HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-19 Planning and ED Committee Meeting Agenda
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ǧ
Ǧ
ͲͲ
Ͳ
ǦǦ
Ͳ
Ͳ
ǡʹͲͳͻǦʹͲʹ͵
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
x
x
x
x
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ
ͲͲ
Ͳ
ൟൟൟൟ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x
x Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x Ͳ
x Ͳ
Ͳ
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x
x
Ͳ
x
x Ͳ
x
x
x
x Ͳ Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ Ͳ
x Ͳ
x Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x Ͳ
x
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ō Ɵ
HOUSING
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Ͳ
PUBLIC FACILITIES (NO PROPOSALS)
PUBLIC SERVICES
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
ADMINISTRATION
Ͳ
Ͳ
ʊ ʊ
ʊ ʊ
Compilation of e-Scooter Research
Prepared for the Ithaca PEDC and Common Council
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers
Members, Mobility Accessibility, and Transportation Commission
Created 5 February 2019
Revised 8 April 2019
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers (SB/MP. “we”) have done this research on behalf of the
Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (MATCom) at the request of the
Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC). We presented our draft report and
findings to MATCom, which has reviewed and commented on the evolving report and has
approved its moving forward to PEDC for review on its merits.
Revision Summary
February 26, 2019
Initial Release (MATCom February Meeting)
March 6, 2019
Added page numbers and table of contents
Added Methodology section
Added Pros and Cons section
Added Safety section
Added Insurance and Liability section
Added Equitable Ridership section
Added Geography section
Clarified and expanded feedback from Lime
March 20, 2019
Clarified statistics from Portland about choosing sco oters over cars
Clarified that injury data from Austin, TX was using sta tistics collected for all bicycle
injuries.
April 6, 2019
Added Revision Summary
Extended and organized Safety section
Added additional information about Harrisonburg
Added information about Nashville
Re-formatted citations and added a bibliography
Page 1
Executive Summary 3
Methodology 4
Pros and Cons of E-Scooter Sharing 4
Pros of E-Scooter Sharing 4
Cons of E-Scooter Sharing 5
Safety 5
Fatalities 5
Injuries 6
Additional Comments about Safety 7
Insurance and Liability 7
Equitable Ridership 9
Geography 9
E-Scooter Sharing in Other Cities 10
Harrisonburg, VA 10
Memphis, TN 11
Providence, RI 12
St. Paul, MN 12
Portland, OR 13
Nashville, TN 14
Feedback from City Departments 14
City Clerk 14
Engineering 14
Fire Department 14
Planning and Economic Development 15
City Attorney 15
Police Department 15
Feedback from Lime 15
New York State Law 16
NACTO Guidelines 16
Conclusion 16
Bibliography 18
Page 2
Executive Summary
The City of Ithaca Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC) asked the Mobility,
Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (MATCom) to research several facets of
e-scooter implementation to help the City of Ithaca determine whether and how to launch an
e-scooter sharing pilot program. This research was undertaken by Sarah Barden and Megan
Powers.
Given our research, we believe e-scooters represent an exciting opportunity for the City of
Ithaca and that it is in Ithaca’s best interest to establish a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for an e-scooter pilot program beginning in Spring 2019. Creating a pilot program for
e-scooter sharing allows Ithaca to observe how e-scooter sharing impacts Ithaca and to collect
ridership data without tying the city to a permanent decision. Until e-scooter riding in Ithaca is
well understood, we believe establishing an exclusive agreement with one e-scooter provider is
reasonable.
The basics of a dockless e-scooter sharing program typically include:
Access to e-scooters via a smartphone app, unless usin g the LimeAcess program (see
Equitable Ridership for more details).
In-app User Agreement, education, and safety instruction s.
A daily curfew (as determined by the municipality) after w hich all e-scooters are turned
off and removed from city streets; during this time they are re-charged.
A minimum age requirement of 18.
Any MOU regarding e-scooters should follow the guidelines outlined by the NACTO (2018) and
should establish clear regulations regarding e-scooter usage, including points listed below.
