COF 2026-97 · Agenda item attachment · Jun 24 2026

COF 2026-97 FIRST IN COUNCIL June 24, 2026 City of Cambridge A true copy; ATTEST:- Paula M. Crane, Interim City Clerk

City of Cambridge A communication was received from Mus Lamia, Transportation Planning Work-Study Intern, transmitting a presentation related to Micromobility and written testimony from the Cambridge Department of Transportation to the State Joint Committee on Transportation Re: Bill S.3077 Ride Safe Act: An Ace to enhance the safe use of micromobility.

Micromobility Hearing Transportation & Public Utilities Committee Wednesday, June 24, 2026 1

• Micromobility devices are: • Human-powered, electric, and gas-powered bicycles, scooters, mopeds, tricycles, unicycles, skateboards, one-wheels, hoverboards, etc. • Today's Agenda: • Updates on Cambridge's efforts on micromobility • State’s Special Commission on Micromobility’s recommendations • Ride Safe Act S.3077 • Next steps • Feedback and questions Update on Micromobility 2

3 Cambridge Transportation Policies and Plans 1992 1993 1998 1973 2018 2015 2015 2016 2019 2020 2019 2025 2022 2024 Cambridge is committed to better managing our streets and encouraging safer travel behaviors while working towards our transportation goals.

4 Cambridge Transportation Goals Have Evolved 1. Remove climate pollution from transportation in Cambridge (by 2050) 2. Create a better, more equitable transportation system for people of all ages and abilities 3. Improve economic opportunity and address historic injustices 4. Create a stronger and more connected community Micromobility can help us reach these goals. 55% of trips in Middlesex County are 3 miles or less. Micromobility offers a convenient, affordable, and low-emission way to travel short distances.

Review of Council Action on Micromobility • February 2024: POR 2024 #17: Policy Order asking for clarity on the City’s ability to regulate all electric micromobility devices on bike paths and public ways or whether such regulation is preempted by State law. • June 25, 2024: Council Hearing with staff from the Law Department, CDD, and TPT. Discussion of what is allowed and where, under current state law. Overall themes: • Confusion about what is allowed under state law and who can regulate what • Car dominance in Cambridge streets and safety concerns • Infrastructure needs for growing micromobility use • March 11, 2026: Cambridge Department of Transportation requested a City Council hearing to provide an update on micromobility. • June 24, 2026: Council Hearing to receive update from staff on recent developments. 5

6 What has Cambridge done on micromobility while waiting for guidance from the state? • Cambridge internal New Mobility working group • Regional working group with the MAPC and Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline • Biennial bike counts incorporate micromobility devices • Maximum 18mph speed limit on Bluebikes e-bikes • E-bike information provided through the Cambridge Resident Bike Lottery • Cycling Safety Ordinance

7 Internal New Mobility Working Group Purpose: Interdepartmental coordination on regulations, enforcement, etc. related to New Mobility, including micromobility Outcomes (specific to micromobility): • Cambridge has clear policies and regulations for micromobility riding, charging, and storage • Staff is coordinated and agree on how to set rules and do enforcement • Cambridge has a plan for education and engagement around safety and etiquette Process: Monthly meeting; agenda set to respond to group member priorities Members: Transportation, Law, Community Development, Disabilities Commission, Public Works, Police, Public Health, Schools

8 What has Cambridge done on micromobility while waiting for guidance from the state? …continued • Education and FAQ • Cambridge Street Code • E-bike battery recycling and safe storage info • Engaged with MassDOT and the Special Commission on Micromobility • Comprehensive Crash Data Collection • Submitted a comment letter to the state legislature and attended the State's Joint Committee on Transportation's hearing on the Ride Safe Act

Overview: Micromobility Safety on Cambridge Streets • The Cambridge Police Department (CPD) enforces traffic laws for all road users. CPD uses a combined education and enforcement approach for micromobility infractions. • Written warnings and citations are grouped by the type of device as opposed to the specific violation: • All Bicycle Violations (including E-Bikes) [MGL 85/11B] • All Moped Violations [MGL 90/1B] • All E-Scooter Violations [MGL 90/1E] • Common infractions observed for these types of devices include: • Failing to stop for red lights/stop signs • Riding on the sidewalk • Traveling the wrong way on one-way streets • CPD collects some of the most comprehensive crash data in the state of Massachusetts and was recognized as a model city for data collection by the Special Commission on Micromobility (p.36, 62). • Most crash report forms only record crashes involving motor vehicles. • Cambridge’s system records all collisions with vulnerable road users, helping to provide a more complete picture of how our streets are used. 9

