Traffic and Transportation Committee

COMMITTEE ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION November 7, 2016 A meeting of the Committee on Traffic and Transportation was held this date beginning at 3:31 p.m., at City Hall, First Floor Conference Room, 80 Broad Street. Notice of this meeting was sent to all local news media. PRESENT Councilmember Seekings, Chair; Councilmembers Moody, and Wagner, and Mayor Tecklenburg Staff: Robert Somerville, Interim Director of Traffic and Transportation, Janie Borden, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Bethany Whitaker, Council Secretary Also Present: Jacob Lindsey, Sean Flood and Lieutenant King The meeting was opened with a moment of silence by Chairman Seekings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 27, 2016 Committee on Traffic and Transportation meeting were deferred on the agenda. On the motion of Councilmember Moody, seconded by Councilmember Wagner, the Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2016 meeting. Bike Share Contract Jacob Lindsey stated this was a brief introduction to bike sharing. Bike sharing is not like what the City did in the late 90’s. It will be a registered user system. The bikes can be checked out during a period of time and returned back to a designated location and after that point the user is charged for the use. It’s kind of like a rental but it allows the users to move around the City at will. The bikes will be located at designated sites around the City. The first bike share program was in 2008 in D.C. In New York City they launched the first system like ours, that was fully funded by corporate sponsors Today, 104 cities around the country including Greenville, Spartanburg, Savannah, Charlotte, and Chattanooga have bike sharing systems. Mr. Lindsey stated that bike sharing gets cars off the road. Short trips are a big problem in the City and a bike share adds transportation options. The bike share would also promote healthy lifestyles which the City’s partner, MUSC, is very focused on. Gotcha Group is a local vendor which was the basis for selection. This will be a good thing for the image of the City of Charleston. Mr. Lindsey stated that this comes on the back of a couple of recommendations. In 2014, the former Director of Traffic and Transportation in D.C and Chicago came down and he said the City needed a bike share system. It was also recommended by our Tourism Management Plan. From 2014 until now, the City went through a first round of submittals and didn’t choose anybody. The City selected Gotcha Group in February 2016. This has been through DRC. There will be some operation of the vendor on City property. The bike routes will go on some City properties which require a vote. There’s an Operating Agreement to make sure this vendor isn’t doing things they shouldn’t be doing. The Agreement holds them to certain commitments. They can’t operate in ways the City doesn’t want them to. The City will not have any liability; the vendor does. This protects the City’s legal liability in the off chance that something happens. It also controls the site selection process such as where the bikes sit, and where the racks sit. The big thing is that this will not cost the City. This is entirely funded through our partnership with MUSC, and other corporate vendors if the vendor can get them. Other cities pay a pretty penny to have bike shares. Mr. Lindsey asked where the bikes and racks would go and said that there would be some level of flexibility. Some of the stations will be big, and some will be small. This will be a mix of public and private lots. Some will be on private property and the City has no say in that. Our review is for stations on City property and in rights of way that the City controls. The locations that are in the City’s rights of way have to have approval from the Public Service Department, the Director of Traffic and Transportation, and the City’s Design Committee which includes the Director of Planning, the Director of Parks, and the Director of Public Service. This gets thoroughly vetted. This program was originally conceived for downtown Charleston. The reason the City starts there is that, for this to be successful, the bike share program needs to be where people are walking on foot and a lot of people are close together. So, downtown Charleston is the place to start for maximum success. If this works well, and it expands out to points further out that would be great and hopefully that can happen. The locations proposed are Moultrie Playground close to Colonial Lake and somewhere inside Hampstead Square. Other proposed locations are in rights of way which include Elwood Avenue close to the Citadel, right across from Gaillard Center, near the aquarium, close to the Visitors Center in between King and Meeting, middle King Street at Liberty and King. The location at Liberty and King is the only location where a parallel parking spot would need to be removed. Councilmember Moody asked if Liberty Street goes right into King Street and if it would have to be approved by the Public Service Department. Mr. Lindsey stated that it has to be approved by the Public Service Department, Director of Traffic and Transportation, and the entirety of DRC and that is for City maintained rights of way. For state streets, the