HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2-26-20 Work SessionFebruary 26, 2020, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 26, 2020
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of February 26, 2020;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Emily Semple, President Jennifer Yeh, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Betty Taylor Alan Zelenka
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor: I call the February 26, 2020, work session of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. WORK SESSION: Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Methodology
Update
2. WORK SESSION: E-Scooters and Micromobility
February 26, 2020, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast laterin the week.El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Methodology Update Meeting Date: February 26, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Carolyn Burke
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-4914
ISSUE STATEMENT The purpose of this work session is to review options that respond to public hearing testimony and to provide direction on the proposed ordinance and resolutions to adopt updates to the parks and recreation system development charge methodology.
BACKGROUND In July of 2018, City Council unanimously adopted Picture. Plan. Play. A Vision and Implementation
Plan for Eugene’s Parks and Recreation System, commonly referred to as the Parks and Recreation System Plan. This plan was built on the input of over 12,000 individuals who participated in a multi-year, award-winning public engagement process. With the adoption of that plan, a new project list and priorities for project implementation were established. That project list and its accompanying priorities are the basis for the updated SDC methodology. The City Council held work sessions in July and October of 2019 and a public hearing in January of 2020. Four individuals provided testimony, two of which were representing the Lane County Homebuilders and the Eugene Springfield Chamber of Commerce. This testimony expressed concern for the impact of a fee increase on affordable housing and requested no fee increase for two years. Additional areas of concern were: a current administrative fee of nine percent, the need to maintain the City’s ability to move forward with projects approved on the 2018 bond that require SDC matching funds, potential disincentivizing of multi-family housing, and the availability of operational funding to keep pace with new park development. The following sections describe strategies and options to address those issues.
Administrative Fee: Staff have reviewed the administrative fee and determined that a reduction from 9 percent to 5 percent can be achieved. A motion is included to implement this fee reduction regardless of which direction council takes on the overall SDC fee and rate structure.
Implementing 2018 Parks and Recreation Bond: Council can adopt components of the proposed methodology and the proposed project list to enable bond-related projects that require SDC matching funds to be eligible for the use of SDC funds. Similar to the administrative fee, this
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
can be done regardless of which direction council takes on the overall fee and rate structure discussion. A motion to implement is included.
Potential Disincentivizing of Multi-Family Housing: Staff reviewed the methodology to evaluate ways to reduce impacts on multi-family housing. In the original proposal, multi-family units that are smaller than two-bedrooms see a reduction or very little fee increase due to their lower occupancy rates. In order to reduce fees on the larger two and three-bedroom units, the following additional actions could be considered that are consistent with previous council direction:
Eliminate the category for three plus bedroom multi-family units. This category would have seen the largest percentage increase of 123 percent.
Provide fee adjustments to the two plus bedroom category that vary with location:
30 percent fee reduction within ¼ mile of a Frequent Transit Network route
20 percent fee reduction within ½ mile of a Frequent Transit Network route
10 percent fee reduction in all other areas of the city This fee reduction is consistent with policy direction from Envision Eugene to encourage housing in proximity to key transit corridors. It is also consistent with the Climate Recovery Ordinance to reduce fossil fuel usage. Note that this reduction requires a progressive rate structure and can therefore not be applied to fee implementation Option 4: Status Quo. Attachment A shows the proposed fee adjustment for multi-family housing and Attachment B shows the corresponding map of Frequent Transit Networks.
Fee Implementation Options: Several options for implementing a fee increase are described below. Attachment A shows the fee and rate structure associated with each option.
OPTION 1: Original Proposal- Adopt proposed fee and rate structure with a two-year phase-in plan. The advantages of this option include:
Allowing bond projects to be supported with SDC funds
Proposed lower rates for smaller single-family and multi-family homes will go into effect in year one
Predictability of future fees and revenue
Supports funding for other priority one projects during bond completion The disadvantages of this option include:
Not responsive to public testimony regarding a delay of fee increase
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
OPTION 2: Delayed Implementation- Same as the original proposal, but with a two-year delay on
implementation. The advantages of this option include:
Allowing bond projects to be supported with SDC funds
Predictability of future fees and revenue
Responsive to public testimony by delaying fee increase The disadvantages of this option include:
Proposed lower rates/incentives for smaller single-family and multi-family homes will not go into effect for two years
Limited funding for other priority one projects until bond completion
OPTION 3: Phased Implementation- Same as the original proposal, but with a four-year phase-in
plan. The advantages of this option include:
Allowing bond projects to be supported with SDC funds
Proposed lower rates for smaller single-family and multi-family homes will go into effect in year one
Predictability of future fees and revenue The disadvantages of this option include:
Partially responsive to public testimony by reducing the impact of a fee increase through a longer phase-in period
Limited funding for other priority one projects until bond completion
OPTION 4: Status Quo- Do not increase fees or change rate structure for two years and review for
possible fee increase and progressive rate structure within two years. The advantages of this option include:
Allowing bond projects to be supported with SDC funds
Responsive to public testimony by delaying fee increase The disadvantages of this option include:
Proposed lower rates for smaller single-family and multi-family homes will not go into effect for at least two years