Overview of 2025 Micromobility Data 14% of crashes in the city involved micromobility (231 incidents total, including 4 with pedestrians) →32% of micromobility crashes (74 incidents) required EMS transport. →6% of crashes (11 incidents) involved children under 18. →912 total citations were issued to bicyclists, e-bikes, mopeds, and e-scooters in 2025 and 812 of those (89%) were written warnings (no fines or charges issued). CPD informed riders on the rules of the road. Source: Cambridge Police Department 10

Micromobility and Pedestrian Crash Data 11 Source: Cambridge Police Department • The majority of micromobility crashes involve interactions with motor vehicles. • Highest numbers of crashes happen during periods of high traffic, when most people are on the roads. • Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays • Between 5–6pm • In August through October • CPD collects very detailed data about what type of micromobility devices are involved in each crash. LEGEND MV = Motor vehicle Micro = Micromobility H&R = Hit and Run PED = Pedestrian

Overview: State's Special Commission on Micromobility 12 2024 2026 Special Commission on Micromobility established Commission convened to develop recommendations • Policymakers, researchers, elected officials, industry experts, and advocates research and review micromobility regulations • Cambridge engaged with the Commission and MassDOT to help shape research and recommendations 2025 January 2026: Commission releases report and recommendations • 16 recommendations across 4 categories May 2026: Ride Safe Act • Governor Healy files the Ride Safe Act advancing key recommendations from the Commission. • State Joint Committee on Transportation held bill hearing • Cambridge submitted testimony in support with requests for further clarity Source: Office of the Governor

Which of these is a Motorized Bicycle? 13 1 2 Source: MassDOT

Overview: Current Regulatory Landscape for Micromobility • Currently, Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) are outdated, disjointed, and sometimes contradicting when it comes to micromobility. • MGL does not capture the wide range of devices that we see on our streets and on the market. • Previous laws gave the state authority to regulate some devices on some surface types but didn't explicitly preclude municipal regulation. • Cities lack clear guidance on • which devices are permitted on streets vs. bike lanes vs. sidewalks vs. paths • whether municipalities can put parameters or prohibit the use of devices in certain areas or on certain surfaces. • Transitioning and Overlapping Infrastructure: surfaces and street types that micromobility devices ride on change over time and throughout a single ride, complicating regulation and enforcement. 14

State Legislation: Ride Safe Act • Key provisions: • First-in the nation speed-based classification schema for micromobility • Updates regulatory and legislative definitions • Device definitions • Creation of working groups on crash reporting and the exploration of 'MicroID' • Restrictions on mopeds from bike lanes • Remove devices over 20mph from shared use paths • Require helmets for high-speed devices • Adopt a UL-like standard for device batteries • Place a 16+ age restriction on higher speed devices • Notably, the legislation does NOT change device restrictions and user rules for lower speed devices to preserve widespread access to mobility. 15 Source: Office of the Governor

Special Commission on Micromobility Report Recommendations p.43 - 46 ---------------------------KEY references recommendation numbers in Special Commission's Report # 1 Legal and Regulatory Changes 16 • Updates definitions within MGL and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) to remedy inconsistencies and confusion within state law and accommodate micromobility growth and classification • Renames “motorized bicycle” as “moped” and disallows them from bike lanes and off- street recreational paths. • Adds new legal definitions to bring state law up to date to set up speed tier system (recommendation 2) and device categorization • Differentiates between solely human powered and powered, motor-assisted devices (gas, electric, hybrid, or other non-human-powered propulsion systems) • Outlines processes including micromobility device registration or 'MicroID' (recommendation 3) through the RMV, micromobility device requirements and operating rules

Speed-Based Classification -Tiers Special Commission on Micromobility Report Recommendations p.48-49 2 Includes Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes 17

Speed-Based Classification - Device Requirements 2 Special Commission on Micromobility Report Recommendations p.50-51 18

Speed-Based Classification - User Operational Requirements 2 Special Commission on Micromobility Report p.52-53 19

Speed-Based Classification –– Travel Allowances What types of devices are allowed and where? 2 Special Commission on Micromobility Report Recommendations p.54-55 20