process has to go through state level encroachment, but none of the initial package is state level. Councilmember Moody asked if there is a qualification to be a registered user is or if it consists of just signing your name. Sean Flood stated that there is an app to register or you can use a web portal that we create specifically for the City. You will register, link it to your credit card information and select a payment plan. You will get an account number and pin and then will be able to access the bike anywhere directly with the pin. Mr. Lindsey stated that there would also be a pre-registration plan, where you can get a RFID card if you don’t have access to the web or an app. Councilmember Wagner asked how many units there would be. Mr. Lindsey stated that the goal for the initial roll out is to have over 200 bicycles and then the City would go from there and assess. The Medical University moves a lot of people back and forth. The initial roll out has 15 stations. Mayor Tecklenburg stated that the property proposed for the bike share at the Aquarium had been recommended for sale by the Committee at Community Development. There’s an easement issue being taken care of before it can be sold but it would make sense to find another location by the Aquarium in anticipation of that. Mr. Lindsey stated that the City has met with Colleen Carducci and she is aware of that transaction and of the nature of the real estate near there. Chairman Seekings stated that the ask is to approve the contract between the vendor and the City which is revenue neutral. He then thanked Aaron and Jacob for their work and Janie and Robbie for being there since the beginning. He stated that this short and simple presentation took a lot of work to get to. He believes this is something that is overdue and the nice thing is it is revenue neutral. Janie Borden stated that the contract in the packet was the finalized packet that the City has worked out with Gotcha Group. Gotcha Group is in agreement with all of the terms and conditions as is the City for the project. Councilmember Moody asked what the consideration is to the City and stated that this is revenue neutral but there would be no revenue coming back to the City other than the business license fees. Chairman Seekings stated that’s it and that the City would get business license fees. The reason we have the contract is because the City retains some management control. The legal consideration is giving up private independent business rights to partner with them. The monetary end will be business license fees and taxes. Councilmember Moody asked if anyone else in the area is considering this. Chairman Seekings stated that if it goes well here, next would be Park Circle and Daniel Island. Councilmember Moody asked if it would have a tourism component to it or if it would be for residents and people that are working or living here mostly. Chairman Seekings stated that downtown on any given day, you will see people riding around on bikes from the hotels. These are like mini bike share programs. The vendor will know all of those things and they will know who the customers are based on how they register and so, the City will be able to focus our energies on helping them get into the right places. Councilmember Moody asked if there would be any exclusivity with the contract as far as other rentals. Ms. Borden and Chairman Seekings stated there is no exclusivity. Chairman Seekings stated that the capital cost on starting is fairly significant and so you would have to convince someone else to go and compete. Someone could come along but it is unlikely. Councilmember Moody stated that’s why this would be more for residents than tourists because the tourists would probably go to the hotel that has free bikes or a bike shop and asked if we are doing different things than the hotels and bike shops. Chairman Seekings stated that they have talked about this and that may be part of the competitive aspect of. The hotels do have bikes but this will be more City wide. Mr. Lindsey stated that anyone who wants to operate a private rental service or bike service is welcome to do that but that the bike share would serve all people in the City. However, it will probably serve residents more than tourists. Councilmember Moody stated that this probably wouldn’t work in West Ashley because there’s not enough density and Mr. Lindsey said not yet. Councilmember Wagner stated that people on bicycles think that street is theirs and asked if this should start to happen, what would do the City do. It affects the tourism industry because the bicyclists think they can do whatever they want to do. Mr. Lindsey stated that they have been talking recently about providing more education for people riding bikes in the city. They have been thinking about that issue and will be moving forward soon to teach people how you ride a bicycle in a city. The contractors will share all their data so we will see where all the bikes are going. Chairman Seekings stated the City will be able to see what streets they are going down and what direction. Councilmember Moody asked if there was any prohibition at the Citadel about Cadets riding a bike with their uniform on. Chairman Seekings stated that he doesn’t believe so and that he hadn’t heard anything. We