Transportation accounts for at least a quarter of greenhouse gases emission today. Advancements in technology have created more awareness of the environment, which has driven the assessment of the growing impact and risks of climate change. Electric scooters or e-scooters, as commonly referred to, have considerably contributed to the discourse of mobility in modern cities today. More specifically, e-scooters have provided a way to counter harmful emissions by employing in major cities globally. Los Angeles, like other major cities in California and the U.S. as a whole, has been in the spotlight for advancing mechanisms to ensure the efficiency of mobility across the busy streets as well as moderating climate change risks. Debates surrounding the technological solution involve examining whether efficiency as a primary goal has been attained by explicating its adaptability as observed historically. Los Angeles introduced. By 2019, streets in Los Angeles were romping with tens of thousands of these electronic devices. Thus, the lessons learned from the city are fundamental in determining their value and effectiveness in both the short- and long-term. While e-scooters have provided a solution to the Los Angeles transit system, they have also posed significant challenges to the city and its streets.

The Times Editorial Board’s article “Scooters aren’t an urban scourge. They’re a solution” details the key arguments for scooters in the city and the state as a whole. Motorized scooters, as the article reads, “are not an urban scourge, and shared bikes are not blight on society” (The Times Editorial Board 1). E-scooters have helped overcome two main challenges in the city. First, they have helped minimize traffic by allowing people to get to their destinations without cars or public transportation. One can easily maneuver the busy streets more easily and conveniently within a short time. The city’s authorities have collaborated with multiple manufacturers in a program dubbed “Dockless Mobility Program” to help distribute motor scooters on sidewalks. The pilot program has indicated that e-scooters are undeniably an exciting solution to the city’s residents by explicating the various concerns surrounding the new form of transportation. Thus, stakeholders, including the public and authorities have had sufficient time to moderate the usability of the devices.

Further, scooters have helped eradicate the menace of air pollution through the carbon emissions caused by fuel-driven vehicles. This is undoubtedly one of the challenges facing major cities today, given the increased usage and manufacture of vehicles. In April 2019, e-scooter and e-bike rides amounted to at least one million, which showed great support and collaboration from the public (The Conversation). Such cooperation is vital in controlling the underestimated complexity of the bike-sharing model employed across the city. As the Times Editorial Board explains, users access the e-scooters by downloading a mobile application in which they enter their basic information to have access to a bike (4). Once unlocked, users can take a ride to their desired destination and leave the devices at designated sidewalks. An average resident in Los Angeles commutes at least once per day, and such travel is associated with toxic emissions. E-scooters are electric-driven and thus have no associated harmful emissions—this is a viable solution not only to California but also to other cities.

Importantly, the Times Editorial Board’s article acknowledges the challenges associated with the pilot program but maintain that they can be moderated since the solution is still in its initial stages of full implementation. Notably, the article address congestion as one of the complications that these devices have caused. Multiple companies have dumped their scooters in the cities’ business streets without regard to the laid-out stipulations (5). The problem can be mitigated by imposing stringent legal actions towards such actions. Another complication entails a stiff competition among well-established companies and startups who manufacture and supply motor scooters and e-bikes. Expectedly, there is an excitement of the soon-to-boom industry of supplying scooters, especially given the hope of implementing the pilot program. Organizations construe the program as an opportunity to make money, which necessitates thorough market moderations to ensure fair market interactions. More restrictive measures will help ensure efficient usage and packing of these appliances in the city.

Interestingly, various stakeholders and authorities have already begun taking affirmative actions to remedy the challenges posed by e-scooters. The Department of Transportation in Los Angeles recently proposed a prohibition of dockless bikes use within three miles of a region designed for Metro bike-share station (The Conversation). The restriction will ease mobility in the streets by minimizing the congestions of e-scooter users and cyclists. Also, the measure can help monitor potential stiff competition between private organizations and publicly-owned bikes. Further, operations in cities such as San Francisco, Denver, and Austin have been stalled pending the application of permits (The Times Editorial Board 9). Such regulations are aimed at countering the aforementioned lack of control inroads as well as roadsides. San Francisco recently limited the maximum allowed number of e-scooters from 4,000 to 1,250. This and other caps are meant to prevent inconveniences in the initial rollout of the program. Countering the inefficiencies of the program is more practical and beneficial than outlawing the solution altogether.

Tinnell’s article, contrarily, emphasizes the increased congestion that electronic hooters have brought to the city especially in downtowns. The author contends that e-scooters have increased become uncontrollable given the lack of specific regulations on handling and packing. He states that due to these devices, people “have no lawful resource, leading some to resort to micro-vandalism.” Accountability is thus highly unachievable, despite the measures to ensure sufficient tracking of the bikes—this is particularly disconcerting given that the devices are partly publicly-funded. A tremendous amount of taxpayers’ money is siphoned towards monitoring and maintain these devices, and the lack of control suggests that their introduction is an utter failure. The Times Editorial Board, however, argues that this inopportuneness can be moderately since, after all, the initial implementation is still underway. Ensuring accountability is no doubt vital if policymakers are going to keep their promise of offering an effective and efficient tool to the city’s congestion. The invasion of tens of thousands of uncontrolled motor scooters negates from the initial goal of minimizing traffic and vandalism in the streets. Unrestrained riders are detrimental to ensuring clarity of streets, which is essential in beautifying the city of Los Angeles.

Additionally, pollution is conceivably the most adverse impact of e-scooters in major cities. Tinnell finds that e-scooter, like established solutions such as Airbnb and Uber, has little regard for the environmental implications. These ecosystem effects are two-fold: increased traffic and environmental costs. Big tech companies, which are gaining control of motorized bikes in cities, are focused on making more sales as opposed to controlling traffic in cities. Since the inception of the ideal, many companies have emerged, which has led to the flocking of e-scooters and e-bikes in the city. Tinnell maintains that while stakeholders maintain such problems are manageable in the long-term, the solution is likely to cost the public immensely. Historically, similar solutions tend to increase rather than decrease congestions in major cities. For instance, the introduction of Uber in 2010 in San Francisco led to a rise in bumper-to-bumper delays by 62 percent (Tinnell 6). The other negative ecological implication of the solution is increased economic costs. While e-scooters are incredibly efficient in minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, they have left governments with a bigger financial burden (The Conversation). In essence, enormous amounts of public funds are being spent to moderate damages and congestions arising from the use of scooters.

In essence, the ultimate effectiveness of e-scooters will be measured by the value created as well as the ecological costs mitigated. The introduction of the technology is still in its initial stages, hence the need to moderate usage. Also, it is vital to learn from other major cities that have implemented the program and learn from them. Disambiguating the cost and benefit analysis of e-scooters requires avoiding over-emphasizing the advantages that the technology has on society. Instead, it is crucial to objectively consider the ecological and economic costs associated with the technology. E-scooters were introduced, primarily, to mitigate carbon emissions from fuel-powered vehicles storming the busy streets of Los Angeles and other regions. However, the transportation system has created more incremental costs as recorded in various towns. Indeed, there is a need for more assessments of the environmental cost implications before rolling out the regional implementation of the program.