Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-23 - Transportation Board - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Approval of Minutes D.1 I move to approve the October 25, 2023 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes (Ross) E. Public Comments THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA TB AGENDA Monday, December 11, 2023 General information about the Transportation Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Nick Ross, nross@bozeman.net This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 346 248 7799 Access code: 982 5865 6090 This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Transportation Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. 1 F. FYI/Discussion F.1 2023 Citizen Advisory Board Ethics Trainings (Ross) F.2 Discussion of Shared Micromobility Program Request for Qualifications (RFQ)(Lonsdale) F.3 Discussion of Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Prioritization and the Gap Analysis and Connectivity Plan(Lonsdale) G. Adjournment General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page. Provide input on Request for Qualifications for the Shared Micromobility Program Provide input to staff on prioritization criteria. This board generally meets the fourth Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Mike Gray, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:I move to approve the October 25, 2023 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes MEETING DATE:December 11, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the October 25, 2023 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Minutes from the October 25, 2023 Transportation Advisory Board. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 102523 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes Report compiled on: November 20, 2023 3 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, October 25, 2023 Page 1 of 5 THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES October 25, 2023 A) 00:04:30 Call to Order - 6:00 PM Present: Bryce Gordon, Christine Roberts, Kelly Pohl, Rio Roland Absent: None Excused: Shannon Mahoney, Courtney Oyler, Paul Reichert, Cyndy Andrus Staff present at the Dias: Director of Transportation and Engineering, Nicholas Ross, Transportation Engineer, Taylor Lonsdale, Public Works Office Manager, Marcy Yeykal. B) 00:04:40 Disclosures C) 00:04:46 Changes to the Agenda Chair Pohl asked the board to excuse board members Reichert, Oyler and Mayor Andreas from tonight's meeting. Board member Shannon Mahoney was also absent from the meeting. 00:05:07 Motion to approve to excuse board members from tonight's meeting. Christine Roberts: Motion Rio Roland: 2nd 00:05:16 Vote on the Motion to approve to excuse board members from tonight's meeting. The Motion carried 4 - 0. Approve: Bryce Gordon Christine Roberts Kelly Pohl Rio Roland 4 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, October 25, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Disapprove: None D) 00:05:32 Approval of Minutes D.1 I move to approve the September 27, 2023 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes 092723 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes 00:05:41 Motion to approve the September 27, 2023 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes. Bryce Gordon: Motion Christine Roberts: 2nd 00:06:01 Vote on the Motion to approve the September 27, 2023 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes. The Motion carried 4 - 3. Approve: Bryce Gordon Christine Roberts Kelly Pohl Rio Roland Disapprove: None E) 00:06:11 Public Comments There was no public comment. 00:07:10 Director of Transportation and Engineering gave a brief FYI to the board about grant money awarded and transportation related items. Chair Pohl also made the announcement that the boards meeting schedule has been adjusted for the next two months. The November and December meetings both fall during the holidays so they both have been cancelled in lieu of a single meeting which will be held on Monday December 7th. 00:15:56 Chair Pohl asked Director Ross a question about the speed study and what corridors they were for. F) 00:16:54 Special Presentations F.1 00:17:35 City of Bozeman Strategic Parking Management Plan Mallory Baker a consultant for Walker Consultants presented the City of Bozeman Strategic Parking Management Plan to the board. G) 00:30:08 Action Items 5 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, October 25, 2023 Page 3 of 5 G.1 00:30:16 Resolution 2023-04 A Resolution of the Transportation Advisory Board Acting as the Parking Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana to Repeal Parking Commission Resolution 2010-01 A Policy for the Loss of Public Parking Transportation Advisory Board Resolution 2023-04 To Repeal Parking Commission Resolution 2010-01 Policy for Loss of Public Parking.docx Parking_Commission_Resolution_2010-01_Policy_for_Loss_of_Public_Parking.pdf 00:30:40 Staff Presentation Mike Veselik presented the resolution 2023-04 acting as a parking commission to repeal parking commission resolution 2010-01 A policy for the loss of public parking. 00:36:25 Questions of Staff 00:44:58 Public Comment There was no public comment. 00:45:38 Motion to approve Resolution 2023-04 A Resolution of the Transportation Advisory Board Acting as the Parking Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana to Repeal Parking Commission Resolution 2010-01 A Policy for the Loss of Public Parking. Amendment suggestion based on work session: I move to amend Resolution 2023-04 to strike everything after Now Therefore, Be It Resolved and replacing it with "that the Transportation Advisory Board acting as the parking Commission amends Resolution 2010-01 to allow for the net loss of up to fifty parking spaces in the downtown core on a temporary basis and up to thirty parking spaces in the downtown core on a permanent basis." Rio Roland: Motion Bryce Gordon: 2nd 00:45:56 Discussion 00:52:52 Vote on the Motion to approve Resolution 2023-04 A Resolution of the Transportation Advisory Board Acting as the Parking Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana to Repeal Parking Commission Resolution 2010-01 A Policy for the Loss of Public Parking. Amendment suggestion based on work session: I move to amend Resolution 2023-04 to strike everything after Now Therefore, Be It Resolved and replacing it with "that the Transportation Advisory Board acting as the parking Commission amends Resolution 2010-01 to allow for the net loss of up to fifty parking spaces in the downtown core on a temporary basis and up to thirty parking spaces in the downtown core on a permanent basis." The Motion carried 4 - 0. Approve: Bryce Gordon Christine Roberts 6 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, October 25, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Kelly Pohl Rio Roland Disapprove: None G.2 00:53:34 Appointment of Transportation Advisory Board Member to the Administrative Review Board? 00:53:44 Staff Presentation Mike Veselik presented the appointment of transportation advisory board member to the administrative review board. 00:57:35 Discussion 00:58:46 Motion to appoint Chair Kelly Pohl to the Administrative Review Board until her term ends with the transportation advisory board. Bryce Gordon: Motion Rio Roland: 2nd 00:59:35 Vote on the Motion to appoint Chair Kelly Pohl to the Administrative Review Board until her term ends with the transportation advisory board. The Motion carried 4 - 0. Approve: Bryce Gordon Christine Roberts Kelly Pohl Rio Roland Disapprove: None H) 01:00:38 FYI/Discussion H.1 01:00:46 FY25-29 Capital Improvement Plan Review 01:00:59 Staff Presentation Director of Transportation and Engineering, Nicholas Ross presented the FY25-29 Capital Improvement Plan Review. 01:38:25 Questions of Staff 01:53:31 Public Comment 01:53:44 Marilee Brown, Public Comment 7 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, October 25, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Marilee Brown was disappointed to hear she would have to wait another 6 years to see the frontage pathway. She has questions about the muti model improvements, 100K. In the future do we see that increasing. Secondly, she was wondering about the stand-alone projects that are listed in the master plan and the funding for those projects. Third, what happened to the Haggerty project. 