should talk to the General about this. Mr. Flood stated that they reached out to the Citadel to let them know where we are in the process. Mayor Tecklenburg stated that he had to commend Gotcha Bikes for being so patient with the City and that he thinks it will be a terrific service. He stated that he is looking forward to when it’s in West Ashley and said that the bikes are nice because they have a bike drive rather than a chain and they are designed for low maintenance. On the motion of Councilmember Moody, seconded by Councilmember Wagner, the Committee voted unanimously to approve the contract between the vendor and the City. An Ordinance to amend the Code of the City of Charleston, South Carolina Chapter 31, Section 31- 212 to extend the restrictions for the “no pick-up zones” to include the holidays of Memorial Day, Labor Day, New Year’s Eve, Fourth of July, Halloween, and Saint Patrick’s Day and during special concerts or promotions that take place within the late night entertainment district. Ms. Borden stated that this item is to amend our no pickup zones. We have 2 taxi no pick up zones. One is on Market Street and one is on King Street. They prohibit pick-up or drop off except at these locations. This works well for the City except on the holidays because our ordinance doesn’t cover the holidays. The Police Department has asked the City to include the holidays in the no pick up zone. This is an amendment that would include the City’s busiest holidays of Memorial Day, Labor Day, New Year’s Eve, Fourth of July, Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day, and any special concerts or promotions in the late night entertainment district. Councilmember Moody stated that the City just did it on the weekends and so if one of the holidays fell on a different night it wasn’t included and asked if this was just adding the holidays. This was confirmed. On the motion of Councilmember Moody, seconded by Councilmember Wagner, the Committee voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the Code of the City of Charleston, South Carolina Chapter 31, Section 31-212 to extend the restrictions for the “no pick-up zones” to include the holidays of Memorial Day, Labor Day, New Year’s Eve, Fourth of July, Halloween, and Saint Patrick’s Day and during special concerts or promotions that take place within the late night entertainment district. An Ordinance to amend the Code of the City of Charleston, South Carolina, Chapter 19, 399 € to require that towing business that perform non-consensual tows be required to return vehicles to their owners twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, three hundred sixty-five days per year. Ms. Borden stated that the police department asked for this item to be drafted after a towing company performed a nonconsensual tow and the car wasn’t able to be picked up until a Monday after being towed on a Friday. This states that if you want to perform nonconsensual tows in the City of Charleston that you have to return the vehicle. The City met with the nonconsensual towers and they asked if we would allow them 45 minutes to come to the property to release the vehicle after receiving a request which is similar to the booting ordinance which requires 30 minutes. There is a revised ordinance in the packet. Councilmember Moody asked what return the vehicle meant. Chairman Seekings stated this meant turn it over and release it from the impound lot to return the vehicle to their possession. Mayor Tecklenburg asked how much the fine was if they don’t make it in the 45 minutes. Lieutenant King stated it was a fine of $1092.00. Ms. Borden stated that Judge Maloney would issue a fine something short of the $1092.00 and also require the towing company to return the cost of the tow to whoever was towed. Chairman Seekings stated that this has been an issue and that he has had a number of irate constituents who have had their car towed on a Friday and could not get their car back until Monday. Councilmember Moody stated that was what he thought the law already stated that they had 24 hours but that maybe that is just for the city. Ms. Borden confirmed that that is what is in the City Towing Contract. Councilmember Moody asked if it would be required to be posted on city property so that people know about the 45 minute time limit. Mayor Tecklenburg stated that he thought there was phone number but that it doesn’t address the time limit so you could call and still not get your car back until Monday. Chairman Seekings stated this was anecdotal and that the City would get immediate feedback from people who get towed. Robert Somerville stated that if they don’t deliver it they typically get a call. It’s not posted on any signs but if someone thinks a company has run afoul of an ordinance they call us. Councilmember Moody stated that he was in favor of this but was concerned that if a towing company was running out of Summerville the 45 minutes may not work. Chairman Seekings stated that you have to have a business license in the city to perform nonconsensual tows. Mr. Somerville stated that they approve the nonconsensual tow permits every February, so the companies have to their location and they will get a copy of this. Councilmember Moody stated that if they are in Mount Pleasant or Summerville then they may