Inclusion of insurance and indemnification clauses
Establishment of a maximum e-scooter speed of 15 mph
Establishment of fees or payments made to Ithaca by the e -scooter provider
Ithaca should consider requiring Lime to maintain a minimum fleet of bicycles along with the
e-scooter program to serve the youth and underprivileged population.
Even with a detailed MOU, Ithaca should expect challenges with an e-scooter program. Citizens
and tourists will ride e-scooters illegally on the sidewalks, and residents will express concern
about both improper ridership and lack of enforcement. Further, some e-scooters will be parked
inappropriately, possibly impacting ADA or rescue access. Ithaca can address these concerns
proactively by creating education initiatives, leveraging local interested NGOs, and formally
documenting expectations with Lime.
Page 3
All the cities we interviewed faced some challenges in implementing their e-scooter programs,
but all have chosen to renew the programs for the next year.
Methodology
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers have spoken with representatives from several cities to learn
how these municipalities have approached e-scooter sharing and what challenges they have
faced. We have also researched best practices for e-scooter implementation. We have shared
our initial findings with several city departments (City Clerk, Engineering, Planning and
Economic Development, and Fire) and collected their feedback. Finally, we have spoken with
Jeff Goodmark, local Operations Manager for Lime, to understand Lime’s hopes and
expectations for an e-scooter program in Ithaca. Our findings are summarized in the following
sections.
Pros and Cons of E-Scooter Sharing
E-scooters provide a new transportation option for residents and tourists, but they also have
drawbacks. See also data from
“The State of E-Scooter Sharing in United States Citie s” (Kaufman and Buttenwieser,
2018
“E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobilit y Benefits of Shared Dockless
E-Scooters in Chicago” (Smith and Schweiterman, 2018)
“2018 E-Scooter Findings Report” (Portland Bureau of Tran sportation [PBOT], 2018)
Pros of E-Scooter Sharing
E-scooters help solve the “last-mile” problem, giving peo ple an easy option to make a
trip that is too long for a comfortable walk but too short for a car ride. In specific, Smith
and Schweiterman (2018) study found e-scooters were a strong, cost-efficient,
time-competitive alternative to cars for trips between 0.5 and 2 miles.
E-scooters have a smaller parking footprint than bicycle s or automobiles.
E-scooters require little effort or skill to ride, especi ally compared to bicycles.
E-scooters can provide a reliable means of transporta tion for those who cannot use or
afford a car. This, in turn, can have a positive impact on job accessibility and business
commuting.
E-scooters have the potential to make jobs more access ible compared to public transit or
walking alone. For example, Smith and Schweiterman (2018) found this to be true for
16% of jobs in their study area.
E-scooters can replace cars, especially among tourists. In the Portland survey, 34% of
residents and 48% of tourists reported that if e-scooters had not been available for their
most recent scooter ride, they would have chosen to take a personal vehicle or taxi,
Uber, or Lyft ride (PBOT, 2018).
Page 4
Cons of E-Scooter Sharing
E-scooters are a new technology. Cities and residents m ust learn how to integrate them
into daily living while their risks are not yet understood.
E-scooters are often used on sidewalks, increasing pede strian discomfort and frustrating
those who would like to see sidewalk riding regulations enforced.
E-scooters that are parked improperly can cause accessib ility concerns.
E-scooters bring some people a perception of danger and risk. The studies needed to
assess the risk have not yet been completed. A careful evaluation of bike-sharing and
e-scooter-sharing statistics would reveal the relative risks, but this has not been done.
E-scooters may be more sensitive to irregular pavement than bicycles. Because of their
bigger wheels, bicycles tend to be more stable across bad pavement than e-scooters.
Note: the diameter of the Lime-S Gen 3.0 e-scooter is 10 inches, while the diameter of a
toddler’s balance bike is 12 inches.
E-scooters are less visible than Lime bicycles. They can b e less visible than general
bicycles because of their smaller profile, but they also have front and rear lights.
Safety
Like bicycles and other small transportation devices, e-scooters are associated with safety risks.
To date, few extensive studies have been completed regarding e-scooter safety, and results are
mixed. Most evidence suggests that the injury risk associated with e-scooter usage is
comparable to that of bicycle usage.
