As a Seoulite of 10 years, I have noticed a novel addition to the city: electric bikes and scooters. They’re everywhere—streets, apartment complexes, private property—and they’ve made their way inside our campus. Dozens, if not hundreds of electric bikes and scooters are parked inside Seoul National University’s campus at any given time. Some places attract more vehicles than others: very popular areas such as the Business School building and the Multimedia Lecture Halls often see great stashes of e-scooters and bikes pile up. It seems safe to say that these devices have gained immense popularity among students as a way of getting around SNU. However, following the recent student council election, we may be on the brink of a significant change.

On November 15th, the 64th student council election officially came to an end. Signal secured the council with 5,445 effective votes over Haru’s 2,814 votes, marking a victory in the student council’s first valid presidential election in two years. While both sides offered pages upon pages of election pledges, one pledge from Signal’s side caught the eyes of e-scooter and bike enthusiasts. As part of their transportation pledge, Signal announced that they’d “implement ‘Personal Mobility Parking Areas’ around the campus and limit vehicle parking to these areas.” These measures were proposed in order to ‘promote safety, and to make the campus environment look nicer and more orderly.’ But why do they suggest implementing parking areas for personal mobility? What problems does this measure solve? How effectively can they solve said problems? Before we answer those questions, let’s look into why we have come to ask these questions in the first place.

Personal mobility, or formally personal mobility devices (PMDs), refer to an assortment of small, electric-powered vehicles that transport individuals at low speeds (usually not exceeding 25 km/h). By definition, PMDs include a diverse array of vehicles, such as electric skateboards or self-balancing unicycles. However, Signal’s pledge on PMDs focuses more on e-scooters and bikes. These two vehicles constitute the vast majority of PMDs in SNU.

PMDs have gained massive popularity on the campus since 2019. The first publicized electric scooter service in Korea was launched by Kickgoing in 2018, and people on campuses were one of the first to adapt to this new addition. During this period, ownership of campus PMDs has also changed. Prior to 2019, any existing PMDs on campus were privately operated. Nowadays, they are mostly publicly shared, owned by private companies but used by thousands of people who freely rent, ride, and return the vehicles.

Their massive commercial success is largely due to South Korea’s well-structured transportation system. PMDs are often used as last-mile transportation, meaning that they aren’t the main method of getting from one place to another. Instead, public transportation takes that spot. PMDs are slow and aren’t suitable for traveling long distances, so they serve as a secondary means of transport, moving passengers between the transit stops and their final destinations.

Now we can understand why PMDs have come to be especially beloved in South Korea’s largest campus. SNU’s main gate is 1.8km away from Seoul National University station with an upward elevation of 65m en route. With lecture buildings often even further away, students are forced to rely on bus transportation for movement in and out of the school. Although shuttle buses and public bus routes frequent the campus roadways to meet transportation needs, they operate only on the ring road that encircles the school, leaving students with no other option but to walk from the bus stop into the interior parts of the campus where the majority of the buildings are located. It is an ideal environment for PMDs to prosper.

However, PMDs on campus were not warmly welcomed from all sides. Many critics have pointed out that the vehicles sprawled across the pavement obstruct the paths of pedestrians. Others find them simply displeasing to look at, and some others believe they pose a safety hazard.

“They’re convenient, but I’m also slightly concerned (of their safety); I’ve nearly run into them a few times while walking on campus.”, said a student from the school of business.

Opinions clash as advocates of shared PMDs emphasize the convenience and efficiency the devices provide, while opposers wish them regulated or even banned altogether. Yet, Signal believes they have a plan to satisfy both PMD advocates and opposers alike.

Signal’s proposed initiative is composed of two main parts. The first is designating parking areas for PMDs, and the second is working with PM operators to limit PMD parking outside of these areas. This article will analyze both segments of the pledge in detail and assess them for their feasibility and effectiveness.