have to meet halfway to meet the 45 minutes. Mayor Tecklenburg asked how many nonconsensual towing companies there are. Mr. Somerville stated that there are three: Gilchrist, Turky’s, and Craven’s. Chairman Seekings said you’d think there was only one based on the complaints but there are three. Mr. Somerville stated that one of these companies found this loophole. On the motion of Councilmember Moody, seconded by Councilmember Wagner, the Committee voted unanimously to approve An Ordinance to amend the Code of the City of Charleston, South Carolina, Chapter 19, 399 € to require that towing business that perform non-consensual tows be required to return vehicles to their owners twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, three hundred sixty-five days per year. Lieutenant King stated that Robbie brought up the permit issues. Craven’s has most of the business in the city so they get most of the complaints. Regular complaints we understand but Craven’s has had a very high volume of complaints consisting of a myriad of issues about their customer service and business practices. This reflects poorly on the city. Craven’s has been put on notice to begin working on their complaint levels and how they are representing the city. If the complaints don’t slow between now and February, Mr. Somerville does not have to renew their permit for 2017. Craven’s was receptive to that and there was not any discussion. They stated they would work on these issues. No discussion. He just wanted to put it on record that it has been worked on, should their permit not be renewed and they try to come to Council. Chairman Seekings stated that they should follow up with an e-mail to confirm the meeting. Lieutenant King stated that Craven’s does a lot of business and some people don’t complain. They’ve been towing people that are in the car. Chairman Seekings stated that non-consensual towing is a profitable business and he doubts they would jeopardize their business. Councilmember Wagner asked about Craven’s towing while people are in the car and Lieutenant King gave an example of two people pulling up to CVS and one person runs in. A tow truck would block you in and even though you explain that your wife just ran into the store they ask for $75 with no explanation. It’s been about just getting the money. Mr. Somerville deals with it, and he gets involved with it daily. It is taking a lot of city time and resources. Mr. Somerville stated that in order to write a citation, the people who were towed would have to appear in court and many times they are from out of state. So, they will complain, but won’t return to go to court. Councilmember Moody asked if what they are doing is illegal and Mr. Somerville stated that there have been cases where it has been illegal and gave an example of a citation in June where an AT&T truck was on a service call. There wasn’t a sign posted and the worker put a cone there. He came back out and his truck was gone. Mr. Somerville has worked to try and get it resolved but finally had to write a citation because the sign was missing and you can’t tow if there is not a sign posted. The citation was $1000.00. Residential Parking Ordinance Discussion Ms. Borden stated that the Committee needed to discuss who should be getting the parking permit and they have amended the proposed ordinance to limit it to those individuals who can show a SC Driver’s license with an address in the district, proof of payment of a vehicle license registered to an address in the district or a South Carolina Identification card if you can’t secure a license. They also added a provision that no more than 2 residential parking permits should be issued to residential unit, and no more than 6 residential parking permits should be issued per Charleston County TMS number. They have a meeting scheduled to look at New York City law for clergy parking. They may have to modify the ordinance to incorporate that. Councilmember Moody asked if parking for City Council members had been taken any further than discussion and Chairman Seekings stated that it had been discussion so far and that it should be separate from the ordinance being discusses. Councilmember Moody asked Chairman Seekings if he thought it should be part of the residential parking ordinance and Chairman Seekings stated not from his perspective but the Committee can discuss it. Councilmember Moody stated that the Councilmembers park all around the residencies, and it’s usually 1 or 2 hour parking. He has parked in a 2 hour parking spot knowing he wouldn’t be out on time. An Enforcement Officer told him he could just hang his ID from the mirror in his car and he wouldn’t be ticketed but when he did this the next time he still received a ticket. Chairman Seekings stated that this is something that has been brought up before and it’s a discussion we need to have with Mr. Somerville and Law Enforcement. Mayor Tecklenburg stated that he agreed with Chairman Seekings and that this should be addressed with a policy rather than in the residential parking ordinance. Mr. Somerville stated that if City employees get a ticket, he will ask their supervisor to provide a note stating that they were on City business and if it was a meter violation he would waive it. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.