No predictability of future fees and revenue
No funding for other priority one projects until bond completion
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
IMPLEMENTATION
OPTION SUMMARY
Bond project
funding
Affordable
housing
incentives
Predictability
of future
fees/ revenue
Funding for
other project
list priorities
Responsive-
ness to
testimony
Option 1:
Original Proposal
Option 2:
Delayed
Implementation
Option 3:
Phased
Implementation
Option 4:
Status Quo
Proposed Next Steps Following direction from City Council, the City Manager will bring the revised ordinance and resolutions back to council for adoption. Action will be scheduled following the spring council break.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION July 16, 2018, Public Hearing City Council unanimously adopted Picture. Plan. Play. A Vision and Implementation Plan for
Eugene’s Parks and Recreation System. The projects and priorities in this plan are the basis for the proposed Parks and Recreation SDC methodology. July 8, 2019, Work Session October 9, 2019, Work Session January 21, 2019, Public Hearing
COUNCIL OPTIONS A. Direct the City Manager to prepare for adoption a reduction in the SDC Administrative Fee. B. Direct the City Manager to prepare for adoption the proposed project list and components of the proposed methodology to ensure funding for 2018 Parks and Recreation bond measure projects. C. Move forward under one of the following options with respect to the rate structure and SDC fee increase:
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
OPTION 1: Original Proposal (includes a two-year phase-in plan for SDC increases) OPTION 2: Same as Option 1, but with a two-year delay on the new rate structure and SDC increases (no increase until 2022, then the two-year phase-in would begin) OPTION 3: Same as Option 1, but with a four-year phase-in plan for SDC increases OPTION 4: Status Quo – Continue to charge SDCs under current rate structure and fees and, in two years, reconsider new rate structure and SDC fee increase D. Provide for an SDC adjustment for large multi-family units that implement Envision Eugene and Climate Recovery goals. (Requires implementation options C.1, C.2 or C.3.) E. Take no action at this time.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Regardless of the fee and rate structure City Council chooses to approve, the City Manager recommends 1) adopting a reduction in the SDC administrative fee from nine percent to five percent and 2) adopting the proposed project list and components of the proposed methodology to ensure funding for 2018 Parks and Recreation bond measure projects. In order to balance council’s previous policy direction and goals that implement Envision Eugene and the Parks and Recreation System Plan, while also prioritizing housing, the City Manager recommends Options 1 or 3, which allows for immediate implementation of proposed lower rates for smaller single-family and multi-family homes while allowing a predictable phase in timeline of two to four years. If council chooses an option other than status quo, the City Manager also recommends adopting an SDC adjustment for large multi-family units that implement Envision Eugene and Climate Recovery goals.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS A. Move to direct the City Manager to prepare for adoption a reduction in the SDC administrative fee from nine percent to five percent. B. Move to direct the City Manager to prepare for adoption the proposed project list and components of the proposed methodology to ensure funding for 2018 Parks and Recreation bond measure projects. C. Move to direct the City Manager to prepare Option 1 or 3 for adoption. D. Move to direct the City Manager to prepare for adoption an SDC adjustment for large multi-family units that implement Envision Eugene and Climate Recovery goals.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
ATTACHMENTS A. Fee Implementation Options B. Frequent Transit Network Map for Multi-Family Housing Adjustments
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Carolyn Burke, Parks and Natural Resource Planning Manager Telephone: 541-682-4914 Staff E-Mail: cburke@eugene-or.gov
Parks and Recreation SDC Fee Implementation Options
February 18, 2020
Current Rates
Development Type Year 1
(1/2 fee increase)
Year 2 and Beyond
(full fee)
Year 1
(no increase)
Year 2
(no increase)
Year 3
(1/2 fee increase)
Year 4 and Beyond
(full fee)
Year 1
(10% or less
increase)
Year 2
(10% or less
increase)
Year 3
(10% or less
increase)
Year 4 and Beyond
(full fee)
Year 1
(no increase)
Year 2
(no increase)
Year 3 and Beyond
(unknown)
Single-Family (Avg)4,308$ 5,193$ 6,077$ 4,308$ 4,308$ 5,193$ 6,077$ 4,739$ 5,213$ 5,734$ 6,077$ 4,308$ 4,308$
Accessory Dwelling Unit 3,492$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,492$ 3,492$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,492$ 3,492$
800 or less 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$ 3,035$
801-1500 4,524$ 4,740$ 4,524$ 4,740$ 4,739$ 4,740$ 4,740$ 4,740$
1501-3000 5,435$ 6,561$ 5,435$ 6,561$ 4,739$ 5,213$ 5,734$ 6,561$
Over 3000 6,235$ 8,162$ 6,235$ 8,162$ 4,739$ 5,213$ 5,734$ 8,162$
Mobile Home 3,492$ 3,877$ 4,262$ 3,492$ 3,492$ 3,877$ 4,262$ 3,841$ 4,225$ 4,262$ 4,262$ 3,492$ 3,492$
Multifamily (Avg)2,725$ 3,494$ 4,262$ 2,725$ 2,725$ 3,494$ 4,262$ 2,998$ 3,297$ 3,627$ 4,262$ 2,725$ 2,725$
0 Bedrooms 2,640$ 2,640$ 2,640$ 2,640$ 2,640$ 2,640$ 2,640$ 2,640$
1 Bedroom 2,816$ 2,906$ 2,816$ 2,906$ 2,906$ 2,906$ 2,906$ 2,906$
2+ Bedrooms (see adjustments below)*3,772$ 4,819$ 3,772$ 4,819$ 2,998$ 3,297$ 3,627$ 4,819$
3+ Bedrooms 4,402$ 6,079$ 4,402$ 6,079$ 2,998$ 3,297$ 3,627$ 6,079$
Nonresidential
A (Hote/motel) Unit = rooms 1,718$ 2,085$ 2,451$ 1,718$ 1,718$ 2,085$ 2,451$ 1,890$ 2,079$ 2,287$ 2,451$ 1,718$ 1,718$
B (Office, Eating&Drinking)1,148$ 1,374$ 1,599$ 1,148$ 1,148$ 1,374$ 1,599$ 1,263$ 1,389$ 1,528$ 1,599$ 1,148$ 1,148$
C (Industrial)703$ 845$ 986$ 703$ 703$ 845$ 986$ 773$ 851$ 936$ 986$ 703$ 703$
D (Retail, General Service)418$ 498$ 578$ 418$ 418$ 498$ 578$ 460$ 506$ 556$ 578$ 418$ 418$
E (Warehousing)169$ 202$ 235$ 169$ 169$ 202$ 235$ 186$ 204$ 225$ 235$ 169$ 169$
Note: Rate Schedule does not account for annual inflationary increase
Multi-Family Housing Fee Adjustments
Development Type Proposed Rate
Multi-Family Discount
Proposed Rate
with Discount Discount
Proposed Rate
with Discount Discount
Proposed Rate
with Discount
2+ Bedrooms 4,819$ 30%3,373$ 20%3,855$ 10%4,337$
*Discounted rate to be applied to phasing schedule above
Option 3:
Phased Implementation
Option 4:
Status Quo
Within 1/4 mile of FTN route Within 1/2 mile of FTN route All other areas of City
Option 1:
Original Proposal
Option 2:
Delayed Implementation
Attachment A
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
Parks and Rec SOC Incentive Areas for
Large Multi-family Units
IL w •
•
i i !CLEAR LAKE RD ':--·· ..i i :-··-,j i i
ffi l,_.,_,,_,,_,, ! i
j '"0\l'Jcf'.r.<-"-
\J\l!LL ' '"',. , �---··, i .?,.0 ............ , : '{\11-'-
C,\1<'\I'-\ \ \ ,.·-·� .. !