The proposed parking areas, called hubs or PM hubs, are marked places where PM riders can return their vehicles after they’re used. For others looking for a vehicle to use, hubs are a place where they can conveniently find an available device. In this sense, hubs are to PM what bus stops are to buses; they establish order in picking up and dropping off passengers who use the mode of transportation.

Hubs come at a cost. The most obvious and prominent drawback is that a set drop-off and pick-up location for PMDs detracts from their main appeal: they’re supposed to be highly personalized modes of transportation that take passengers directly to their destination. Users would now have to walk from the hub to their destination.

Despite the cons of PM hubs, Signal figures that the benefits hubs provide make up for the sacrifice in user convenience. As mentioned, three main issues surround PMDs. These were (1) obstruction of pedestrian walkways, (2) aesthetic displeasure, and (3) safety concerns. It seems obvious that designated parking spaces can mitigate the first two problems here. Users would park their vehicles in hubs instead of leaving them on the pavement, reducing the number of free-floating PMDs. Fewer vehicles on the streets mean less sidewalk blockage and fewer machines to look at. PM hubs are undoubtedly a very effective solution to these two problems. But Signal’s main rationale for implementing PM hubs was safety, the third problem. And for safety, the effectiveness of hubs is not as clear.

Signal hadn’t disclosed details about how hubs would create a safer environment, so questions remain over how exactly Signal intends to connect the dots between hubs and safety. There is currently not much credible evidence that confirms whether hubs create a safer environment for pedestrians or riders. However, some studies do suggest that the locations of PM hubs influence the routes users take, and thus it may be possible to argue that strategically placed PM hubs can nudge users to drive on safer routes. A more robust explanation from Signal seems to be necessary here.

The second part of Signal’s proposal involves working with PM operators to enforce established hubs by allowing PMDs to only be parked on hubs. This is done through a technique called geofencing. Geofencing is a GPS-based system that designates specific areas as ‘no parking zones’. A geofenced area is denoted by a shaded color on PM applications. Users cannot park in these areas, or they risk paying towing expenses. Therefore, geofencing effectively manages free-floating PMDs as it directly deters users from parking in undesirable locations. According to the pledge, Signal seeks to enter into talks with operators and require them to designate all non-hub campus areas as ‘no parking zones.’

Understanding the dynamics between PM operators in SNU is important to negotiate geofencing effectively. TMAP and Swing are the two major PM operators serving the Gwanak campus. Both operators compete aggressively to dominate the campus PM market, a lucrative money-making machine. They hesitate to geofence campus areas, which could lessen user convenience and cause them to lose customers. This has resulted in TMAP only geofencing two small areas inside the whole campus and Swing geofencing one. Ensuring that geofencing requirements apply universally to all PM operators can encourage operators to follow the guidelines faithfully.

Therefore, it is necessary that Signal’s negotiations are backed by the school’s administrative powers. Operators are unlikely to willingly comply with the proposed rules, as such measures likely predict a decline in on-campus revenue. SNU’s administration must step up and empower the newly elected school council by authorizing them to represent the school’s new policy regarding PM. The administration should also offer support by establishing clear and enforced penalties for operators who do not comply with the regulations.

The convenience PMDs offer was warmly welcomed in SNU’s campus environment where buildings are distantly placed and movement is often time-consuming. The popularization of PMDs immediately changed how students travel; it fragmented former subway-to-bus-to-foot campus transportation practices by introducing an additional last-mile option to the mix. Signal’s pledge is the first attempt to harmoniously incorporate these vehicles into SNU.

The pledge already provides a reasonably functional model for PMD management. The framework for said pledge, involving PM hubs and geofencing, is promising and has good potential to alleviate common problems caused by PMDs. However, it is clear that more planning still has to be carried out and more questions need to be answered in order to provide an optimal solution to the PM problems. What if hubs overflow with vehicles? How about implementing speed limits to PMDs inside the campus? Open-ended discussions among the council, school administration, and students will have to continue to introduce needed additions and revisions to the proposal.