01:56:01 Chair Pohl gave the reminder that the board meeting schedule has been adjusted for the next two months. The November and December meetings both fall during the holidays so they both have been cancelled in lieu of a single meeting which will be held on Monday December 7th. I) 01:56:22 Adjournment This board generally meets the fourth Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 8 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:2023 Citizen Advisory Board Ethics Trainings MEETING DATE:December 11, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Listen to and participate in the 2023 advisory board ethics training. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.1 Values-Driven Culture: Promote a values-driven organizational culture that reinforces ethical behavior, exercises transparency and maintains the community’s trust. BACKGROUND:The City Charter was approved by the citizens in 2006 and became effective in 2008. According to Charter requirements, the City is required to establish standards and guidelines for conduct and provide annual trainings for all representatives of the City to avoid the use of their public position for private benefit. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: November 2, 2023 9 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT:Discussion of Shared Micromobility Program Request for Qualifications (RFQ) MEETING DATE:December 11, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Provide input on Request for Qualifications for the Shared Micromobility Program STRATEGIC PLAN:4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND:Based on the recommendations from the Bozeman Micromobility Policy Toolkit that was developed by CityFi and subsequent direction given by Bozeman City Commission through a work session, the City of Bozeman intends to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select a single vendor to provide micromobility services in the City of Bozeman. This change in regulatory policy would replace the current open business license structure of managing private shared micromobility companies. The intent of the RFQ is to find a vendor with the experience and positive track record that qualifies them to help bring innovative approaches and solutions for shared micromobility to Bozeman. Once a vendor is selected, the City will work with that vendor to develop the details of the Bozeman Shared Micromobility Program. The City then intends to enter into a multi-year contract with the vendor for exclusive rights to deliver the Bozeman Shared Micromobility Program. City staff will review the draft Scope of Services and Qualifications Criteria sections of the RFQ with the Board and solicit input in order to finalize the RFQ. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As identified by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:Issuance of the RFQ will have no fiscal effects. 10 Attachments: Draft Scope of Services and Qualifications Critieria.pdf Bozeman Micromobility Policy Toolkit.pdf Report compiled on: November 21, 2023 11 Draft Scope of Services and Qualifications Criteria Transportation Advisory Board December 11, 2023 Scope of Services The scope of services includes two main aspects. 1. Development of the Bozeman Shared Micromobility Program. 2. Provide micromobility services as identified in the Program under an exclusive mulit-year contract. Development of the Bozeman Shared Micromobility Program The selected vendor will work in partnership with the City of Bozeman to develop updated regulatory, management, and operational frameworks for shared micromobility in Bozeman. The intent of the updated frameworks will be to realize the identified goals and create opportunities for long term vendor relationships. The Bozeman Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit identifies the following goals for the Shared Micromobility Program: - Provide safe, convenient and low-emission options to get people where they need to go . - Protect the safety and accessibility for all travelers - walking, rolling, or driving. - Reduce transportation costs and increased affordability and connectivity. - Improve Bozeman as a great place to live, work, learn, play and do business. - Strengthen Bozeman’s environmental stewardship. The development of the Toolkit also identifies five “Big Ideas” as strategies to address key issues. These five strategies will function as the framework for development of the Shared Micromobility Program. The Program will be expected to address topics such as, but not limited to: vehicle types, fleet size, fleet management, operating areas including any restricted areas or operating speed restrictions, operating season, equitable service design, vendor and user accountability, fleet management approach, a parking plan, City of Bozeman’s roles and responsibilities, and data sharing. The City of Bozeman is looking for a vendor that will bring innovative ideas to the development of the Program, ideas that will address the needs for mobility in Bozeman, MT today and will provide opportunities to evolve shared micromobility with changes in technology and the community. Provide Micromobility Services in the City of Bozeman Beginning in 2024, the vendor will provide micromobility services under the developed program through a multiyear contract with the City of Bozeman. The contract will have an annual evaluation associated with its terms. This evaluation will ensure that the partnership between 12 the vendor and the City of Bozeman is meeting the goals and expectations of the Program. It is anticipated that adjustments to the Program may occur based on these evaluations. Statement of Qualifications – Form and Contents Firm Information: a. Experience. Respondent must demonstrate successful experience and capacity to act as a contractor on projects of similar size, type, and complexity. Describe experience of the firm as it relates to the delivery of shared micromobility services for the City of Bozeman, MT. Highlight experience in markets similar to Bozeman, MT. Identify experience that demonstrates the ability to find creative solutions to specific local challenges and opportunities. Include any examples related to topics identified in the Bozeman Micromobility Policy Toolkit. When relevant, describe experience and qualifications of the personnel to be assigned to this project. Describe your recent and current work for the City of Bozeman, if any. b. Firm Background and Qualifications. Provide information about the firm, including location. Describe the firm’s history and current market position and speak to the firm’s stability in the evolving micromobility marketplace. Provide information identifying the firm’s specific qualifications related to delivering shared micromobility services in Bozeman, MT. Include information describing the firm’s background and qualifications related to the ability to match micromobility services with specific markets. Include information on topics such as vehicle types, equitable service design, fleet size, user accountability, and incentives and fees. c. Firm Workload. Provide the status of current and anticipated work within the firm in terms of the ability to deliver shared micromobility services in Bozeman, MT starting in 2024. Include information related to vehicle availability and the ability to deliver local representation and fleet management. Evaluation of the response to these section is the basis for selection. 