Athens in Motion Commission

Athens in Motion Commission Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020 – 4:00-6:00 pm Planning Department Auditorium 120 West Dougherty St, Athecns, GA 30601 PRESENT Carol Myers Lauren Blais Aaron Redman Mark Ebell James Barlament Jake Maas Craig Topple Roswell Lawrence ABSENT Teresa Friedlander TPW Hillary Essig Stephen Bailey GUESTS Allen Jones, Timothy Forward Claude Lett, Timothy Forward Scott Long, Bike Athens Sherrie Hines, Assistant ACC Attorney Derek Doster, SPLOST office Daniel Sizemore, Park Planning Elliott Caldwell, Georgia Bikes 1. Carol called the meeting to order at 4:06 PM. 2. Amendment to the agenda: Carol added #5, below. 3. Approval of minutes from Dec. 18, 2019. Mark moved to approved with corrections. Moved by Mark, seconded by James. 4. Walk audits feedback - AIM member perspective ● Carol, who attended the Cherokee Road and Barber Street walk audits, explained what walk audits are to the non-Commissioners in attendance. Carol was impressed and finds them helpful. She wants to send something short and positive to the Commissioners saying as much. ● James had concerns about the Riverbend improvements, which were somewhat ameliorated by the walk audit he attended. ● Patrick Davenport came to Cherokee Road and Tim Denson came to Jefferson River Road. 5. Report from Corridor Commission ● Corridor Policy Committee – AiMC is on the flow chart and part of the process for relevant bike/ped considerations. The Commission agreed that it is important for someone from AiMC to attend these meetings. ● Policies about medians, speed – Hillary has more about this in her staff report. 6. AIM policy work plan discussion ● We reviewed the request from the M&C that we create a work plan. Carol reiterated that the workplan is for policy, not for projects. ● A number of policy issues as potentially addressable through the work plan. o Complete Streets Policy ▪ Aaron: includes road diets. o Beg Buttons o Traffic Calming ▪ Hillary: this is for 25 mph and under residential roadways ONLY. The Corridor Committee is looking on this o Enforcement Issues – Ped Crosswalks o Guest suggestion: renovating/maintenance of crosswalks. ● The Commission submitted these suggestions to the Policy Committee and they will work on it. Lauren will send out an email to ask for more suggestions. Development of the work plan will be a high priority for the policy committee. 7. AIM project addition and review process discussion ● We need to come up with a process that we use to govern our response to specific requests addressed to the Commission. Carol, Hillary, Lauren met about this. o Assumption: we have a commitment to the criteria used in the prioritization of the Athens in Motion Plan. o These would be projects identified as missing from AiM plan.  o This would also encompass addition triggered by a number of developments impacting bike/ped infrastructure: new construction that increases active transportation (and automobile) traffic flow to an area such as schools, churches, parks, and transit route stops. o This doesn’t include repavement, which has its own process o Adjustments to existing projects can be made on the ground during the development process. o Consideration of additional projects needs to happen no more often than Annually, because it depends on Bike/Ped Coordinator, who is overtaxed. ● We will come back to this to define triggers; Carol will get feedback online and we will decide whether to send it to a subcommittee or bring it back to the full committee. 8. Business Model Rideshare for Motorized Vehicles - Sherrie Hines, ACCUG attorney ● Sherrie Hines presented on this topic, telling us that this is basically the same as her presentation to the M&C. It reflects over a year of looking into the micromobility trend and its relevance to Athens. The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) recognizes that this is a complicated issue and wants help from AiMC and others. ● The presentation is attached as Appendix C. ● The LRC has developed a draft regulatory pilot scheme that they want AiMC to weigh in on. The draft document was provided to AiM Commissioners prior to the meeting. It is attached as Appendix B. o The document only addresses e-scooters and in theory shareable mopeds. Bicycles and electric assisted bicycles are excluded. o Personal use (ownership, rental) is fine. o The LRC wants to future-proof and consider additional types of devices. o Would Segways be included? No – they are treated differently and have their own state laws. (e.g., they are allowed on sidewalks) o Regulatory pilot scheme would allow them to operate with protections, while ensuring ADA access. This is the #1 priority, followed closely by safety. ▪ San Diego has been sued in federal and state courts because people in wheelchairs can’t even use the sidewalks outside their homes. o Fee structures need not to look like illegal taxes and comply with laws that describe what you can charge fees for. They also need to offset costs incurred by ACC. All of the fees listed in the regulatory pilot scheme are in place somewhere in the US. o Vendor requirements are easy; user requirements are