<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"> <div class="WordSection1"> Once again, Council is being asked to weigh in on a program for licensing e-scooters as part of a shared micromobility strategy for Boulder. When this last came before Council we did not proceed due to concerns about safety and the environmental impacts of scooters whose average life-span was approximately 28 days before ending up in the trash. As Council member Swetlick noted then, the proposal “was not ready for prime time.” <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The subject has re-emerged due to the development of e-scooters with seats. Accordingly, the issue is whether this proposal has met the conditions for further consideration and implementation. In making this determination, I wish to point out a number of comments and concerns that I have, some of which derive from the staff memorandum prepared in advance of Tuesday’s meeting:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>    1) First, on page 4 staff notes that “There is an ongoing debate whether e-scooters provide and environmental benefit or detriment.” Council was fairly clear in our last discussion that a 28-day average life span for e-scooters was not satisfactory. Where is the data that seated e-scooters are sufficiently more robust to warrant consideration? In the absence of that data, why are we proceeding?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>    2) Staff also notes (again on page 4) that “The introduction of Covid-19 has brought challenges in terms of data collection across the United States.” This is unfortunate, and also true, but also raises the issue of why we are proceeding in the absence of that data. On the very next page Staff also notes that “There is currently no substantive data available regarding their safety and sustainability.” Apparently the only data available on safety comes from operators of e-scooter programs. Yet the memorandum then goes on to cite that data as if it were meaningful. Really? The memorandum then goes on to establish that one of the minimum criteria for any program would be that the e-scooters have “an anticipated lifespan of two years or longer.” Anticipated by whom? The operators? Sustainability remains a major concern, and I do not believe it has been adequately addressed.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>    3) There is no discussion concerning the relative merits of dockless e-scooters vs. those that must be docked. There is also no discussion concerning the actual impact of e-scooters, whether stand-up or seated, on our streets. For example, I recently spent some time walking around parts of Denver’s Highland neighborhood, in which many individuals were riding their scooters on the sidewalk, and where there were so many scooters simply left on the ground that they looked like metal roadkill. I am afraid that the mere obligation to have them removed within 2 hours after a complaint will not adequately address the problem.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>     4) Finally, my recollection of the dockless e-bike program was that we were going to permit only one operator in Boulder, yet there is no similar limitation for e-scooters. Why the change in approach?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>      5) Despite this, “Staff  recommends experimenting with seated e-scooters as part of the City’s Shared Micromobility Strategy.” This is not unreasonable; however, none of the draft statutes are framed as an experiment, either in terms of the area in which scooters will be permitted (such as in East Boulder where office workers might wish to use means other than automobiles to get to lunch), or the time in which an experiment is to be conducted (1year? 3 years?). The proposed statutes are unlimited in time and in area of operation. I believe that those questions should be posed and answered prior to passage of an ordinance.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> On the basis of the foregoing I have serious reservations that we are ready to implement an e-scooter program. I suggest instead a limited continuation of the moratorium, coupled with a request that staff formulate a program of more limited scope that might operate as some form of experiment for this mode of transportation, to be initiated at such time as we have more supportive data concerning the safety and sustainability of the equipment. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>    <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>