Fatalities
There have been two fatalities associated with e-scooter sharing programs in the United States.
At the time these fatalities occurred, there had been approximately 21 million rides on
e-scooters. Schmitt (Sept. 2018) used this statistic to suggest that e-scooter sharing was
approximately six times more deadly than bike share programs, using two US bike share
fatalities over the course of 123 million rides. With such a small number of incidents in each
case, however, the statistical uncertainty in the actual fatality rate is larger than the difference
between the two modes of transportation (2 ± 1.4 in each case). It is thus impossible to draw
useful conclusions from this data. A later report by the same author, Schmitt (Dec. 2018) took a
more nuanced approach.
Page 5
Injuries
E-Scooter Injury Statistics
Comprehensive injury statistics for e-scooter use are not yet available, but the CDC launched its
first study of e-scooter safety by evaluating data collected in Austin, TX, last fall (Solomon,
2018). Until those results are released, there are a few other sources of injury data collection
available for review. Austin’s Mobility Committee of Council (2018) reported that between Sept.
29, 2018 and Oct. 31, 2018, there were nine scooter injuries, compared to 32 bicycle injuries (all
bicycles), 44 pedestrian injuries, and 592 motor vehicle injuries in the same period.
A study done by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) studied injuries
related to standing e-scooters by reviewing data from emergency department visits to the
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and UCLA Medical Center–Santa Monica from
September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2018 (Trivedi, Liu, and Antonio, 2019) . The study
identified 249 patients with injuries from e-scooters. Of these injuries, fifteen required admission
to the hospital, with two patients requiring service from the intensive care unit.
The city of Portland, OR, found there were 176 e-scooter-related injuries reported to the
emergency room between July 25 and Nov. 20, 2018. During the same period, there were 429
bicycle-related ER visits (PBOT, 2018).
Relative Safety of E-Scooters Compared to Bicycles
As explained in the Portland report (PBOT, 2018), it is difficult to compare e-scooter and bicycle
injury rates because there is relatively little information about the number and length of bicycle
trips. Evidence suggests that where e-scooters are available, they are a far more popular mode
of transportation than bicycles. The City of Santa Monica, featured in Trivedi et al. (2019),
licenses 2,000 e-scooters but only 1,000 e-bikes in dockless sharing programs (Walker, 2018).
From July 1 to September 20, 2018, e-scooters outnumbered dockless bicycles in Houston
3,212 to 632 (5:1). Houston users traveled 595,437 miles on e-scooters compared to 41,973
miles on dockless bikes (14:1), with an average trip being 1.05 miles on an e-scooter compared
to 0.65 miles on a dockless bicycle (Chiquillo, 2018).
Helmet Use
In the JAMA study, ten of the patients said they had been wearing a helmet when the injury
occurred (Triveldi et al., 2019). The study included an observational study of the riding habits of
193 e-scooter users compiled from three different sessions. They observed only eleven riders
using helmets. The observational study also found 51 riders using the sidewalk. When the study
was conducted, both riding on the sidewalk and riding without a helmet were illegal in the study
area. A post-hoc review found 195 visits for bicycle injuries and 181 visits for pedestrian injuries
in the same time period.
Page 6
Injuries among Case-Study Cities
Among the cities we contacted to discuss e-scooter programs, Memphis and Harrisonburg
reported evidence of e-scooter injuries. According to McGowen (personal communication,
2019), there were a couple of serious head injuries in Memphis during the pilot period that were
related to e-scooter use. The city responded by mandating the e-scooter apps include rider
education, and they pushed for safety demonstrations and free helmet giveaways. Memphis
also trained its downtown tourism representatives about e-scooter usage for tourists. These
measures appeared to make a positive impact on rider safety.
Wesley Russ of Harrisonburg (personal communication, 2019) reported a James Madison
University student fell while riding down a steep hill, breaking his arm.
Providence and St. Paul both commented that safety was a priority for them and that they
wanted to provide education initiatives, but that they did not have injury statistics and had only
limited injury anecdotes (Ellis, personal communication 2019, and Collins, personal
communication, 2019).