Micro ID 3 Special Commission on Micromobility Report Recommendations The Micro ID system would be a light-touch, identification framework coordinated through the RMV, for device verification. Using a tamper-evident decal with QR/NFC that links to a record confirming device information to help law enforcement identify devices going faster than the designated speed limit. The Ride Safe Act sets up a working group to help develop this system. p.56-57 21

Next Steps • Track the progress of the Ride Safe Act and continue engaging with the Legislature, MassDOT, and the RMV to advocate for its swift adoption • Cambridge will align with State Law. • Continue to implement street design changes that make it safer for people to walk, ride, and roll in Cambridge • Use traffic data to conduct intersection safety audits and implement proven countermeasures to reduce safety risks through the Intersection Safety Program • Explore additional Bluebikes safety education • Provide micromobility and helmet safety education • Communicate with bike shops to ensure the sale of micromobility devices in line with state standards • Expand outreach to inform the public of the upcoming new regulation for micromobility riders 22

Questions? 23

May 28, 2026 Brendan P. Crighton, Senate Chair James Arciero, House Chair Commonwealth of Massachusetts Joint Committee on Transportation 24 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02133 Re: Bill S.3077 Ride Safe Act: An Act to enhance the safe use of micromobility devices Dear Joint Committee on Transportation Members, On behalf of the City of Cambridge, we provide written testimony in support of Bill S.3077, the Ride Safe Act (“Act”), and submit the following requests for further clarification on the implementation of this critical bill. The Act is a promising step to promote the use of and enhance the safe use of micromobility devices across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It offers long-needed clarity in statutory and regulatory definitions of the Massachusetts General Law required for the City of Cambridge and other cities and towns across the state to begin educating and enforcing consistent rules and penalties for micromobility device use. Electric bikes and other micromobility devices are rapidly growing in popularity and transforming how our streets function. This Act establishes standardized safety regulations applicable to all riders and device types, with stricter requirements for higher-speed devices, including registration, insurance, and roadway restrictions. Micromobility will be essential to achieving Cambridge's climate and mobility goals of eliminating transportation-related climate pollution by 2050 and creating a more equitable transportation system for people of all ages and abilities. Once there is greater clarity in the law, municipalities will be able to better educate the public on the rules of the road. The speed-based classification system in this Bill is particularly valuable. It creates a logical framework of device requirements, operational standards, and travel allowances that will simplify both regulation and compliance as the technology and market for devices continue to evolve. While we strongly support S.3077, the City of Cambridge respectfully requests that the following further clarification be amended into the bill’s language: 1. Conflicting regulatory authority for micromobility registration, operation, and labeling: Line 179 of the Act appears to conflict with the 2022 State E-bike Law Section 11B3/4 (Chapter 85 of the MGL, section(h)). The Act designates the RMV to regulate micromobility registration, insurance, fines, and other requirements. “The registrar may promulgate regulations establishing registration, licensure,

City of Cambridge Bill S.3077 Ride Safe Act Testimony, Page 2 insurance, fines and other requirements for micromobility devices necessary to promote public and roadway safety.” Act (Line 178-181) (h) The 2022 E-bike Law designates the Secretary of Transportation with these responsibilities. “The secretary of transportation may promulgate regulations for electric bicycles in the commonwealth, including, but not limited, to their safe operation and proper labeling. The secretary shall submit any such proposed regulations to the clerks of the house of representatives and senate and the joint committee on transportation not later than 30 days prior to their effective date.” Chapter 85 Section 11B3/4: (h) To prevent confusion and eliminate discrepancies, we request that there only one regulatory body is charged with the responsibilities for developing these regulations. Overlapping or conflicting regulatory oversight can result in inconsistencies and confusion for constituents and municipal bodies. 2. Infrastructure transitions: In cities like Cambridge, it is common for a bike path to merge into a bike lane and back into a shared bikeway, all within the span of a five- to ten-minute bike ride. Under the bill as currently written, Speed Tier 2 and Speed Tier 3 devices are prohibited from operating on "bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, separated micromobility lanes, or shared use paths" (Section 17(d)(5)(C)). When these infrastructure types connect in the bike network and sometimes overlap, differing travel allowances between bike lanes and shared-use paths can complicate enforcement and regulation. It is unclear whether a Tier 1 device operator must immediately dismount at the point where a bike lane turns into a shared-use path, or whether the operator is restricted to a single infrastructure type in areas where multiple paths converge. This ambiguity will create challenges for both enforcement agencies and micromobility device operators, undermining the bill’s intent for consistent and predictable rules. 3. Definitions: While the legislation outlines updated definitions for “bike lane,” “bike path,” and “bike routes,” which are currently included in the MGL c.90 E1 definition of “bikeway,” we request that the definition of “bikeway” also be updated to reflect these changes so that there is no ambiguity in path types upon implementing this legislation. Additionally, please clearly define how the authority is granted for municipalities to regulate micromobility devices on these newly defined types of transportation facilities. Specifically, there lacks clarity on what ways municipalities can regulate. Under G.L. c.85 § 11B 3/4 (c), "[a] municipality, local authority or state agency with jurisdiction over a [B]ike path or [B]ikeway after public notice and a public hearing may adopt ordinances or regulations prohibiting or otherwise regulating the operation of electronic bicycles on such paths, including but not limited to, the imposition of speed limits." Under G.L. c.85 §1lB 3/4 (d), "subject to public notice and a public hearing [the City] may adopt ordinances or regulations permitting or otherwise regulating the use of electric bicycles on such a trail within its jurisdiction, including but not limited to the imposition of speed limits." The City conducted research to determine the intent of the legislature, concerning whether "such paths", as appearing in§ 1lB 3/4 (c) refers to Bike Path and Bikeway, or only Bike Path. Based on our research, we believe a reasonable