13 City of Bozeman Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit March 2023 14 2 Table of Contents Background 3 Citywide Objectives 4 Big Ideas 5 Setting the Stage 7 History of Micromobility in Bozeman 7 Current Policy and Regulatory Landscape 8 State of the Industry 10 Market Realities 10 Evolving Business Models 10 Industry Consolidation 10 Operator Stickiness 10 Learning from Other Places 12 License Agreement Structures 12 Innovative Fee Structures 13 Parking Management Strategies 14 Data Sharing, Management, and Open Data 15 Policy Toolkit 16 Big Ideas 16 Big Idea 1: Broadened Regulatory Framework 17 1.1 Enable Future Form Factors 17 1.2 Update Operating Parameters within a Service Level Agreement 17 Big Idea 2: Single Multi-Year Operator 19 2.1 Shift to a Selective Procurement Process 20 2.2 Offer Incentives to Encourage Desired Behavior 20 Big Idea 3: Equitable Service Design 20 3.1 Identify Areas of Mobility Need 21 3.2 Require Community Outreach and Engagement 21 3.3 Establish Equitable Pricing Requirement 21 Big Idea 4: Orderly Parking Strategies 22 4.1 Establish Performance-Based Fleet Sizing 22 4.2 Formalize and Expand Micromobility Parking Program 22 4.3 Expand Designated Parking Zones 23 Big Idea 5: Iterative Learning through Data 23 5.1 Develop Data Sharing and Management Policy 23 5.2 Establish Reporting Requirements 23 Policy Toolkit Summary 24 15 3 Background The City of Bozeman contracted with Cityfi to align on a clear set of goals and objectives for shared micromobility and to provide best-in-class shared micromobility policy and programmatic recommendations to best position Bozeman for a sustainable and outcome- centered partnership. The Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit is a guiding document that recommends new policies and regulations, procurement strategies, and management tools for the Shared Micromobility Program’s 2023 and 2024 operating season. The Toolkit outlines longer-term strategies that will establish a foundation on which Bozeman and its partners can take a proactive approach towards managing, regulating, and guiding emerging mobility services and programs. This framework is informed by an assessment of Bozeman’s past and current shared micromobility rules and regulations, key trends in shared micromobility, stakeholder engagement, and best practices for implementation and management. 16 4 Citywide Objectives Bozeman is one of Montana’s fastest growing cities and, now, one of the fastest growing micropolitan statistical areas in the country. As the population and economy continues to grow and diversify, residents and visitors seek a wider array of mobility options to get around Bozeman. Bozeman is generally a car-dependent community, with the majority of work-based and non-work based trips involving driving alone or carpooling. Up until Bozeman began permitting scooters, public transit, operated by Streamline bus, was one of the few alternatives available, with service limited to five fixed-route bus lines operating on 30-minute headways during traditional business hours. Encouraging the use of shared micromobility gives residents and visitors sustainable and affordable options to meet daily travel needs. It also advances Bozeman’s commitment to environmental stewardship by decreasing drive alone trips, and consequently pollution and congestion. The Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit will steer the Shared Micromobility Program towards achieving broader citywide mobility, safety, and sustainability goals. These goals were developed in close collaboration with City staff and reflect a long-term vision for the city. These are to: ● Provide safe, convenient and low-emission options to get people where they need to go . ● Protect the safety and accessibility for all travelers - walking, rolling, or driving. 17 5 ● Reduce transportation costs and increased affordability and connectivity. ● Improve Bozeman as a great place to live, work, learn, play and do business. ● Strengthen Bozeman’s environmental stewardship. Big Ideas While shared micromobility is popular and increases mobility choice in Bozeman, the current permitted system is not without its issues. Bozeman’s Shared Micromobility Toolkit provides a menu of strategies to address key issues while ensuring the CIty can develop long-term, invested partnerships with private sector micromobility vendors. The Toolkit is anchored by five big ideas, each of which play a critical role in helping to realize the near- and long-term desired outcomes of the program: 1 Broadened Regulatory Framework 2 Single, Multi-Year Operator 3 Equitable Service Design 4 Orderly Parking Strategies 5 Iterative Learning Through Data These big ideas are anticipated to aid in addressing key concerns of current operations, improve overall performance, and better position the Shared Micromobility Program for a future which satisfies the aforementioned goals. 18 6 Setting the Stage As new mobility services and technologies come online, Bozeman is focused on steering policies, programs, and pilots around the public’s interests. Achieving that outcome requires identifying lessons learned from past pilot programs and assessing current state and local policies and regulations. History of Micromobility in Bozeman Bozeman launched the state’s first shared scooter pilot program in Spring 2019 in partnership with Blink Rides. The city used the pilot program as a means to evaluate existing regulatory frameworks and operator requirements, test new methods for managing micromobility services, and identify opportunities to refine the existing regulatory framework in service to community goals and values. Starting with 65 e-scooters deployed across downtown and the fairgrounds, the program later expanded to 150 devices. Demand was initially strong during the pilot launch, signaling the community’s growing interest in micromobility. During its first six weeks, the program saw over 3,000 app downloads (in a city of roughly 50,000 residents), over 12,000 miles ridden, and more than 7,000 rides completed, keeping pace with the industry standard utilization of three rides per device per day. Like many other cities, Bozeman also experienced challenges while piloting micromobility solutions. Police reported incidents of e-scooter misuse, such as sidewalk riding, parking violations, and collisions involving other road users. By 2021, such reports surged. To address these concerns, Blink implemented Red Zones - geofenced areas where scooters could not operate. Red Zones included the Gallatin Valley Mall, the Montana State University campus, and the Downtown parking garage. At the same time, Blink extended service hours to accommodate shift workers who required additional travel options as they commuted outside of traditional working hours. In February 2021, Bozeman passed its micromobility ordinance and partnered with Bird. As part of the new permit cycle, Bozeman piloted a parking management strategy that required riders traveling within downtown to end their rides in one of 15 designated parking zones sited along key commercial corridors. Between 2021 and 2022, more than 10,000 unique riders have used the service and traveled more than 100,000 miles. 19 7 Current Policy and Regulatory Landscape Montana state law generally devolves authority around traffic regulations and management of the public right-of-way to local governments. State law defines and classifies e-bikes, establishes licensure and insurance regulations, codifies helmet use and age restrictions, and provides guidance on where e-bikes can travel. Under this arrangement, cities can test locally- appropriate measures and play a proactive role in managing their shared micromobility programs, such as establishing the fleet size and charging fees and determining where devices are distributed. Bozeman’s municipal code defines micromobility and motorized foot scooters based on the physical attributes of existing form factors, such as size, wheel dimension, and low weight. Ordinance 2072 establishes the City’s authority to create and regulate a Commercial Shared Micromobility License. All operators must apply for and receive this license annually to operate within City limits. The City Manager is authorized to establish permit application requirements and the terms of operations, while the City Commission is authorized to set, by resolution, the commercial shared micromobility license fees. Montana State University established a Personal Transportation Device (PTD) Policy in 2020 that prohibits the use of privately-owned