Additional Comments about Safety
There is a learning curve associated with riding e-scooters that results in an initial elevated risk
of crashes when riding an e-scooter. Further, because e-scooter tires are smaller in diameter
than most bicycle tires, they can be comparatively more difficult to ride safely over cracks and
uneven pavement.
Lime is replacing all their e-scooters with the new Lime-S Gen 3.0 (MATCom, Apr. 2019), which
Wired reviewed in October of 2018 (Marshall, 2018). This model has notable safety
improvements over previous models, including larger (10-inch) tires, dual suspension, an
improved braking system (electrical and mechanical in front; step-based at the back), a
maximum speed of 14.8 mph, and an active rear light and reflectors for increased visibility.
Educational outreach and demonstration programs, along with customized safety tips, could be
used to help address e-scooter ridership risks. Eric Hathaway from Engineering has begun the
process of working with Cayuga Medical Center to help collect injury statistics.
Lime requires all e-scooter riders to be at least 18 years old.
Insurance and Liability
It is common for cities to include insurance and indemnification clauses in their agreements with
e-scooter providers, and NACTO guidelines recommend that cities require providers to hold
insurance and to indemnify the city in the event of injury (NACTO, 2018).
Page 7
The current MOU between Ithaca and Lime for bicycle sharing includes provisions for both
indemnification and insurance:
6. Indemnification. LimeBike shall defend, pay, indemnify and hold harmless City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents, invitees, and volunteers (collectively "City Parties")
from all claims, suits, actions, damages, demands, costs or expenses of any kind or
nature by or in favor of anyone whomsoever and from and against any and all costs and
expenses, including without limitation court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees,
resulting from or in connection with loss of life, bodily or personal injury or property
damage arising directly or indirectly out of or from or on account of:
a. Any occurrence upon, at or from City Property or occasioned wholly or in
part by the entry, use or presence upon City Property by LimeBike or by anyone making
use of City Property at the invitation or sufferance of LimeBike, except such loss or
damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. b. Use of
LimeBike's bikes by any individual, regardless of whether such use
was with or without the permission of LimeBike, including claims by users of the bikes or
third parties.
7. Insurance. LimeBike shall procure and maintain for the duration of this
agreement insurance against claims for which LimeBike has indemnified the City
pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement. LimeBike shall maintain General Liability limits
no less than One Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage, and in the sum of One Million and no/100
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for injury to or death of more than one person for each
occurrence, and Umbrella coverage no less than Five Million and no/100 Dollars
($5,000,000.00). Each insurance policy shall name the City as an additional insured and
it shall be endorsed to state that: (i) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, or
cancelled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
calendar days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been
given to City; and (ii) for any covered claims, the LimeBike's insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance as respects the City and any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City shall be in excess of the LimeBike's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
The insurance required to be provided herein, shall be procured by an insurance
company approved by City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Currently, insurance coverage for riders is handled through the e-scooter companies’ usage
agreements. There is no explicit coverage to protect riders in the event of an injury or
malfunction.
Lime’s User Agreement can be found here: https://www.li.me/user-agreement
Page 8
Equitable Ridership
Access to e-scooters can potentially provide a new, affordable mode of transportation to those
who need it most. To help encourage equitable distribution and usage of e-scooters, several
cities, including Providence, Portland, and St. Louis, have stipulations requiring e-scooter
providers to ensure e-scooters are distributed among a variety of neighborhoods (Ellis, 2019;
PBOT, 2018; St. Louis, 2014).
St. Louis (2014) did so by specifying Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods “which
mapped out areas with high concentrations of low income households, people of color, households
with no access to a vehicle, and non-English speakers. The neighborhoods with high concentrations
of those factors that were also within reasonable biking distance of MetroLink and the urban core of
the city were chosen as places that could benefit the most from additional affordable transportation
option.”
Lime has a program called Lime Access which provides access to their bicycles for people
without smartphones, bank cards, or people who live in a low-income household. Lime Access
users can text-to-unlock bikes, pay in cash, and receive a 95% discount on pedal bikes and
50% discount on Lime-E. Jeff Goodmark from Lime has confirmed that Lime Access will be
active for e-scooters as well (MATCom, 2019).