0 0.5
Legend
2
Miles
··-. ...... -0., .. --... _.. ·-·\.
D Frequent Transit Network (0.25 mile buffer) r.:; Eugene UGB
•Frequent Transit Network (0.5 mile buffer) - Key Transportation Corridors
• Water Bodies
-Major Streets
·,i "i �--·-··'!i ' i ...... ... _ ......
Note:
The incentive area boundaries depicted
on this map are intended for general
reference. More precise boundaries are
available in the City of Eugene GeoDart
application or as a GIS file from the City
of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Division.
November 8, 2018
.....
6 N •
Attachment B
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 1
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: E-Scooters and Micromobility Meeting Date: February 26, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: Public Works Engineering Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5343
ISSUE STATEMENT Through an adopted ordinance and plan, the City Council has set aggressive targets for reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in our community. On July 27, 2016, the City Council adopted the Climate Recovery Ordinance that set Climate Action Goals that include reducing community-wide fossil fuel use by 50 percent compared to 2010 usage with a benchmark target of a 25 percent reduction by 2020. On June 26, 2017, the City Council adopted the Eugene 2035 Transportation system Plan. The TSP has a goal of supporting the city’s target of a 50 percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption and specifically calls for a tripling of the percentage of trips made on foot, by bicycle and by transit. Over the last few years electric scooters (e-scooters) and other micromobility devices have become popular ways for people to travel. While many people own personal e-scooters, these devices have become increasingly popular through the e-scooter share services that are offered in over 100 cities throughout the United States. In 2018 alone, people took more than 38 million trips using shared e-scooters. Surveys of e-scooter users have indicated that a significant number of riders use them as an alternative to traveling in a private passenger vehicle. While the potential to reduce the number of private passenger vehicle trips by implementing shared e-scooter services is promising, numerous concerns have been raised related to safety of e-scooter riders, interactions between riders and people walking or biking, impacts to sidewalk accessibility, and sustainability of the e-scooters themselves.
BACKGROUND While the City Council has set aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and tripling the percentage of trips made by walking, biking and public transportation, available data indicates that, as a community, we have not made progress toward achieving these goals. It has been demonstrated in other communities that a significant percentage of shared electric scooter rides are replacing trips previously made by motor vehicle. An electric scooter pilot program presents an opportunity to bring this new form of shared mobility to Eugene to help achieve our goals around active transportation and climate recovery in a way that is also safe and equitable for our community.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
“Micromobility device” is a fairly new term used to describe small human- and electric-powered transportation devices and includes bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, e-scooters, skateboards and e- skateboards. These devices are both privately owned and provided through shared services such as PeaceHealth Rides for bicycles and numerous companies that provide shared e-scooter services in cities throughout the world. These companies include Bird, Lime, JUMP, Skip, Scoot and Razor. One way to introduce shared e-scooters into our community is to conduct a pilot program where one or more companies would be invited through a request for proposals process to provide shared e-scooter services in Eugene for a set amount of time. During the pilot program, data would be collected and evaluated, and a final report would be issued at the end of the pilot to help inform the decision of whether to move forward with shared e-scooter implementation. This approach has been used in Portland and other cities. Even though e- scooters present an opportunity to achieve city goals, there are concerns that have manifested in other cities and raised by members of our community. These include the safety of e-scooter riders, e-scooter riding on sidewalks endangering people walking, parked scooters blocking sidewalks and curb ramps, and the sustainability of the scooters themselves. To get a better understanding of the public’s perspective on these issues and how to address them, city staff conducted an outreach campaign through a combination of an online survey and listening sessions with key stakeholder groups. The survey, which had 541 responses, asked people to prioritize criteria for selecting e-scooter companies that would operate in Eugene in the categories of safety, sustainability and equity. People were also asked to recommend additional evaluation criteria and to share their thoughts regarding whether e-scooters should be allowed on shared use paths and whether the scooter speeds on paths should be kept lower than the legal limit of 15 mph through a technology called geo-fencing. Staff will provide more information about the public outreach and potential e-scooter pilot at the work session. The results of the public outreach are provided as an attachment. Should City Council choose to facilitate development of a pilot project and micromobility more broadly in Eugene, a couple of changes to city code could be considered:
Explicitly defining micromobility device in the city code so that these services can be regulated by the city; and
Allowing electric micromobility devices on shared use paths in Eugene; other than electric bicycles, such devices are currently prohibited on the city’s shared use paths. All electric micromobility devices, including electric bicycles, are currently prohibited in East Alton Baker Park. Next steps if City Council elects to move forward with the pilot program:
Hold a public hearing on changes to the city code.
Adopt changes to city code.
City staff will develop and issue a request for proposals in order to select one or more companies to offer shared e-scooter services in Eugene.
Staff will select a scooter company and launch pilot program.
Conclude pilot program, develop final report and provide findings to City Council.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION None
COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following Options: A. Support implementation of an e-scooter pilot program and initiating a code amendment process to consider allowing devices on shared use paths. B. Support implementation of an e-scooter pilot program, but do not include allowing use on shared use paths at this time. C. Deny implementation of an e-scooter pilot program. D. Request additional information or work sessions prior to making decision about whether to proceed with pilot program.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Given City Council’s previous policy direction to triple mode share from walking, biking and transit and reduce community-wide fossil fuel use by 50 percent by 2030, the City Manager recommends supporting a pilot program to evaluate the possibilities and concerns of e-scooters and other micromobility devices in Eugene. Since these devices are already being used on our shared path system, the City Manager also recommends clarifying this as an approved use as part of this pilot program.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS A. Move to direct the City Manager to bring back for council consideration an ordinance amending the code to allow the administrative establishment of a pilot program for licensing e-scooter share services in Eugene. B. Move to direct the City Manager to bring back for council consideration an ordinance amending the code to allow e-scooters and other electric micromobility devices (e.g., e-
skateboards) on shared use paths (outside of East Alton Baker Park).