or commercially-operated devices that lack the option for human-powered propulsion from being used in certain parts of campus, which limits how Bozeman residents use shared micromobility. Since the introduction of dockless shared scooters and bikes in the United States in 2017, many cities have developed sophisticated, outcome-oriented rules and regulations to manage and advance shared micromobility. Several Intermountain West communities have also recently adopted policies to enable, expand, and further regulate shared micromobility operations in their 20 8 jurisdiction that can help to inform future iterations of Bozeman’s program. Missoula’s municipal code, for example, includes a more expansive definition for shared micromobility that differentiates bicycles from different classes of e-bikes. It also includes prescriptive regulations that inform deployment, vehicle safety features, and desired parking practices. The Billings MPO completed a Bike & Scooter Feasibility Study to determine whether a bike or scooter share system is an appropriate mobility solution. Completed in 2021, the study included an assessment of different operating models and proposed recommendations on service area boundaries, governance models, and program fee structure. Appendix A summarizes the policy and regulatory landscape in greater detail. 21 9 State of the Industry Market Realities Despite declines in ridership and revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic, the micromobility industry is expected to recover as micromobility travel becomes a fixture in the mobility landscape. The U.S. is predicted to dominate the global business-to-consumer shared mobility market by 2027, with a market value of $2 billion. Evolving Business Models The most common shared micromobility models are business-to-consumer (B2C) docked systems, typically for station-based bike share, B2C dockless systems, frequently used for e- scooters and free-floating bike share, and B2C subscription models where users have access to an individual vehicle for longer periods of time and for which they are responsible for storage. Coupled with sensible, outcome-focused regulation, some business models are better suited than others in meeting specific community needs. Larger cities with more mature markets, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco, have implemented hybrid systems that combine two or more models, thereby enabling micromobility providers and their partners to right-size mobility solutions to diverse contexts. Bozeman may choose to pursue a hybrid model, though community-centered shared micromobility systems require public investment to support ongoing operations. Industry Consolidation The micromobility industry consolidation is accelerating as the market matures, with larger, more entrenched providers acquiring smaller providers. Bird, Helbiz, and Lyft, all publicly-traded mobility companies, engaged in acquisitions since 2019 to gain access to larger markets. Earlier in 2022, German-based Tier acquired Spin (previously operating out of Ford Mobility). Despite the scale of these acquisitions, many providers still struggle with profitability. From the perspective of providers, these challenges are attributed to over- and under-regulated partners, short-term tenders with public agencies, and the patchwork of city-by-city regulatory landscape that impact their ability to scale operations. Operator Stickiness The micromobility market within the U.S. is dynamic, with providers entering and exiting markets in response to changing demand and evolving regulations. Many cities, including 22 10 Bozeman, experienced the seemingly overnight launch of these services. Now, many cities are experiencing the opposite as more entrenched providers start to withdraw from international markets and small to mid-size U.S. cities. In Fall of 2022, Bird ceased operations in several U.S. cities, citing a lack of a “robust regulatory framework” as a key concern leading to too much competition and an oversupply of vehicles on crowded streets. Spin exited 10 U.S. cities in 2022, which included large, established markets such as Los Angeles and Miami, due to low demand, oversaturation of competitors, and challenging operating cost structures that limited their ability to operate profitably. 23 11 Learning from Other Places License Agreement Structures Cities are beginning to shift towards goals-based selection processes as they transition from pilots to more permanent micromobility programs. Contract terms are becoming longer and fewer permits are made available, enabling cities to establish long-term partnerships and to play a more prominent role in shaping program outcomes. Longer contract terms signal to mobility providers a city’s level of confidence in the local market. It also signals to cities an operator’s long-term investment and commitment to local operations. For example, Denver, which previously allowed up to seven providers to operate during its initial pilot, recently issued two, five-year licensing agreements for its shared micromobility program. In Pittsburgh, the city offered exclusivity and other incentives to encourage mobility providers offering different solutions to collaborate with one another to create all-in-one mobility hubs near transit stops. Other cities, like Seattle and Denver, have used their license agreements to ensure a mix of micromobility form factors, including e-scooters, e-bikes, pedal bikes, and other seated rideables. Seattle Scooter Share Data & Permitting Program 24 12 Innovative Fee Structures Permit fees, penalty fees, and incentives are key levers cities use in managing micromobilty programs in service of community goals. Cities use innovative fee structures to incentivize desired operator behavior. For example, in addition to a standard per-vehicle fee, the City of Portland’s program includes a Right-of-Way Use Surcharge Fee, where providers pay a variable rate per available scooter per day based on where the scooter is made available. Rates are discounted for scooters deployed in low-income neighborhoods or transit deserts compared to those deployed in the central city. With this fee structure, Portland has the ability to enable equitable deployment while managing vehicle saturation in coveted, high-activity areas. Portland invests surcharge fees in safe travel infrastructure, dedicated micromobility parking, and expanding equitable access to the program. The City of Charlotte implemented dynamic parking fees in lieu of standard permit fees. A reduced fee is charged for scooters placed in areas directly linked to or within walking distance of major transit stops while higher fees are charged for scooters placed in the downtown core. Fee structures and amounts should balance financial burden on the operator with desired outcomes. Likewise, fee revenue should be used to manage the shared micromobility program, ensure rider safety, and invest in equitable access programs. Portland Bureau of Transportation e-Scooter Program 25 13 Parking Management Strategies As stewards of the public right-of-way, cities continue to test and implement micromobility parking strategies that maintain the orderliness of their streets. Several cities have paired fleet maangement, physical infrastructure, digital tools, and rider education to guide where vehicles are deployed and parked. Many cities manage fleet sizes that balance reliability with order. More recently cities have shifted from artificial fleet caps to either: ● Device density between 30-40 devices per square mile, adjusted up or down depending on trip productivity ● Flexible fleet minimums that are adjusted according to key metrics, such as trips per device per day, system maintenance, and parking compliance, among others Santa Monica, Austin, and Denver converted underutilized parking spaces or on-street bike corrals into geofenced, designated shared micromobility parking zones. Other cities have used geofencing to manage where parking is not permitted. For example, Seattle disallows parking in Pike Place Market–the city’s highest pedestrian corridor. Both solutions can be paired with user