Geography
Because of their relatively small motors, e-scooters struggle to climb steep hills such as those
that surround the Ithaca Commons. Scooters can be staged along hills and at the tops of hills to
provide users with downhill access.
Of the cities we questioned, both Providence and Harrisonburg have some significant hills.
Harrisonburg has a similar geography to Ithaca, with a flat downtown area surrounded by steep
hills. Harrisonburg reported that Bird stages quite a few e-scooters to serve students living at
the top of the hill. Ridership declines sharply in areas where the hills are steepest, but they did
report one student broke his arm as a result of a fall while riding an e-scooter down a steep
section of hill (Russ, personal communication, 2019).
Providence reported that e-scooters are not used as much on hills (Ellis, personal
communication, 2019).
Lime does not recommend geofencing the hills, since geofencing reduces the speed of the
e-scooter via motor throttling but does not initiate the braking system. Therefore, e-scooters may
Page 9
be ‘free-ridden” down the hill even if it was geofenced, removing the value of geofencing that
area (Goodmark, personal communication, 2019).
E-Scooter Sharing in Other Cities
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers have communicated firsthand with city employees about their
e-scooter programs in four cities: Harrisonburg, VA, Memphis, TN, Providence, RI, and St. Paul,
MN. Portland, OR, provides extensive information about its e-scooter program online. Reviewing
conversations with these cities revealed several common themes.
Cities use the NACTO Guidelines to model their MOUs a nd ordinances.
Cities rely on their existing bike infrastructure for e-sc ooters (as opposed to building new
infrastructure).
Cities limit e-scooter speed to 15 mph, at least in som e areas.
Cities employ selective geofencing to prohibit e-scooter s from particular areas.
Geofencing uses GPS to establish a virtual perimeter around an area. The device’s
software can respond to the geofence in a variety of ways. For example, a geofence can
be set up so that an e-scooter cannot be ridden within a particular boundary (for
example, on the Ithaca Commons).
Cities are concerned about poorly parked e-scooters. Lim e scooters have generally been
parked well, and Lime staffing has been responsive.
Cities are concerned about safety and want to launch educ ation initiatives. Most have
not done so because of the logistics and cost involved.
Cities struggle with citizens riding e-scooters on sidewal ks but do not have a good
solution.
Harrisonburg, VA
Of all the cities MATCom investigated, Harrisonburg is closest in size to Ithaca. Like Ithaca, it is
a college town with a centralized downtown area. Harrisonburg was the least prepared of the
cities for the influx of e-scooters. Both Bird and Lime brought e-scooters to Harrisonburg before
the city had prepared e-scooter guidelines or established an MOU. Harrisonburg found itself at
the center of an escalating e-scooter competition between Bird and Lime and became
overwhelmed with the number of e-scooters.
The city was able to rein in the e-scooter companies and now has a good relationship with Lime.
It has worked with Lime to implement temporary geofencing for events. Harrisonburg is now
looking to expand the Lime fleet to include bicycles.
More so than other cities we researched, Harrisonburg reported conflict between drivers and
e-scooters.
Page 10
After the first 32 days with Bird scooters, Bird told Harrisonburg that there had been 26,779 total
rides, with an average ride length of 0.77 miles and duration of 8.9 minutes. During this period,
Harrisonburg estimates the scooters received an average of close to 5 trips per day.
During January and February, the Lime scooters averaged only 1.6 rides per scooter per day,
but this included two days of inclement weather where there were no rides recorded. Removing
these days, the scooters average between 2 and 2.2 rides per day.
In early 2019, the city of Harrisonburg created an e-scooter regulation process and pilot
program (Peterson, 2019). Since then, Bird has applied for a permit to continue operations in
the city, which was approved. Bird is currently authorized to host up to 150 e-scooters in the city
(Russ, personal communication, 2019). Lime is not pursuing further e-scooters in Harrisonburg
at this time (Goodmark, personal communication, 2019).