hard. o Helmet use: Aaron noted that bicyclists are not required to wear helmets in Georgia, but there is no State law on e-scooters. Sherrie opined that they would probably be treated like bikes. o One of the requirements in the pilot scheme is that they can only be operated from dawn to dusk. A lot of pushback from the Commission on dawn to dusk requirements. o Other issues:  ▪ In ATL, almost all of the accidents are caused by drivers. ▪ Any such vehicles have to have serious brakes, especially for going down hills. ▪ Lights are small and not high enough off the ground. ▪ Though signaling is a requirement, if you remove a hand you will probably wipe out – so there is no way of safely signaling. ▪ Equity: cities have tried to address this by creating ‘opportunity zones’ that include disadvantaged areas; however, companies have easily found ways to skirt them. ▪ Enforcement is the troublesome part. What is an enforcement program that the companies can live with? ▪ Data: need to opt-in, not opt-out. ▪ Environmental Sustainability: these devices are often used by people who would have walked or ridden a bike otherwise. Do they replace cars or bikes/peds? The limited research available suggests the latter – people use them for trips where they would otherwise have walked – which is a net negative for the AiMC. ● Scooters are cheaply produced and have a short life. Bird’s were lasting a month, though they claim that newer models are more robust. Additionally, they get picked up in cars, which are trips would not have happened otherwise. o The moratorium on e-scooters ends June 4th, and the LRC wants feedback as early as possible. o Importantly, the draft document excises all of UGA’s campus from the operable area of these vehicles. UGA is unlikely ever to allow them. Jake asked Sherrie what constitutes as UGA campus? Does this include the roads that go through campus, for example? Students would then definitely leave the devices alongside the roads. Would UGA agree to install corrals? Jake opined that e-scooters are unlikely to achieve critical mass to make them profitable in Athens if they are not allowed on campus, as so many trips would start, end, or cross campus. o Are they allowed on the Greenway and multi-use trails? Not currently because of easements. Also, if allowed, companies would need to be required to geofence to cap speed. o Aaron: has there been any study on economic impact from tourism? Sherrie did not have this information. ● How does AiMC want to develop our recommendations? o Lauren: let’s not go out of bounds here. What questions are we trying to answer? ▪ LRC specifically does not want to give us a charge, but their top concerns are ADA accessibility and safety. 9. Bike Pedestrian Coordinator Update - Hillary Essig Hillary’s presentation is attached as Appendix A. ● Walk audits are complete; data are going back to the consultants. Rani and Hillary will be working with consultants. (Rani is the Project Manager.) ● No update on bicycle projects using TSPLOST funding. ● West Broad Roundabout is back to consultant for final design. ● Vision Zero intern is compiling crash data. ● Permanent striping from summer repavement is mostly finished. ● Derek: Corridor User Groups: Some of their projects will be handled by DOT and have been removed from their agenda. ● The north side of Lexington is earmarked for a multi-use path. Also, Leisure Services is developing a concept for multiuse path around the Airport to connect to the Firefly Trail. ● Speed Management: the corridor user groups are focusing on roadways with speed limits over 35 MPH. ● Lauren: is anything standing out? Will anything generate matching from GDOT? Derek: we have not identified such projects yet; specifics are not yet developed. The user groups have a soft deadline to move their recommendations to M&C by the May/June cycle. ● User groups include a corridor sign committee to brand corridors. ● Hillary is meeting with Transit to figure out their Corridor needs. This will be the starting point. ● Derek: the idea is: how do you engage people in micro-communities holistically, and make road corridors more than just point A to point B connectivity (especially thinking about businesses). ● What funding is available?? o BUILD used to be TIGER, which used to be way to apply for multimodal funds in prior federal administrations. Now it is used for car-based infrastructure. o GDOT structure: Commissioner is public face; Planning Director controls the money. 10. Data Analysis Subcommittee Formation, Participation, and First Meeting Date ● Hillary and James will be on it. Mark volunteered. James will send something out as an informational advertisement. 11. Follow-up on Mark’s observations: Oconee St. at loop, UGA East Campus bridge removal, stats on citations related to pedestrian and bike safety on main corridors ● What happened to the pedestrian bridge over East Campus road between River Road and Cedar St.? o Roswell: It is not being replaced; it was 1960s construction with safety issues. It was for heavy rail traffic. Repairing what was there was not feasible. The powers that be determined that the signaled crossing at Cedar Street is adequate alternative crossing. ● The rest of this item was tabled for next meeting due to time constraints. 