incentives to encourage desired parking practices. More recently, cities have piloted universal charging stations that would allow docking of both e-bikes and e-scooters. City of Santa Monica E-Scooter Parking Corrals 26 14 Data Sharing, Management, and Open Data Cities generally require mobility providers to share trip, deployment, and baseline operations data so they can effectively manage the public right-of-way. The industry standard is to require data sharing using the Mobility Data Specification. Some cities are also requiring providers to develop open data portals or compliance dashboards to allow staff and the general public to monitor performance. In many cases, cities use program fee revenue to subscribe to micromobility data platforms that evaluate system performance and enable basic system management functions, such as real-time geofencing and drafting digital policies. As part of its permit program, San Francisco required providers to contribute to the San Francisco Shared Mobility Dashboard, which provides publicly available data on trip origins and destinations, citations, and deployment by neighborhood. Providers are also required to report on metrics that align with the city’s safety, equity, sustainability, and workforce development goals. Minneapolis also created an open data portal that tracks aggregated trip volumes, the number of idle scooters at different time points throughout the day, and even complaints at the neighborhood level. 27 15 Policy Toolkit Big Ideas The Policy Toolkit is anchored by five Big Ideas intended to realize positive community outcomes and a long-term vendor partnership. The Big Ideas, informed by the desired outcomes, objectives, and gaps identified from the policy and regulatory scan and through stakeholder engagement, guide the future direction of and regulatory methods for Bozeman’s Shared Micromobility Program. Embedded within each Big Idea is the recognition of the immense growth and change currently underway in Bozeman and with that, the real opportunity to bring forth a broader mobility platform beyond scooters and e-bikes that can grow, expand, and evolve with the community. Each Big Idea consists of an array of supportive actions, procurement strategies, and tools that have varying levels of influence on the micromobility industry and their ability to respond to community needs. For instance, if few or insufficient incentives are available to providers relative to operational exactions (e.g., fees, required deployment in equity-focused areas, etc.), mobility providers may limit deployment in certain neighborhoods to reduce operating costs. Striking the right balance, and taking into consideration the broader landscape in which micromobility providers must navigate, is imperative in attracting and retaining sustainable partnerships. Balancing Regulation and Industry Support 28 16 Big Idea 1: Broadened Regulatory Framework Currently, the overarching regulatory approach is structured such that there is one regulation for each mode, as reflected in the mode-based micromobility-related definitions within the municipal code. Creating an umbrella set of regulations that apply to many types of form factors and service models promotes innovation and enables Bozeman to adapt to changes occurring within the ever-evolving micromobility industry. The existing license agreement also provides limited guidance for how mobility providers should shape local operations in service of citywide goals. Current regulations are limited to include general provisions that establish a commercial license, insurance and licensing requirements, and authorizing the City Manager to establish and enforce the terms of operation. an outcomes-based regulatory framework that clearly defines mobility provider obligations, terms of operations, and performance metrics is a foundational step towards achieving program goals. 1.1 Enable Future Form Factors Bozeman should amend its Traffic Ordinance with a broader definition of “Micromobility” and “Motorized foot scooter.” Broadening the definition for micromobility, enables Bozeman to better prepare for and proactively govern an evolving micromobility marketplace while driving innovation. Broader, more inclusive definitions establish the foundation for a consistent, standard, and form-factor-agnostic regulatory framework that benefits staff and micromobility providers. The umbrella term must be expansive enough such that it can be applied to multiple form factor-specific licenses, thereby minimizing the administrative burden of having to amend the municipal code each time a micromobility device with slightly different shape or features is introduced. The policy should specify, at a minimum, maximum vehicle weight of no more than 1000 lbs (to enable mopeds and other light duty shared vehicles that can operate in winter conditions), propulsion type, general top-end vehicle dimensions, and top speed. Similarly, the definition for motorized foot scooter should also be updated to include a maximum weight and general vehicle elements robust enough to support shared public use. Additional caveats that differentiate motorized foot scooters from other devices powered by an electric motor (e.g., wheelchairs, mopeds, etc.) should also be included. 1.2 Update Operating Parameters within a Service Level Agreement Bozeman’s municipal code enables certain vehicles for public and shared use and should be appended to the commercial license. The service level agreement that dictates operating parameters should clearly convey operating guidance and provider responsibilities for the Shared Micromobility Program. Additional provisions and revisions to existing terms should include, at a minimum, the following: 29 17 ● Service Area - Define the service area within which a vendor may operate. The service area should include MSU, but geofenced with restrictions based on their PTD policy. ● Restricted Areas of Operation - Define areas where micromobility devices cannot be ridden (e.g., sidewalks, open space preserves, certain roadway types, along city boundaries, shared-use paths, and any restricted riding areas designated by the City Manager). ● Maximum Operating Speed - Specify the maximum operating speed and grant the City Manager the authority to designate Reduced Speed Zones where lower speed limits would apply. We recommend a maximum throttled speed of 15mph. ● Age Requirement and Helmet Use - Requirements should align with state laws. Helmets should be encouraged but not required. ● Rider Limit - Specify the maximum capacity and number of riders that the device is designed to carry. ● Parking Policy - Describe where devices must be parked (e.g., designated parking corral or hub, bike rack, outside of restricted parking zones) and how devices should be parked (e.g., parked upright such that it does not obstruct travel lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways; maintain clearance within pedestrian walkways in compliance with ADA regulations; and does not obstruct fire hydrants, curb ramps, driveways, bus stops, loading zones, or other street access points). ● Enforcement - Identify the agency (Bozeman Police Department) that will enforce parking rules, speeding, sidewalk riding, and other micromobility regulations. The Commercial Shared Micromobility Licensing Agreement should be updated to include, at a minimum, the following: ● Fleet Size - Defines the allowed minimum and maximum number of vehicles. Include assessment criteria for fleet increases (e.g., utilization, compliance, deployment in equity focus areas) and general guidance for rebalancing and fleet distribution. See Big Idea 4 for more details on right sizing the fleet for reliability and parking orderliness. ● Fees - Defines the fees applicants and permitted providers pay to the City. All fees should cover the cost for administering the program and should be commensurate with staff capacity, available resources, and the City’s commitment to sustainable mobility. Any excess fees should cover the planning, implementation, and installation of micromobility parking areas. We recommend a per vehicle fee of $50 per vehicle, assuming