Contact:
Wesley Russ
Assistant City Attorney
Wesley.Russ@harrisonburgva.gov
(540) 432-7110
Memphis, TN
Memphis studied how other cities responded to e-scooters and created an ordinance in
advance of their arrival in the city. When Nashville ejected Bird e-scooters from the city,
Memphis invited Bird there instead and quickly worked with Bird to create an interim operating
agreement.
Lime introduced 250 e-scooters after being asked by the city to wait for the interim agreement
with Bird, but Memphis responded by impounding the Lime e-scooters. Memphis negotiated a
deal with Lime two months later.
Improper parking that blocked ADA access was initially a problem in Memphis, but Bird helped
address the issue by firing some of the chargers who were not complying with regulations and
by including staffers who ride around the city and reposition poorly parked devices.
Memphis added e-scooter specific parking. Its bike infrastructure was lightly used, so the
introduction of e-scooters has not caused a strain.
Memphis manages volume by requiring e-scooters to average 3 rides per day.
A few citizens needed care at a trauma center following head injuries related to e-scooter use.
Memphis has since required that the e-scooter apps include rider education. Memphis has also
educated its downtown representatives about e-scooter usage for tourists.
Page 11
Contact:
Doug McGowen
Chief Operating Officer, City of Memphis
doug.mcgowen@memphistn.gov
(901) 636-6586
Providence, RI
Providence is interesting because it allows both cycling and e-scooter riding on its sidewalks.
The sidewalks in Providence are not particularly wide, and the increased ridership has caused
increasing tension. So far, there isn’t enough data to determine whether crashes between
e-scooter riders and pedestrians are more likely to occur in Providence than in other cities.
Providence is investigating several options to limit e-scooter riding on sidewalks, including
introducing a ban to riding e-scooters on downtown streets and explicitly linking allowed
sidewalk use with the lack of a designated bike lane.
Providence explicitly modeled its e-scooter policies on the NACTO guidelines and has the MOU
posted publicly via the city’s website:
(http://www.providenceri.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Scooter-policy-update-final-12-27-18.
pdf).
Citizens’ reception to the e-scooter program has been less enthusiastic than the reaction to the
bike-sharing program. The on-the-ground team for the bike share component has generally
been more responsive than a similar team for the e-scooter program.
Providence currently hosts two e-scooter companies. One of them pulled out for the winter, and
the other has significantly reduced ridership, even though Providence has had relatively little
snowfall to date.
Providence charges its scooter providers $1 per scooter per day, and its scooters have
averaged 2.5 trips per day per scooter.
Contact:
Alex Ellis
Principal Planner
(401) 680-8522
aellis@providenceri.gov
St. Paul, MN
St. Paul currently has agreements with both Bird and Lime for e-scooter sharing. The city
preemptively addressed concerns about poorly parked e-scooters by including a provision that
Page 12
the e-scooter providers would pay the city whenever a city employee was called to reposition an
e-scooter. The agreement gives the e-scooter company a window before the city employee is
called. St. Paul has still struggled with illegally or poorly parked e-scooters, but the city has
found that the e-scooters are repositioned or re-rented before its staff can arrive on the scene.
St. Paul struggles with citizens riding e-scooters on the sidewalks (which is illegal) and in
various parks where bicycles and similar devices are banned. They hope to launch an education
initiative in the future.
Overall response to the e-scooter program has been positive. There have been complaints
about negative pedestrian-scooter interactions, but there has not been a noticeable uptick in
crashes.
St. Paul does not have an e-scooter program active for the winter but plans to renew
agreements for the spring.
The St. Paul MOU can be viewed here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3kAZ5t5YyDKem5LR3F3TDBoX1h5TUhxNHZpOU83YXVMeT
Q4/view?usp=sharing
Contact:
Reuben Collins
Transportation/Planning Engineer
reuben.collins@ci.stpaul.mn.us
(651) 266-6059
Portland, OR
We have not spoken with anyone in Portland firsthand, but Portland has made a wealth of
information available online.
Portland commissioned an independent, scientific study of e-scooter ridership and perceptions
as part of its pilot program.