ATTACHMENTS A. E-Scooter Pilot Program Public Outreach Summary
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld Telephone: 541-682-5343 Staff E-Mail: rinerfeld@eugene-or.gov
Attachment A
E-Scooter Pilot Program
Evaluation Criteria Public Outreach
Summary
December 2019
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
1
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 2
Survey Background ................................................................................................................................... 2
Listening Sessions Background ................................................................................................................. 3
Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 4
What We Heard: Summary of Responses ....................................................................................... 4
Attitude Toward Scooters ......................................................................................................................... 4
Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Safety .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Sustainability ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Equity .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Speed Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Open Comments ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix A: Listening Session Participants .................................................................................... 9
Appendix B: Demographics of Survey Participants....................................................................... 12
Appendix C: Evaluation Criteria Survey Results ................................................................................... 16
Appendix D: Open Comments – Categorized ............................................................................... 19
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
2
Introduction
Project Background
The first electric shared-use scooters (e-scooters) appeared on the streets of Santa Monica, CA in
September of 2017. By December 2019, fourteen electric scooter companies were operating across 122
American cities. The popularity and rate of adoption of this new mode has been remarkable and
undeniable. The City of Eugene (the City) is preparing to join the ranks of those 122 cities by launching
an e-scooter pilot program of its own.
E-scooters present an opportunity for the City to achieve its stated goals of (a) tripling the percentage of
trips completed that do not involve the use of an automobile, and (b) climate recovery through the
reduction of fossil fuel consumption to half that of 2010 numbers. These goals are supported by the
Climate Recovery Ordinance and policies in both the city’s 20-year long range land use (Envision Eugene)
and transportation plans (Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan).
To inform the pilot creation process, city staff sought to understand the values, ideas, and concerns of
the community. Staff did this by using an online survey, conducting listening sessions, and cataloging
public comment emails. Information gathered through these processes will be used to develop
evaluation criteria that will be used to review future e-scooters companies’ applications and ultimately
determine which company(ies) will be selected to operate in Eugene.
Figure 1: Map of U.S. Cities with E-Scooter Programs, December 16, 2019
Source: SmartCitiesDive
Survey Background
The online survey was hosted on the City’s Engage Eugene website at https://engage.eugene-
or.gov/escooters. It was open from October 3, 2019 to November 24, 20019, during which time it
received 541 responses. The survey was promoted through social media, e-newsletters, public meetings,
and media interviews. To better engage traditionally underrepresented communities, community
ambassadors representing Centro Latino Americano, Latino Professionals Connect, and the Eugene-
Springfield chapter of the NAACP were contacted and asked to promote the survey through their
channels.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
3
Persons who took the online survey answered a
series of six questions. The first question was a
general temperature-check of how respondents
feel about a pilot program being launched in
Eugene. The second, third, and forth questions
presented criteria established by city staff through
research about safety, sustainability, and equity.
Respondents were asked to select from the list
which criteria they considered most important.
They were also invited to share additional
evaluation criteria they believe the city should
consider using.
Next, it was explained that (a) the City might allow
e-scooters to operate on shared-use paths, and (b)
that if they were allowed on the paths, the City
might require e-scooter companies to utilize
technologies that would moderate the speed of
scooters to less than 15mph. Respondents were
then asked to share their thoughts about whether
the City should moderate the speed of e-scooters
on shared-use paths. Finally, respondents were
asked to share any additional thoughts, concerns,
or commentary about an e-scooter pilot in Eugene.
Listening Sessions Background
Listening sessions are commonly used to critique and improve ideas. They are used by company work-
groups and by public agencies alike, and the number of participants can range from a few to many. For
the e-scooter pilot, city staff conducted five listening sessions across three months. Sessions were
conducted with organizations and interest groups that represent larger community interests.
Each listening session began with a brief PowerPoint presentation by city staff. The presentation
explained reasons for pursuing a scooter pilot, the necessary steps to create a pilot, an
acknowledgement of potential scooter concerns, and an introduction to techniques that could be used
to alleviate and/or prevent those concerns. After the presentation, the sessions were opened to
questions and discussion. Table 1 provides an overview of who participated in listening sessions; for
more detail, see Appendix A.
Figure 2: Survey Portal on Engage Eugene
Website
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
4
Table 1: Listening Sessions Participants
Date of Listening Session Organization or Interest Group in
Attendance
Number of Attendees
September 12, 2019 Active Transportation Committee 11 Committee Members
5 Members of the Public
October 17, 2019 Friends of Downtown 7 Group Members
November 14, 2019 Active Transportation Committee 10 Committee Members
11 Members of the Public
November 15, 2019 Local Government Affairs Council 25 Committee Members
2 Chamber of Commerce Staff
December 9, 2019 Lane Independent Living Alliance 6 Staff Members
Evaluation Criteria
When adopting e-scooters, cities across the country have taken various approaches. Some, like San
Diego, CA, and Austin, TX, applied a hands-off, laissez-faire style to regulating e-scooters. Others, like
Portland, OR, and San Francisco, CA, have been more hands-on when regulating scooters. City staff in
Eugene are working to create terms and conditions that would apply to (a) scooter operation on the part
of scooter companies, and (b) scooter use on the part of scooter users. By creating rules and adding
structure to an e-scooter pilot, city staff are working to mitigate concerns and potential issues.
Creating evaluation criteria that will be used to screen future e-scooter companies’ applications for
permission to operate is integral to this process. Feedback from the online survey, listening sessions,
and public comment emails are being used to inform the development of both evaluation criteria, and
what “asks” the City may place upon applicant companies. For instance, concern about helmet use is
mentioned by respondents to the survey. An applicant company that utilizes technology to recognize if a
user is wearing a helmet could be scored more generously than an applicant company that does not.