12. Policy committee – Update   The Diversity and Inclusion Office will look at diversity section in their draft plan. Will have something in a few months. 13. Communication committee – Update ● Carol is going to follow up with this next month. Carol went to the Open Streets meeting, which was positive; AiMC will work with Leisure Services on Open Streets event. 14. Grant Committee – Update ● We want to apply for stuff in Fall, will coordinate with Hillary. 15. Other news/issues ● How do we get money for sidewalks in the General Fund? We can start building one for next year – FY 2022. The tendency within ACCUG is moving away from the General Fund in general. 16. Committee work, as time allows ● Time did not allow. 17. Meeting adjourned at 5:50pm. Next meetings: ● February 25, 4-6 pm ● March 24, 4-6 pm  APPENDIX A Athens in Motion Commission Update Transportation and Public Works Advance five (5) tier 1 pedestrian projects using TSPLOST funding Name From To Status Barber Street N Chase Boulevard Walk Audit: Completed Jefferson River Rd Old Jefferson Vincent Dr Walk Audit: Completed Rd/Greenway Back to consultants for Complete Street Cherokee Rd Beaverdam Rd Lexington Rd Walk Audit: Completed Back to consultants for Complete Street Riverbend Rd S. Milledge Ave College Station Rd Walk Audit: Completed Back to consultants for Complete Street King Ave Sunset Dr Old West Broad St Construction complete Advance five (5) tier 1 bicycle projects using TSPLOST funding Name From To Status Barber Street N Chase Boulevard Walk Audit: Completed S/N Milledge Ave Prince Ave Baxter St Commissioner Edwards wants to pursue future TSPLOST to underground utilities North Ave Danielsville Rd Willow St Greenway Not awarded BUILD grant Hawthorne Ave Oglethorpe Ave W Broad St No Update Cedar Shoals Dr Whit Davis Rd Gaines School Rd Design Report Complete – On hold until repavement prioritization is complete (early 2020) TPW Updates • West Broad Roundabout is back to consultant for final design • Vision Zero - Intern is working on fatalities and serious injury classifications for bike, pedestrians, and vehicles from 2014 – 2019 • Permanent striping from summer repavement is MOSTLY finished (YAY) • Atlanta Highway User Group – Currently compiling crash data and coordinating with transit to prioritize certain sidewalk connections along the corridor. Also looking at landscaped median locations for beautification and safety • Lexington Road User Group – Compiling crash data for targeted intersection improvements; costing sidewalk gaps for the south side of Lexington (north side is earmarked for multi-use path); Leisure Services developing concept for a multi- use path around the airport that would connect Lexington to future Firefly • Corridor Policy Committee – Potential new policies including: speed management policy, roundabout policy, and vegetation type policy for corridors Transportation Funding – Where is the Money? • Federal Government • BUILD Grant – can be applied for any project regardless of ownership (North Avenue) – No match required • Distributes money to GDOT (CMAQ funds, FAST funds, ETC all direct to GDOT or urbanized MPO’s) • State Government • House Bill 170 (2015) – fees on gas, hotels, and vehicles provides $1 billion annually to GDOT to divvy up between projects within TIPS of all MPO across state • Our MPO is MACORTS • GDOT chooses and distributes money to projects based on the MACORTS Short-Term Plan • MACORTS Long-Range and Short-Range plans are only for GDOT roadways • Grants at state level – LMIG (paving), TAP, and TE (currently no funding) • Occasionally leftover LMIG funds will go to an MMSAG grant program • Local • TSPLOST/SPLOST • General Fund – no money currently allocated for bike or pedestrian improvements • Safe Routes to School • There was federal funding available in 2008, but that funding was used up by 2011 • ACC has funded SRTS projects through TSPLOST/SPLOST dollars. That money has since been used up. • TSPLOST 2018 and SPLOST 2020 did not include any SRTS funding Other Grants (that we (Hillary) knows of) • People for Bikes – bike paths, rail trails, mountain bike trails, bike parks, BMX facilities, and education efforts. Focus changes each year. • Typical reward is $5,000 - $25,000 • Doppelt Family Trail Foundation (Rails to Trails) – funds multi-use paths • Typical reward is $5,000 – $25,000 APPENDIX B  APPENDIX C Shareable Dockless Mobility Device Pilot Program B Y: S HERRIE H INES , ATHENS -C LARKE C OUNTY A SSISTANT AT TORNEY J A N UA R Y 2 8 , 2 0 2 0 Overview: 1. Shareable Dockless Mobility Devices explained 2. History of ACC’s involvement with Shareable Devices 3. Pilot Program Development 4. Next Steps Shareable Dockless Mobility Devices As defined in ACC Code Section 3-3-68(b) (and amended 10/2/19): (1) Shareable dockless mobility device means any dockless wheeled device, whether it be human-powered, electric, or otherwise motorized, that permits an individual to move or be moved freely, which shall include but not be limited to e-scooters and shall exclude bicycles and electric assisted