a fleet maximum, with incentives, of 250 vehicles. ● Deployment Policy - Determines where devices should be distributed by the operator at regular intervals (e.g., daily or at specific times). ● Geofencing Requirements - Establish use cases for limiting or restricting where riders can (or cannot) use and park devices. Typical use cases include throttling device speeds in high-traffic areas and establishing temporary geofences for special events. The City 30 18 should collaborate with MSU to pilot parking areas and restricted areas of operation on campus using no ride and throttle geofences. ● Device, Equipment and Safety Features - Require devices to include specific safety features, such as front and rear lights, reflectors, fenders, and device tag that includes customer service contact information. ● Reporting Requirements - Specify the metrics that will be used to evaluate program performance. Specify the format and frequency for which reports must be submitted to Bozeman. ● Data Request - Ensure access to accurate, high-quality data. Specify data necessary data points, the preferred data format, and the level of aggregation (e.g., by service area, neighborhood, or special zones). Require the provider to share data and communicate with the City via standardized APIs. Data should adhere to the Open Mobility Foundation’s Mobility Data Specifications (MDS). Require the provider to share a user- friendly, customizable data dashboard. ● Equity Considerations - Establish requirements to promote access amongst residents experiencing a need. This may include requiring vendors to establish a low-income discount program or dedicating a portion of their fleet in historically disinvested neighborhoods. See Big Idea 3 for recommended direction. ● Procurement and Operator Incentives - Specify financial or other types of incentives should vendors consistently meet or exceed service level agreements. Incentives may include reduced fees, fleet expansion, or opportunities to deploy in high utilization areas. Big Idea 2: Single Multi-Year Operator The Commercial Shared Micromobility License is currently open to any vendor or operator that meets the minimum requirements. The City issues the license on an annual basis to micromobility providers that meet license requirements–an approach that was commonly adopted for short-term shared micromobility pilots. While there are some advantages in supporting multiple providers for a service (e.g., access to different vehicle types and diversified risk), market demand is typically limited in communities of this size. A longer term agreement with one operator is better suited for this context and its benefits outweigh the potential downside of having access to fewer device types. These benefits include improved market attractiveness, more active program management, better compliance outcomes, greater investment in the community, and a simplified user experience. With less competition, providers will have more resources to partner with city staff to co-design a program that accomplishes operational and policy goals. The City will also have more leverage to establish stronger service level agreements in exchange for long-term predictability. The primary goal of the single multi- year operator environment is to build a lasting and rooted relationship between the City, operator, and its customers. 31 19 2.1 Shift to a Selective Procurement Process Before the next operating cycle (2024), Bozeman should transition from an open license agreement to a competitive procurement process. A fundamental first step is to begin developing an objectives-based Request for Proposals (RFP) rooted in program goals and objectives. The RFP should include language that clearly states Bozeman’s intent to work with a single, exclusive operator. In addition, the RFP should align any program goals and objectives with assessment criteria (e.g., strong compliance record, commitment to equity, multimodal fleet requirements) that will be used to select a provider. Terms should be structured such that it offers enough flexibility to attract providers with different offerings but prescriptive enough to clarify the city’s expectations for engaging in this partnership. An alternative approach that aligns with Big Idea 1.1 is to expand the types of micromobility form factors in the RFP (e.g., shared scooters, bikes, mopeds, cargo bikes, etc.) and request vendors (or vendor consortia) to provide a multimodal micromobility fleet that are or will be integrated into a single customer app. All operating parameters would apply regardless of the modes offered. The RFP evaluation criteria favor responses that provide the greatest mix of micromobility solutions (so long as they present a sound business model to support their portfolio of solutions). 2.2 Offer Incentives to Encourage Desired Behavior Incentives are key levers cities can employ to guide micromobility providers and their operations towards achieving desired outcomes. Incentives may include fleet expansion, access to high utilization areas, and discounted per vehicle fees. These incentives should be tied to program performance and compliance. Within the RFP, Bozeman should also describe any in-kind support, public subsidies, revenue sharing, or access to local partnerships and other resources the City is able to offer to demonstrate its commitment to a successful, long-term partnership with the contracted micromobility provider. Big Idea 3: Equitable Service Design For some residents and visitors, micromobility is a convenient means of getting around at a lower cost compared to driving alone. For others, it may be challenging to access these services because devices are too costly, only rentable via smartphone, unavailable in their neighborhood, or available form factors do not support daily travel needs. Some communities may be excluded from accessing the system altogether if the program is not thoughtfully designed to remove barriers. Under a single, multi-year operator contract, Bozeman has the opportunity to play a more active role in engaging the community to co-design and integrate equitable program elements. 32 20 3.1 Identify Areas of Mobility Need To tailor solutions to meet different community needs, Bozeman should perform analysis to identify neighborhoods and communities that disproportionately experience mobility challenges. This can be accomplished by analyzing the spatial distribution of different socioeconomic indicators that correlate to mobility needs. Data can be sourced from the U.S. Census, household travel surveys, and bespoke data sets such as Replica Places data. Outputs from analysis serve as a starting point to initiate dialogue between the community and the provider. Indicators to consider include: ● Median household income ● Poverty status ● Disability status ● Density of renter households ● Density of zero-vehicle households ● Proximity to high quality transit stop Once equity-focused areas are identified and vetted with the community, Bozeman should overlay fleet distribution strategies along with vendor incentives to ensure vehicles are made available in those areas, while offering direct or cross-subsidies that limit financial burden on operators. 3.2 Require Community Outreach and Engagement Bozeman should require providers to address barriers for under- and unbanked populations, those without smartphones, non-English speaking households, and low-income riders. Many providers have implemented equitable solutions in different markets, however, these solutions may not be appropriate for the Bozeman context. While these options can serve as a helpful starting point to familiarize community members of standard offerings, Bozeman should require providers to periodically conduct outreach and engagement to not only educate the community of these solutions but also gather feedback to refine program elements and tech-based solutions to better meet community needs. Providers may lean on City staff to support outreach and engagement activities. 