What We Heard: Summary of Responses
Attitude Toward Scooters
Generally, survey respondents support an e-scooter pilot being launched in Eugene. The majority of
survey takers replied that they were either “Totally on board” (30%) or “Interested, but concerned”
(27%). Concerns about e-scooters center on safety, sustainability, and mobility and access for seniors
and persons with disabilities. These topics were cited by the 43% of persons who replied that they do
not support an e-scooter pilot as reasons why. Additional reasons provided not to support a pilot
include either personal experience with, or media accounts of, scooters in other cities’, or that city
resources should be focused on other issues. Conversely, common reasons provided by respondents
who support the pilot are that scooters reduce reliance on cars and thus reduce fuel consumption and
congestion, that they are fun, and that they provide a unique sense of freedom of movement.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
5
Figure 3: Survey Respondent’s Attitude Toward an E-Scooter Pilot in Eugene
Safety/Mobility and Access
Sidewalk riding and improper parking practices (scooters being left anywhere and everywhere) are cited
as major safety issues by persons who either (a) do not support the pilot, or (b) are interested in the
pilot but have concerns. While sidewalk riding and improper parking practices have safety implications
for all members of the community, they pose a special safety issue for seniors and people with
disabilities. One respondent commented that when scooters appear out of nowhere, especially in
spaces they should not be, it causes psychological stress in addition to physical stress.
Poor helmet use, self-injury, injuries inflicted by scooter-riders onto others, and intoxicated riding are
other commonly cited issues.
Sustainability
Several survey takers questioned the public perception of scooters, stating that scooters are commonly
viewed as toys and not serious transportation options. Other respondents cited the mental health and
drug-dependency issues faced by some members of Eugene’s unhoused population. Still others criticized
the lifespan of scooters. These issues were cited as reasons for concern about potential theft and
vandalism of scooters, or as potential motivations for scooters to be thrown into the Willamette River.
Other commonly cited sustainability concerns include the sourcing of components used in e-scooter
batteries, the use of electricity to charge scooters, plastic use in scooter bodies, and that scooters might
reduce walking and biking trips instead of driving trips.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
6
Evaluation Criteria
By creating rules and adding structure to an e-scooter pilot, city staff are working to mitigate the
concerns and issues cited in the previous section. Evaluation criteria proposed by city staff and listed in
the survey focus on the topics of safety, sustainability, and equity. Survey respondents were asked to
select the criteria they considered most important for each topic and were invited to propose their own
ideas for evaluation criteria as well. While the questions asked respondents to select the criteria they
considered most important, there was no limit on the number of criteria survey takers could select.
Safety
The survey proposed five safety-focused evaluation criteria. The criteria, in order of most to least
selected, are:
1. The company has a plan with concrete actions to promote safe riding and proper parking
practices.
2. The company uses technology (such as GPS) to detect and discourage sidewalk riding and
improper parking.
3. Scooter design specifications include a lock-to mechanism that locks to fixed objects (ie. bike
racks).
4. The company has a plan with concrete actions to promote helmet use.
5. The company does not contract out scooter recharging responsibilities as gig-work (meaning
persons are paid per charge scooter and are not considered employees.)
When given the option to propose additional safety-related evaluation criteria, criteria commonly
proposed were either programmatic, operational, or design-oriented. Programmatic recommendations
include the creation of (a) an etiquette and safety campaign and (b) training courses. Operational
recommendations include the need for a means to speed-control scooters and that companies be
required to share data. Design recommendations include front and rear lights (which are required by
state law), bells or some other means of making noise to alert others to their presence, and seats.
Sustainability
In the sustainability category, two pre-determined criteria were proposed. Survey respondents indicated
that they value the need for a company to include an end-of-life plan for the recycling, reuse and/or
sustainable disposal of scooters more highly than the use of non-fossil fuel-based vehicles to
redistribute and recharge scooters.
Additional criteria proposals centered around energy use for charging scooters, the production of
scooters, maintenance and disposal practices, and incentives for scooter use. Examples include that
companies should have an anti-fossil fuel commitment, have a strong policy and performance record
about using conflict minerals in battery production, should use replaceable components, and should
provide incentives to scoot instead of drive.
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
7
Equity
Survey takers were provided with five equity-oriented evaluation criteria. Of the 541 persons who
participated in the survey, 466 responded to the equity-based question. The top three criteria each
received nearly the same number of selections by respondents (214, 212, and 208). The criteria, in order
of most to least selected, are:
1. The company provides a means of accessing scooters that does not require the use of a
smartphone (i.e. can unlock a scooter via text message).
2. The company provides service in multiple languages, Spanish at a minimum. This includes the
company’s customer service phone line, website, user-app, and marketing materials.
3. The company offers a low-income plan.
4. The company provides a means of accessing scooters that does not require the use of a bank
account, debit card, or credit card.
5. The company provides a seated option for all or part of its fleet.
Other commonly mentioned recommendations for additional equity-based evaluation criteria include
that companies need to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities and that companies have a plan
to distribute scooters to underrepresented and low-income areas.
Speed Monitoring
The City is considering allowing scooters on shared-use paths, such as the Ruth Bascom Riverbank Path
System. Shared-use paths are paths that are wider than standard sidewalks. In Eugene, they are usually
at least 12 feet wide. Due to their width, they are designed to accommodate a variety of recreation and
transportation options such as walking, biking, skating, and potentially electric scooting.
Oregon state law requires that electric scooters travel no faster than 15mph. If e-scooters are allowed
on the shared-use paths, the City might require scooter companies to use tools and technologies to
automatically slow scooters down to a speed below 15mph when they are on shared-use paths. This
could potentially be done using GPS and geofencing technologies. Geofencing refers to the creation of a
virtual geographic boundary that triggers software to respond when a mobile device enters or leaves a
designated area.
Provided with the above information, survey respondents were asked to share their thoughts about if
the City should moderate the speed of e-scooters on shared-use paths. There were 442 responses to
this question, of which only 66% of survey takers answered the question about speed moderation. The
other 34% of responses either stated that they do not want scooters to be allowed on the shared-use
paths (18%), that they do not want a scooter pilot in general (12%), or used the question to voice
concerns about other issues, such as potential 5G cellular service (4%).