City of Cambridge Bill S.3077 Ride Safe Act Testimony, Page 3 interpretation is that "such paths" is referring only to the previously stated "Bike Path", and not "Bikeway." Therefore, G.L. c.85, §1lB 3/4 does not explicitly authorize the City to prohibit or regulate e-bikes on Bike Lanes or Bike Routes. We hope for clarification on this interpretation. 4. Establish a clear implementation timeline: The State has invested significant resources in developing this comprehensive regulatory framework. To maximize the impact of this legislation, we urge the Commonwealth and the Joint Committee on Transportation to provide municipalities with a defined timeline for bill passage and implementation to update signage, infrastructure markings, and municipal ordinances. Section 24 of the bill establishes an effective date of January 1, 2028, for most provisions. However, we recommend that the legislature consider establishing an earlier date by which municipalities can begin implementing the bill’s provisions and a later mandatory compliance date, to allow communities like Cambridge to begin establishing consistent enforcement practices while allowing sufficient time for preparation and public education. 5. Retailer compliance for the sale of safe micromobility devices: Section 17 of S.3077 requires that all devices sold, leased, rented, or operated in the Commonwealth be equipped with proper safety equipment, including lights, brakes, audible warnings, and horns, where applicable, that meet the requirements of Section 11B of Chapter 85 and applicable federal standards. We strongly recommend that the legislature consider working with the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulations (OCABR) to ensure retailers comply with these requirements and deter the sale of non-compliant devices. These mechanisms can include requiring a point-of-sale disclosure of applicable safety equipment, speed-tier classifications, and operating restrictions, or establishing an inspection protocol. These measures would help create a clear chain of compliance and accountability as micromobility continues to expand, while ensuring that individual riders are not unfairly penalized for deficiencies attributable to manufacturers, distributors, or retailers. 6. Technology gaps for effective enforcement: This bill’s speed-based framework establishes standards that allow law enforcement to intervene in cases of speeding. However, the technology currently available to law enforcement for implementing these standards is insufficient for precise and equitable enforcement. The Cambridge Police Department relies on visual assessments, LIDAR, and RADAR technologies to detect speeding. LIDAR may be disrupted by the presence of nearby larger vehicles, leading to inaccurate readings for smaller micromobility devices. RADAR requires close proximity to devices, which is not always feasible in urban environments or with fast-moving, small- profile vehicles. To enforce these standards accurately and fairly, it is crucial to study and invest in advanced detection technologies tailored to micromobility devices. Without these tools, there is a risk of uneven or arbitrary enforcement, potential legal challenges, and diminished public trust. Addressing these technological gaps will strengthen compliance and also support the effectiveness of this regulatory scheme for micromobility users.

City of Cambridge Bill S.3077 Ride Safe Act Testimony, Page 4 We strongly encourage the Joint Committee on Transportation to report this bill favorably with strong consideration on our requests for further clarification. Thank you for your consideration. If any members of the Committee or legislative aides have any questions, please contact Evan C. Bjorklund, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Cambridge Law Department, at [phone removed] or [email protected]. Sincerely, Stephanie Groll Assistant Commissioner for Transportation Planning