3.3 Establish Equitable Pricing Requirement Bozeman should require providers to offer discounted pricing options for qualifying low-income residents. This may involve eliminating unlocking fees and providing a reduced per minute rate up to a certain time threshold. Bozeman should also consider working with providers to create a discounted monthly pass to reduce costs for frequent riders and identify existing federal, state, or local subsidy programs to streamline the enrollment process. 33 21 Big Idea 4: Orderly Parking Strategies Bozeman has made significant strides in maintaining the orderliness of sidewalks in high-traffic areas where micromobility utilization is high. Currently, scooters can be parked anywhere outside of Downtown, however, along major commercial corridors of downtown, riders are required to end their rides in one of 15 designated parking areas. Riders also receive a notification when they are in a no-parking zone, urging them to move out of it, however, riders can override the suggestion and still end the trip. To maintain the orderliness of the public right- of-way, and to ensure shared micromobility devices are not conflicting with other roadway users, Bozeman should formalize and expand its micromobility parking program and include an array of parking strategies and supportive physical infrastructure and digital tools. 4.1 Establish Performance-Based Fleet Sizing Bozeman should establish dynamic fleet caps, which would allow the City to increase or decrease the total number of vehicles based on performance metrics and compliance with license agreement terms. Bozeman should adjust fleet caps according to performance metrics that align with the desired outcomes of the program and city priority, such as utilization (trips per device per day), vehicle density (vehicles per square mile), system maintenance, and parking compliance. When determining the appropriate vehicle density, Bozeman should factor current and latent demand, surrounding land use contexts, and availability and proximity to other services, among others. 4.2 Formalize and Expand Micromobility Parking Program Bozeman should set clear rules and expectations on where and how devices should be stored, parked, and managed. This would require expanding the scope of the micromobility parking program as described in Ordinance 2072. The parking program should include the following elements and request prospective bidders to propose how they intend to deliver or support these strategies: ● Identify parameters for which a shared micromobility corral or other parking solution is appropriate (e.g., proximity to large employment centers, number of complaints on a given block face) ● Define thresholds for shared micromobility corral installation and removal ● Require providers to communicate, educate, and train users on how to park vehicles in shared micromobility corrals ● Collaborate with the micromobility provider to develop user incentives or penalty fees to optimize user compliance ● Create a mechanism to employers, institutions, and business owners to request a shared micromobility corral ● Establish protocols for shared micromobility corral maintenance 34 22 Bozeman should consider investing in light, supportive infrastructure (e.g. stencils, paint, and bollards) to increase the visibility of popular parking corrals and to complement geofences that are currently in place. This could also involve working with other city agencies to integrate parking corrals as part of street improvement projects. 4.3 Expand Designated Parking Zones Bozeman currently has 15 designated parking zones within downtown, however, additional parking zones will be needed outside of downtown. Bozeman should work with providers to identify additional parking zones. Bozeman can consider requiring bidders to submit a parking plan as part of their application to identify areas they believe require installing a designated parking zone. Designated parking zone locations may also be informed by trip start and end hotspots or through community and stakeholder engagement. Where feasible, Bozeman should identify designated parking zones that may also serve as designated deployment drop zones. Big Idea 5: Iterative Learning through Data Micromobility providers have access to robust, real-time datasets that cities can use to make informed policy decisions and to deepen their understanding of how people travel and to inform policy decisions. Regular reporting is also crucial in helping staff to monitor program performance and compliance. Extending access to this data, and where appropriate, making it publicly available, also builds trust between micromobility providers, regulators, stakeholders, and the general public. 5.1 Develop Data Sharing and Management Policy Bozeman should establish a data sharing agreement as part of the Shared Micromobility Program. The agreement should comply with state and federal privacy regulations and include language describing who has access to micromobility data, how the data will be used to support program operations, and how data will be shared, stored, and managed during and after the contract expires. The data sharing agreement should clearly state Bozeman’s expectations around the handling and storage of personally identifiable information. Providers should also be required to report on their policies, procedures, and practices for maintaining data security. 5.2 Establish Reporting Requirements Bozeman should establish clear reporting requirements that outline the information necessary to administer the program, the preferred reporting format, and how often data is shared with the City. At a minimum, Bozeman should require the micromobility provider to provide anonymized trip-level data at a level of detail that enables staff to monitor compliance, evaluate performance, and make informed policy and planning decisions. In addition to performance metrics, providers should report on baseline operations, which should be defined within the RFP. These might include: 35 23 ● Total number of trips ● Total number of users ● Total number of discount program enrollees ● Total number of trips ended within designated parking zones ● Average trip duration ● Average trip length ● Average daily deployments ● Total reported parking complaints ● Total reported collisions ● Quarterly customer survey results Bozeman should also collaborate with the micromobility provider to create a public-facing data portal to provide public access to micromobility data. Policy Toolkit Summary The table below summarizes the supportive actions for each Big Idea. Supportive actions are organized based on whether it should be included as part of the 2023 operating season (Near- term) or after (Long-term) as it would require additional staff capacity, funding, or legislative changes. Big Idea Supportive Action Near-term Implementation Long-term Implementation Broaden Regulatory Framework 1.1 Enable Future Form Factors X 1.2 Update Operating Parameters within a Service Level Agreement X Single Multi-year Operator 2.1 Shift to Selective Procurement Process X 2.2 Offer Incentives to Encourage Desired Behavior X Equitable Service Design 3.1 Identify Areas of Mobility Need X 3.2 Require Community Outreach and Engagement X 3.3 Establish Equitable Pricing Requirement X 36 24 Orderly Parking Strategies 4.1 Establish Performance-Based Fleet Sizing X 4.2 Formalize and Expand Micromobility Parking Program X 4.3 Expand Designated Parking Zones X Iterative Learning through Data 5.1 Develop Data Sharing and Management Policy X 5.2 Establish Reporting Requirements X 37 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer Nicholas Ross, Director or Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:Discussion of Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Prioritization and the Gap Analysis and Connectivity Plan MEETING DATE:December 11, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Provide input to staff on prioritization criteria. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND:The City Commission added funding to the the 2024 budget to conduct a Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Analysis. The intent of this effort is to pick up the work done through the PRAT Plan and to create a list of gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network and develop a prioritized list of projects to fill these gaps. Additionally the effort will look at opportunities to improve the overall connectivity of the bicycle and pedestrian network across the city. There are a number of components to this effort including data review, supplemental data collection, and prioritization of identified gaps. City staff intends to issue an RFP to select a consultant that can help with this effort. A key component to the effort is the prioritization of the identified gaps and connectivity improvements. City staff has previously worked with the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee and the Bicycle Advisory Board on prioritization of projects. In these previous efforts a rubric from Idaho Falls was used as the basis of the discussions. The Idaho Falls model is essentially a simple version of the Active Transportation Priority Tool that was developed through a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project. The model utilizes a series of prioritization criteria and a multiplier for each criteria based on the how each category relates to the vision and goals established through the city planning efforts. Each project is given a score for each of the criteria based in how well it addresses that criteria. The multiplier is then applied to each of the criteria score to produce a final prioritization score for each project with the highest score identifying the highest priority project. The attached PDF includes descriptions of the scoring criteria as well as a scoring table from the Idaho 38 Falls model. Through the efforts with previous boards, it was suggested that the criteria from the Idaho Falls model be modified to better fit with goals and values identified by City Commission and in City of Bozeman planning documents. Staff will walk through the Idaho Falls example and provide discussion to identify criteria the board feels could be added, removed , or modified. City staff will ask the board for provide input prior to finalizing the criteria and weighting to create the prioritization process that will be utilized in the Gap Analysis. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified. ALTERNATIVES:None identified. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: Idaho Falls Project Scoring Criteria.pdf Report compiled on: December 5, 2023 39 Scoring Criteria Public Input The Idaho Falls Connecting our Community Plan has engaged the public through the public workshops and mapping exercises, public surveys, and website. Feasible recommended projects with demonstrated public endorsement will qualify for these prioritization criteria. Proximity to Schools To encourage more students to walk and bicycle to school, proposed facilities that directly connect to or travel within ¼ mile of any school (public or private) would qualify for this prioritization criteria. Connectivity to Proposed Facilities In addition to the existing bikeway network, the Connecting our Community Plan will be proposing the addition of many projects throughout Idaho Falls. While not as immediately effective for bikeway continuity, facilities that connect to proposed facilities will help create a robust and cohesive network. Proposed facilities that intersect with other proposed facilities will be awarded this criterion. Network Gaps Gaps in the bicycling and walking networks discourage use of these modes because they limit route continuity, sense of belonging and security, or require users to choose less direct paths to access their destinations. Some feel “stranded” when a facility abruptly end or does not easily connect to their destination, forcing users to ride on a street that does not accommodate their proficiency level or increase the length of their trip. Facilities that fill gaps in the existing bicycling and walking network will qualify for this criterion. Connections to Activity Centers Activity centers are the major trip-driving destinations within Idaho Falls (e.g. parks, commercial districts, employment centers, Downtown, etc.). By increasing accessibility to major activity centers, the recommendations in the Connecting our Community Plan can help reduce traffic congestion and support residents and visitors who choose to bicycle or walk. Projects that connect to these centers qualify for this prioritization criterion. Jurisdiction (applicable only to Table 1) This criterion considers which agency or agencies own the right-of-way for which changes are proposed and whether or not the project is partially or completely outside of the City limits. For example, a project that is only private land and is located in Iona would receive the lowest score, while a project utilizes existing right of way within Idaho Falls would receive the highest score. Planning and implementation are much more time-consuming and costly when projects cross jurisdictional and/or property lines. Resurfacing Projects (applicable only to Tables 2 and 3) As Idaho Falls maintains its pavement, on-street bicycle facilities should be installed when a street is scheduled to be resurfaced or seal coated. Furthermore, developers can be required to include recommended facilities in the Connecting our Community Plan that are located on the streets they are improving. This can be an added benefit as Idaho Falls will not have to pay for the construction of these bikeways. Facilities that coincide with street paving projects will meet this scoring criterion. Ease of Implementation Bicycling and walking facilities range in project readiness and amount of reconfiguration or prior work that needs to be completed before a facility can be installed. With regard to on-street bikeways, some streets can accommodate 40 bike lanes with little effort; where as other projects may require significant changes to the travel lanes, medians, street parking, right-of-way, etc. Similarly, some trail and street crossings will be easier than others to implement. Many cities choose to pursue the “low-hanging fruit” projects to achieve quick wins and build support for more politically complex projects. Projects that require minimal changes to the built environment and have lower costs will score higher on this criterion. Criteria Score Mult. Total Description Public Input 2 3.0 6 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility (multiple times) 1 3 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility (once) 0 0 Not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility Proximity to Schools 2 3.0 6 Direct access to a school 1 3 Secondary access to school (within 1/4 mi.) 0 0 No direct or indirect access to a school Connectivity - Existing 2 3.0 6 Direct access to two or more existing bicycle or trail facilities 1 3 Direct access to one of above 0 0 No direct or indirect access to an existing bicycle facility Connectivity - Proposed 2 1.0 2 Direct access to two or more proposed bicycle or trail facilities 1 1 Direct access to one proposed bicycle or trail facility 0 0 No direct or indirect access a proposed bicycle or trail facility Network Gaps 2 3.0 6 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities 1 3 Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility 0 0 No direct or indirect network gap fill Connectivity - Activity Centers 2 2.0 4 Connects to a major trip-driving destination or two or more major or minor destinations 1 2 Secondary connectivity to above 0 0 No direct or indirect connection Street Paving Projects 2 2.0 4 Located on street scheduled for paving (1-5 yrs). Sharrow and bike boulevard projects receive the full two points because they don't require repaving or reconstruction. 1 2 Bikeway is located on a project scheduled for street paving (5-10 years) or partially located on a project that will be repaved or reconstructed within 1-5 years. 0 0 Bikeway is not located on a project scheduled for street paving Ease of Imple- mentation 2 2.0 4 Can be constructed with little to no reconfiguration of the existing roadway 1 2 Can be constructed with minor or moderate alterations to the existing roadway 0 0 Requires major alterations to the existing roadway or right of way 41