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
8
Overall, survey-takers who responded to the topic of speed
moderation support moderating the speed of scooters on
the paths. The most commonly cited reason why are safety
and the potential for speed reduction to mitigate collisions
between path users and thus reduce the possibility of
injuries occurring. Additionally, multiple respondents
suggested potential shared-use path speed limits, which can
be found in Table 2. Of those who do not support
moderating the scooter speed, the dominant argument is
that bicycles can exceed 15mph but do not have their speed
moderated.1
Open Comments
The final survey question asked respondents to share any remaining thoughts, ideas, and concerns they
had regarding an e-scooter pilot in Eugene. Comments provided covered a wide range of topics, from
reasons why respondents either support or do not support a scooter program, to suggestions for
scooter distribution, to recommendations for how to incentivize desired scooter-riding behavior. Table 3
provides a summary of open comment topics. A more detailed, synthesized list of all comments is
provided in Appendix D.
Table 3: Common Themes from Open Comments
Do Not Support Safety Concerns: Safety
Pilot Because: Parking Parking
Mobility and Access Mobility and Access
Sustainability Sustainability
Other Cities' Experience Equity
They Are Unnecessary Enforcement
Money Could Be Better Spent Abuse
Recommendations: General Where Scooters In the Right of Way
Infrastructure Improvements Should Operate: Distribution
Scooter Parking Where to Focus Funding (Instead of Scooters)
Scooter Enforcement Double-Standard (Scooters vs. Automobiles)
Reasons to Support Pilot
1 Oregon state law regulates the speed of electric-assisted bicycles to 20mph.
Table 2: Suggestions from Survey
Respondents for Shared-Use Path
Scooter Speeds
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
9
Appendix A: Listening Session Participants
September 12, 2019
Active Transportation Committee
Committee Members in Attendance:
Nick Alviani
Bob Beals
Bob Blyth
Michael DeLuise
Robbie Dow
Allen Hancock
Marina Herrera
Brian Johnson
Josh Kashinsky
Sam Miller
Michele O’Leary
Members of the Public in Attendance:
Connie Berglund
Vicky Mello
Robert Patterson
Claire Ribaud
Holly Rockwell
October 17, 2019
Friends of Downtown
Members in Attendance:
Claire Barnum, Downtown Eugene, Inc.
Jen Bell, Downtown Eugene Merchants
Sarah Bennett, Downtown Eugene, Inc. and Bennett Management Company (BMC)
Rob Bennett, Downtown Athletic Club
Michael DeLuise, Downtown Neighborhood Association
Peter Knox, Downtown Neighborhood Association
Matt Sayre, Technology Association of Oregon
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
10
November 14, 2019
Active Transportation Committee
Members in Attendance:
Bob Beals
Bob Blyth
Mike DeLuise
Robbie Dow
Allen Hancock
Marina Herrera
Josh Kashinsky
Sam Miller
Michele O’Leary
Holly Rockwell
Member of the Public in Attendance:
Connie Berglund
Gwen Burkard
Mary Christensen
Brad Foster
Luke Habberstad
Peter Hollingsworth
Grace Kaplowitz
Vicky Mello
David Sonichson
Daniel Wilson
November 15, 2019
Local Government Affairs Council
Members in Attendance:
Larry Banks, PIVOT Architecture
John Barofsky, La Perla Pizzeria
Arin Carmack, Cardinal Services
Liz Cawood, CAWOOD
John Doty, Citizens Bank
Brian Erickson, Chambers Construction
Debi Farr, Trillium Community Health Plan
Gerry Harris, PES Environmental
Joel Johnson, Wayfair
Mark Johnson, Lane Transit District
Ingrid Kessler, Emergency Veterinary Hospital
Lee Lashway, Hurrang Long
Larry Newby, Retired Commercial Real Estate
Milton Oilar, Campbell Commercial Real Estate
Jeannine Parisi, EWEB
Ralph Parshall, Mercedes Benz of Eugene
Darcy Phillips, Cornerstone Community Housing
Matt Roberts, University of Oregon
Sherry Schaefers, State Farm
Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre
Betsy Schultz, Realtors Association
Kate Reid, LTD Board, Public Streetwear
Bill Whalen, Summit Bank
Victoria Whitman, Windermere
Tenille Woodward, Pension Planners Northwest
Chamber of Commerce Staff in Attendance:
Joshua Monge, Director of Economic Development
Brittany Quick-Warner, CEO
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
11
December 9, 2019
Lane Independent Living Alliance
Persons in Attendance:
Kathleen Dusing, Work Incentives Coordinator
Cora Jones, Independent Living Program Supervisor
Erycka Organ, ADA Access Specialist & Trainer
Eugene Organ, ADA Coordinator
Tim Shearer, Independent Living & Outreach Specialist
Kathy Jenness, Independent Living Specialist
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
12
Appendix B: Demographics of Survey Participants
General Demographics
Table B1: Are you a student enrolled at a
school in Eugene?
Yes, K-12 6 1%
Yes, Undergrad or Grad 72 14%
No 454 85%
532 100%
Table B2: What is your age?
Under 18 2 0.4%
18-24 55 11%
25-34 100 20%
35-49 137 27%
50-64 116 23%
65+ 98 19%
508 100%
Table B3: What pronouns do you use?
She/Her/Hers 256 52%
He/Him/His 203 41%
They/Their/Theirs 33 7%
492 100%
Table B4: What Council ward do you live in?
Ward 1 133 25%
Ward 2 128 24%
Ward 3 55 10%
Ward 4 35 6%
Ward 5 36 7%
Ward 6 18 3%
Ward 7 50 9%
Ward 8 47 9%
I don't live in Eugene 40 7%
541 100%
Table B5: What ethnicity(ies) do you identify
with?
African/Black 9 2%
Asian 10 2%
Caucasian/White 419 88%
Hispanic/Latinx 23 5%
Native American / Alaska
Native 7 1%
Pacific Islander / Native
Hawaiian 2 0%
Other 7 1%
477 100%
Table B6: What is your annual income (before
taxes)?
