Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA

Abstract

The environmental performance of shared micromobility services compared to private alternatives has never been assessed using an integrated modal Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) relying on field data. Such an LCA is conducted on three shared micromobility services in Paris -bikes, second-generation e-scooters, and e-mopeds -and their private alternatives. Global warming potential, primary energy consumption, and the three endpoint damages are calculated. Sensitivity analyses on vehicle lifespan, shipping, servicing distance, and electricity mix are conducted. Electric micromobility ranks between active modes and personal ICE modes. Its impacts are globally driven by vehicle manufacturing. Ownership does not affect directly the environmental performance: the vehicle lifetime mileage does. Assessing the sole carbon footprint leads to biased environmental decision-making, as it is not correlated to the three damages: multicriteria LCA is mandatory to preserve the planet. Finally, a major change of paradigm is needed to eco-design modern transportation policies.

A Literature Review of Emerging Research Needs for Micromobility—Integration through a Life Cycle Thinking Approach

“…Perhaps the crucial concept of risk management in transport could aid in addressing the issue of life-cycle cost evaluations in the road planning and design process, which is particularly challenging owing to a lack of relevant data [61,62]. Moreover, life-cycle cost analysis, including pavement selection, could help to address the previously mentioned gap in the LCT approach to micromobility systems, which does not account for the impacts related to infrastructure and pavements [17,63]. The literature review even shows that, usually, investing more money "up front" reduces the global warming impact and life-cycle cost of pavements, in particular for bridges.…”

“…Moreover, the actual impacts on energy demand and GHG emissions over the entire life cycle are frequently insufficient for the first goal [16]. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies on micromobility modes do not include the impacts related to pavements and infrastructure [17]. Furthermore, safety and health effects, including pedestrian and cyclist deaths or injuries, as well as equity, are regarded as critical issues in transport.…”

From Food to Foot: The Energy and Carbon Flows of the Human Body at Walking and Cycling

“…For bikes as vehicles on a standalone basis, studies on LCA found a carbon footprint of about 5 gCO2e/km [3,13], e.g., a 15 kg bike made mostly of steel at about 6 kgCO2e per kg and amortized over a life course of 20,000 km [75].…”

“…The transport of people and goods is a prominent target since it mostly involves oil-fueled vehicles, especially cars and trucks [2]. The policies for transport decarbonization include not only the adoption of electric vehicles but also the sharing of cars under a variety of forms and modal shift from solo car usage to alternative modes [2]: the bus or the train to achieve scale economies in energy expenditure, or the "active" modes of walking and cycling which apparently involve no energy consumption -or little so in the case of e-bikes [3].…”

“…Recent studies that applied the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to transport modes [3,6,7] found that the carbon efficiency of modal transport typically ranges from 100 to 300 gCO2eppkm for oil cars, from 30 to 80 for electric cars, from 5 to 30 for electric trains, metros, and electrically assisted two-wheelers (e-bikes and e-scooters, excluding the carbon footprint of charging logistics), but is only 0-1 gCO2eppkm for walking and a few gCO2eppkm for cycling. It would thus appear that human-powered locomotion would be almost carbon free [8,9].…”