. 
Keep the rules simple. Encourage innovation in vehicle 
types. 
Can we put additional bike racking on city busses? 
Some only have two slots, my commute is 25 miles 
round trip and I can't always catch a bus because I 
can't load my bike. The caveat is I travel PHX to Mesa, 
outside that zone. 
Bicycle lanes 
More noticeable spots to lock your bicycle  
Subtheme 3: Broader Transportation Goals 
Every trip not taken in a car saves society money, 
lower taxes, lower fuel costs, less time wasted in 
traffic congestion.  Be a city of the future. 
Our city should seek to be ahead of the curve in 
innovative traffic solutions, not behind the curve. 
Phoenix must act quickly and aggressively to expand non-car mobility options. Enough with the pilots and 
restrictions that hinder the usefulness of these vital transportation options. During overlapping crises of climate, 
air quality, and transportation/housing affordability, the city needs to support zero carbon, low cost 
transportation *citywide* and stop catering only to drivers 
 
Theme 3: Other 
Go Cardinals 
Who paid who in the city to get these placed?