Under $15,000 65 14%
Between $15,000 &
$29,999 57 12%
Between $30,000 &
$49,999 109 23%
Between $50,000 &
$74,999 89 19%
Between $75,000 &
$99,999 77 16%
Over $100,000 73 16%
470 100%
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
13
Support for Scooter Pilot by Demographics
Table B7: Support for Pilot by Student Type
Totally On Board
Interested, but
Concerned No-way, No-how
K-12 50% 17% 33% 100%
Undergrad or Grad 62% 18% 21% 100%
No 25% 28% 47% 100%
Table B8: Support for Pilot by Pronouns
Totally On Board
Interested, but
Concerned No-way, No-how
She/Her/Hers 26% 29% 45% 100%
He/Him/His 42% 23% 35% 100%
They/Their/Theirs 13% 39% 48% 100%
Table B9: Support for Pilot by Age
Totally On Board
Interested, but
Concerned No-way, No-how
Under 18 50% 50% 0% 100%
18-24 66% 21% 13% 100%
25-34 46% 22% 32% 100%
35-49 30% 31% 40% 100%
50-64 19% 35% 46% 100%
65+ 10% 26% 64% 100%
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
14
Table B10: Support for Pilot by Ethnicity
Totally On Board
Interested, but
Concerned No-way, No-how
African/Black 67% 11% 22% 100%
Asian 20% 0% 80% 100%
Caucasian/White 34% 29% 38% 100%
Hispanic/Latinx 29% 19% 52% 100%
Native American / Alaska
Native 29% 14% 57% 100%
Pacific Islander / Native
Hawaiian 0% 0% 100% 100%
Other 0% 67% 33% 100%
Table B11: Support for Pilot by Income
Totally On Board
Interested, but
Concerned No-way, No-how
Under $15,000 46% 28% 26% 100%
Between $15,000 & $29,999 33% 17% 50% 100%
Between $30,000 & $49,999 30% 31% 39% 100%
Between $50,000 & $74,999 27% 28% 46% 100%
Between $75,000 & $99,999 29% 29% 42% 100%
Over $100,000 31% 27% 42% 100%
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
15
Representation of Select Demographics
Table B12: Representation of Collegiate Students Compared to Total Student Body and
Non-Students Compared to Total Non-Collegiate Eugenean Adult Population
Total
Respondents
Total
Population
% Pop Represented
by Respondents
Undergrad or Grad Student 72 0.15%
Not Student 454 0.32%
Total UO + LCC Student
Enrollment* 48,975
Total Eugene Population
Aged 18+, 2018** 141,978
*Enrollment figures for University of Oregon are for academic year 2018-2019, and for Lane Community College are
academic year 2019-2020
**Source: Total Population (ACS 2018, V2018) MINUS Population Aged 17 or Younger (ACS 2013-2017 5-Yr Est, S0101)
Table B13: Representation of Ethnic Groups in Survey Responses
Compared to Percent of Total Population
% of Population,
2018*
% of Total
Respondents**
African/Black 2% 2%
Asian 4% 2%
Caucasian/White 84% 88%
Hispanic/Latinx 10% 5%
Native American / Alaska
Native 1% 1%
Pacific Islander / Native
Hawaiian 0.3% 0.4%
Other -- 1%
*Source: ACS 2018, V2018
**As determined by number of persons who answered ethnicity demographic question
(n=477), not by total survey takers (n=541)
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
16
Appendix C: Evaluation Criteria Survey Results
Figure C1: Number of Selections for Proposed Safety Evaluation Criteria
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
17
Figure C2: Number of Selections for Proposed Sustainability Evaluation Criteria
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
18
Figure C3: Number of Selections for Proposed Equity Evaluation Criteria
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
19
Appendix D: Open Comments – Categorized
SUPPORT FOR PILOT BECAUSE…
• Reduced reliance on cars • Can use for both recreation and commuter trips!
• They are fun! • More freedom of movement, not bound by a bus schedule
• Great last-mile option • Great option for people who don't feel comfortable on bikes
• Will reduce fuel use and relieve congestion • Helps those with mobility problems get around more easily
• Allow people to save money (gas, taxis) and create a booming
community if used properly with correct safety measures.
• Hope that scooters will push city closer to safer streets –
separated infrastructure, slower car speeds, more traffic
calming
• Quick and inexpensive travel • People from all walks of life using them in Portland
• Anything to get fewer folks driving
• Cars are the MOST dangerous thing - both directly and
indirectly (climate change)
• Continues shift away from car-centric to human-centric streets • Lower carbon footprint
• Great alternative to car when exploring cities • More equitable than car-ownership
• Using scooters in other cities greatly improved ability to travel
longer distances without impacting traffic • Privately owned scooters are already here!
• Convenient when don't have car
MAYBE DOUBLE-STANDARD
• Could lessen fossil fuel use, but also unsafe
• Higher set of expectations from status quo (read: cars) is impeding
achieving Envision Eugene goals
• Scooters have potential, but also have problems • Unfair to place such a higher bar for scooters than automobiles
• Waiting till it successfully implemented elsewhere • Apply same standards to automobiles as are asking of scooters
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
20
CONCERNS
SAFETY SUSTAINABILITY
• Injury, to self or others • Might end up in the river
• Potential collisions/conflicts with other persons • Might replace walking and biking trips, not car trips
• Sidewalk riding • Scooter lifespan
• Helmet use • Will fill landfills
• Intoxicated riders • Battery components and plastics
• Inexperienced riders • Do not believe scooters are eco-friendly
• Not enough safe infrastructure • Negative environmental impact: use electricity
• Bike lanes not safe option • Will negatively impact bikeshare
• Potential to cause traffic collisions • Potential to cause more traffic and pollution
• Speeding • EVs in general are not sustainable
• Underaged riders • Energy security via renewable energy is a myth
• Unsafe Riding • Will not get people out of their cars
• Might result in deaths EQUITY
• Impact of wet winter weather on safety and ridership • Only serves the young and able-bodied
• Scooters will make pedestrians and bicyclists feel unsafe • Is only for the wealthy
• Unsafe operation of scooters in roadways • Potential to further class divisions
• People riding where they shouldn't • Only for a few, not the whole
• Might add danger to sidewalks UNCATEGORIZED
• Street riding seems dangerous • Ability of City to conduct enforcement
PARKING • Liability
• Unwanted parking behavior • Scooters seen as toys, not to be valued - encourages abuse
• Parking stations will take valuable sidewalk/parking real estate • Will create more problems than solutions
• Parking outside of designated areas • Obstruction of waterfront
Mobility and Access • Would create an uninviting Downtown experience
• Sidewalk obstruction • Don't trust citizens to handle e-scooters
• Blocked bike lanes • Reliance on 5G tech
• Congestion in bike lanes • Limits of Technology
EQUIPMENT ABUSE • Drivers will be blamed for poor scooter use
• Vandalism • Non-local companies not paying fair share of Oregon taxes
• Theft • Sidewalks too small
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
21
DO NOT SUPPORT BECAUSE…
SAFETY PARKING
• Scooters are Unsafe/Dangerous/Hazardous • Improper parking in undesignated areas
• Injuries (to self and others) • Lack of docks makes them susceptible to being tossed around
• Sidewalk riding Mobility and Access
• Riders tend not to obey traffic laws when on road • Sidewalk obstacles
• Scooters not as safe as bikes or e-bikes OTHER CITIES
• Potential for conflicts/collisions with other users • Because have been to other cities with them
• Fast riding • Hasn't worked in other cities
• Wrong-way riding • Accidents/injuries occurred in other cities
• Lack of helmet use UNNECESSARY
• Antithetical to Vision Zero • They are unnecessary
• Sidewalks are already unsafe (poorly lit, unmaintained
vegetation, sidewalk riding)
• Already have sidewalks to walk on, bikeshare, and/or public
transit
• Hard to see at night
• Eugene is already very bike-friendly and doesn't need this extra
thing
• Traffic hazard
• Bikes are more effective in any situation that a scooter would
be used.