bicycles; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method; is operated by a private entity that owns, manages, and maintains devices for shared use by members of the public; and is available to members of the public in unstaffed, self-service locations. (2) Dockless means that the device does not require the individual user to return and lock the device to an authorized fixed station once the user has completed their use of the device. Examples of Shareable Devices Image Credit (left to right): Lime Scooter (https://www.li.me/en-us/home), Bird Cruiser (https://cruiser.bird.co), Wheels Scooter (https://www.wheels.co) Other Sharable Devices: Image Credit (left to right): Gotcha Trike (https://ridegotcha.com/trike), Jump e-bike (https://jump.com), Muving moped (https://muvingusa.com/) History of ACC Involvement  March 6, 2018 – LRC began exploration of non-traditional motorized devices in response to parking violations, unlawful golf cart use, etc.  August 16, 2018 – Bird scooters arrive with no warning and are deployed on sidewalks primarily in and around downtown Athens and UGA’s campus.  Fall 2018 – ACC and UGA documented issues with the e- scooters including illegal sidewalk parking/riding, reckless driving, injuries, etc.  December 4, 2018 – ACC passed a moratorium to temporarily ban shareable devices out of a concern for public safety and to give staff a chance to research and develop a pilot program. Pilot Program Purpose  To provide a structured program in which to assess whether shareable devices can be operated safely to the benefit of our community.  To ensure compliance with all state and local laws, including lawful use of ACC’s ROW.  To ensure that shareable devices do not interfere with pedestrian use of our sidewalks, especially as it relates to ADA access.  To explore equitable ways of providing access to all members of our community.  To explore opportunities to collaborate with UGA to better meet the needs of our community.  To verify that shareable devices deployed in the ROW are safe for the traveling public. Basic Elements of the Proposed Pilot  Pilot participation will be determined by RFP  Geofencing technology will be used to prohibit operations in certain areas (e.g., UGA  Program Length: 12 months campus, trails, etc.)  Two vendors will be selected  Vendors should provide an opportunity for  Vendors may operate multiple types of other private entities to request geofencing shareable devices (e.g., scooters, e-bikes, etc.)  The Pilot (or a vendor’s participation in the  Initial max of 150 devices per vendor pilot) can be terminated or modified at any time due to health and safety concerns or  The number of authorized devices can be violations of the terms of the Pilot increased or decreased throughout the pilot Fee Structures ACC should consider hiring a consultant for the purposes of determining what fees are appropriate to cover the costs necessary for the operation of the Pilot. Potential Pilot Expenses: Examples of Types of Pilot Fees:  Supervision of vendors  Non-refundable application fees  Personnel and training  Annual /pilot-long permitting/licensing fees  Data evaluation and compilation, including  $1 per-day per-device fees surveys regarding citizen satisfaction, usage, and impact  Annual (or pilot-long) per-device fees  Enforcement and impoundment  Per-trip surcharges or right-of-way usage fees  Performance bonds General Operations User Requirements: Vendor Requirements:  Shareable devices are generally to be  Vendors must be able to respond to operated in the same way as bicycles complaints within one hour to rebalance/re- park devices and remove or repair damaged  Operators must follow the rules of the road devices and may be cited or arrested for violations, including DUI.  Shareable devices may not be deployed on UGA Game Days or during inclement weather  Devices must be parked upright only in authorized locations  Vendors shall maintain a 24-hour customer service phone number and local point of  Operators must be at least 18 years old and contact to respond to complaints. may only ride one person per device  Devices may be operated dawn to dusk  Helmet use is strongly encouraged Parking & Deployment  Parking requirements should differentiate between areas of high and low pedestrian traffic.  Parking within the Athens Downtown Development Authority must be in designated parking areas only, to be determined by ACCGov.  Parking outside of the ADDA should be allowed on sidewalks provided that the devices are parked upright and allow at least four feet of space for pedestrian travel.  Devices should not be operated or parked in areas that are geofenced off.  Companies must use GPS data and photos taken by users to verify lawful parking.  Parking should be designed to integrate with ACC Transit to promote alternative forms of transportation.  