• Unsafe for car drivers UNCATEGORIZED
• Scooters will enrage drivers who don't like sharing the road • Money better spent (on what is in another column)
• Unsafe to pedestrians on sidewalks
• E-scooters are novelty, trend, fad, not a practical transportation
alternative
• People do not pay attention to their surroundings • Vandalism
• Personally injured on one elsewhere • Not a practical winter option
SUSTAINABILITY • Nuisance
• Will end up in the river • Will worsen Downtown's bad reputation
• Not sustainable • Not well-suited for use on either the streets or the sidewalks
• Lifespan too short • Bad for bikes
• Must mine rare minerals, use electricity, and/or use plastic • Impede car and bike traffic
• Will replace walking trips • Rich companies are the ones pushing this agenda
• Net negative for carbon neutrality
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
22
WHERE SCOOTERS SHOULD OPERATE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Do not allow on sidewalks • Learn from other cities
• Only allow in bikes lanes • Better option may be to provide e-bikes
• Do not allow in bike lanes • Better to implement more incentives to bike and walk
• Don't allow scooters on shared-use paths • Better to upgrade PeaceHealth bikes to e-bikes first
• Should only be allowed on streets • Bikeshare is better option
• Set restrictions for where can operate
• Company needs solid plans for retrieving abandoned
scooters
• Amend code to allow on shared-use paths
• Company should clearly be required to deal with
abandoned scooters left at business and private spaces.
• Only allow on shared-use paths if they are quiet • Coordinate with UO and other key partners
• Do not allow on park paths • Do not contract with Razor or Lime
• Should have scooter-only zones • Employees recharge and redistribute (not gig workers)
• Should allow on sidewalk when there is no bike lane
present
• iBikeEug should be updated/renamed for can report
hazards in micro-mobility lanes
• Should not be allowed on any public right of way • Integrate into transit
• Should limit use to parking-limited areas • Make it easy to access
DISTRIBUTION • Need an independently elected city auditor
• Service outside of downtown • Prevent overcharges
• Distribute all around Eugene • Promote message that this is net positive to community
• Include it near/on campus.
• Scooters, along with bikeshare, should be treated like
critical last mile transportation option
• Service in North Eugene (north of Beltline) • Use similar incentives model to PeaceHealth Rides
• Good for downtown and UO, not beyond that • Users need to agree that they will be held liable
• Use same level of oversight post-pilot
• Contract condition that can't pull scooters suddenly
overnight - must give at least 30-day notice
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
23
ENFORCEMENT PARKING
• Fines for not parking at dock/designated area • Need designated parking
• Need enforcement • Need designated on-street parking
• Do not have ability to enforce • Scooters should be docked
• Sizable penalties to companies for not following through on
sustainability and equity requirements • Designated parking with locking mechanisms
• Smart fees - deposit for damage, late-return fee, no-return-
penalty if scooter not returned to where it belongs, or
offer 24-hour rental if can't make it to parking station
• Can use strategy of no-parking zones in high-traffic
pedestrian areas such as along the river
• Allocate that enforcement energy into enforcing high-risk
behaviors like distracted driving, not helmet use
• Improper parking will happen and will deter people from
alternative modes
• Scooters should adhere to same traffic regulations as
bicycles
• Oppose lock-to mechanisms unless provide additional
infrastructure
• Penalize users who don't comply with rules
• Parking lots outside of downtown to lessen downtown
congestion and promote active transit within downtown
• Disable scooter when rules aren’t being followed • Docking station to prevent sidewalk blockage
INFRASTRUCTURE
• Need more protected infrastructure to deter sidewalk
riding
• City should call bike lanes "micro-mobility lanes/paths" and
maintain/improve/expand them accordingly
• Build it and they will come (designated infrastructure)
• Need fully integrated multi-modal transportation network
first
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2
24
FINANCIAL ALLOCATION (Money Would Be Better Spent On…)
• Bikeshare • Emergency Services
• Public transit • Healthcare
• Homeless population issues • Mentally Ill
• Affordable housing / Housing Infrastructure
• Electric busses • Bike lanes
• ADA compliancy • Intersections & pedestrian crossings
• Building additional bridges over Willamette River • Protected infrastructure
• Charging stations • Roads
• Distracted Drivers • Street paving
• E-bikes MISCELLANEOUS
• Economic/environmental/housing issues • City shouldn't put any money into pilot
• Electric cars
• Need transparency of how much city funding is going into
program
UNCATEGORIZED
• No criteria more important than getting more cars off the road
• Scooters are coming regardless - privately owned ones already
increasing
• Stop making this so much more complicated than necessary. • May have utility in densely travelled areas
• It's pretty cool that the city is thinking about these categories!
• Stand-up scooters are for recreation, seated are for longer
trips and errands
• Great opportunity - don't mess it up! • DO allow gig-work charging
• Don't let older generation ruin it for the younger generation • Gig-work offers flexible, reasonably paid work opportunity
• People are scared of new things
February 26, 2020, Work Session – Item 2