Parking & Deployment (cont’d) The Mayor & Commission should consider whether they would like to require parking in or adjacent to bicycle racks, in physical parking corrals, in docks, in painted parking areas, etc. Photo Credit: Transportation for America’s Micromobility Playbook - https://playbook.t4america.org/parking-street-design/  Parking & Deployment (cont’d) Photo Credit: Transportation for America’s Micromobility Playbook (https://playbook.t4america.org/parking-street-design); Swiftmile dock (https://swiftmile.com/#hardware-features) Equity & Economic Impact  Vendors must explain how their services will be made available to those without smart phones, driver’s licenses, credit cards, or bank accounts.  Companies must provide monthly reports regarding the rates that will be offered to all users, including but not limited to passes/subscriptions and discount programs for students, seniors, youth, and/or low-income/at-risk populations.  Preference shall be given to companies that provide reduced or no cost options to individuals whose income level is at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines and who demonstrate a commitment to serving low-income and otherwise underserved communities.  ACC reserves the right to modify the Pilot at any time and in its sole discretion to address concerns regarding equitable deployment and usage of Shareable Devices as informed by data collected throughout the Pilot. The Mayor & Commission may want to consider the use of Opportunity Zones during the Pilot. Maintenance & Safety Vendors must:  Perform routine maintenance checks before deploying each device.  Encourage helmet use, up to and including offering free helmets if possible.  Provide an in-app or on-screen safety demonstration for users.  Utilize sturdier and more durable equipment designed for repeated, outdoor, commercial use, including devices with both electric and mechanical breaks.  Be able to remotely disable devices when a safety or maintenance issues is reported.  Verify provide and maintenance training for all employees and/or contractors. The Mayor & Commission may want to consider speed reductions in certain areas. Education & Enforcement Vendors must:  Provide a detailed communications, outreach, and education plan to encourage user compliance with all applicable laws and the Pilot terms.  Develop a detailed system of incentives, penalties, or both to guarantee user compliance.  Incentivize users to return vehicles to transit stops and other designated parking areas as required by the Pilot through either gamification, other incentives, or geofencing tactics.  Shareable devices may be impounded immediately if they pose a danger or obstruct ADA access. Violations may result in fines/citations for the user or the vendor and/or termination of participation in the pilot. Data Sharing by the Vendor  Vendors shall not require users to grant location services to use the company’s service while the application is not in use or require users to share other data (e.g., contacts, photos) in order to use the service.  Vendors may not require users to share their private information or data with a 3rd party. Vendors may allow users to opt in to sharing their data with a 3rd party, but may not require users to opt out.  Companies must describe what parts or apps in a user’s phone that the company requires access to (e.g., camera, location services, contacts) and explain why that access is necessary and whether it is being used for other commercial purposes beyond that which is necessary to monitor the user’s trip and compliance with Pilot requirements. Data Sharing with ACCGov  Vendors must share anonymized real-time and archival information for their entire ACC fleet during the course of the Pilot with ACCGov upon request.  Staff will coordinate with ACC’s Data Governance Committee to determine what information to collect and in what format in order to protect user privacy and meet community needs.  Vendors shall share personally identifiable information with ACCGov where there is an injury or property damage. The Mayor & Commission may want to consider whether data management related to the Pilot should be managed in-house or contracted out to a third-party. Environmental Impact & Sustainability  Vendors shall utilize devices that are designed for sustained and repeated outdoor use in order to reduce waste and operate in an environmentally-friendly manner.  Vendors shall provide a Life Cycle Assessment to demonstrate the life cycle of all Shareable Devices deployed within ACC.  Vendors shall ensure that the lithium batteries are reused, recycled, or otherwise disposed of in a manner that does not present a hazard to the environment or the safety of the public.  Vendors shall demonstrate ways that they are addressing environmental concerns related to the need to collect, charge, and re-deploy Shareable Devices, including but not limited to devices that allow for the swapping of batteries, charging docking stations, etc.  Vendors shall coordinate with ACC Transit to promote public transportation. Possible Next Steps  Amendments to Pilot Proposal from Work Session feedback & AiM Recommendations  Hiring of contractor to develop fee structure  Coordination with ACC Departments to manage Pilot (e.g., Central Services, T/PW, Transit)  Development and release of RFP  Modification of ordinances as necessary to authorize the RFP, parking provisions, etc. Questions? Feel free to contact me at sherrie.hines@accgov.com or 706-613-3035.