On the whole, the people of Portland approve of the e-scooter program. Citizens with positive
views of the program stressed the flexibility, convenience, and fun of the program. Those with
negative views were concerned about improper or illegal use of e-scooters. Top priorities
among all survey respondents were education about and enforcement of the current rules
During its first pilot program, Portland had 2,043 e-scooters that covered 801,887 miles in
700,369 trips. The pilot lasted 120 days, so, on average, there were 2.86 trips per scooter per
day, and the average scooter ride was 1.14 miles long.
Page 13
See PBOT (2019) for more information and to read Portland’s reports.
Nashville, TN
We contacted Nashville, TN, in early April 2019 to learn more about why they had barred
e-scooters from the city.
Nashville initially transmitted a cease-and-desist letter to Bird (Costonis, 2018), the first
company to launch e-scooter sharing within Nashville, because the e-scooters were blocking
the public right-of-way, and there was no legislature in place to govern e-scooter sharing.
Since the initial cease-and-desist letter, Nashville has adopted city ordinances, and e-scooter
companies now operate within the city (following an application process) (Nashville, 2018).
Feedback from City Departments
Representatives from city departments we have interviewed have generally been positive about
implementing an e-scooter program. Most are concerned about helping to ensure safety and/or
to curtail improper parking.
City Clerk
Julie Holcomb is especially concerned about safety and is willing to collaborate with Lime and
NGO’s like BikeWalk Tompkins to deploy education initiatives. In particular, she would like to
see a proactive education campaign prior to the launch of any pilot program. She recommends
a FAQ and timeline to be provided to City staff and downtown representatives. She prefers a
curfew that aligns with sunset to prevent scooter use after dark.
Engineering
Tim Logue suggests Ithaca ask the Health Department to help collect e-scooter incident data.
He also recommends we ask Lime to sponsor an independent study about e-scooter usage. He
recommends we wait to see where the e-scooters are used before introducing new
infrastructure requests. He is in favor of using a pilot program to learn more about how this
alternate form of transportation would be utilized by residents and visitors.
Fire Department
Chief Tom Parsons has concerns about insurance and liability, but his top priority is safety. He
would be in favor of e-scooters if Ithaca can implement requirements and education to make
their use as safe as possible.
Page 14
Planning and Economic Development
The Planning and Economic Development Division was particularly interested in ensuring the
scooters and bikes are spread equitably throughout Ithaca. Scooter use is limited to people who
are 16 or older, but Ithaca Youth can benefit strongly from enhanced mobility options. An
agreement with Lime could also require Lime Bikes to be distributed so that they’re easy for
middle- and high-school students to use for accessing after-school activities.
They saw an opportunity to make The Commons more accessible by allowing scooters on The
Commons but limiting their speed to 5 mph. Unfortunately, the technology for scooters to
achieve this is not quite ready, and Lime recommends enforcing having no scooters on the
Commons.
JoAnn Cornish strongly endorses education initiatives and encourages training downtown
tourism staff to promote safe scooter ridership.
To address concerns about parking, Planning recommended considering drop-off zones for bike
and scooter share vehicles as seen in Seattle (Mah, 2018) to be designated with
on-street/sidewalk paint or installation of physical corrals or barriers. Locations would be chosen
not to detract from vehicle parking or interfere with accessibility.
The Planning Division appeared open to an interim scooter agreement with Lime and would
appreciate a draft MOU that meets the NACTO Guidelines to serve as a basis moving forward.
They believe Lime should pay an operating fee of some amount to the City of Ithaca.
City Attorney
Aaron Levine recommended that he be involved in drafting the MOU if the city indicated interest
in pursuing a pilot program for e-scooters, but that he did not need to weigh in at this time.
Police Department
To date, we have not been able to schedule a meeting with the Ithaca Police Department.
Feedback from Lime
Jeff Goodmark from Lime says his company places emphasis on safety foremost and also
concentrates on accessibility, affordability, and availability of shared transport devices
(Goodmark, personal communication, 2019). Since its bicycle-sharing launch in April 2018,
there have been approximately 90,000 rides, with 12,000 of these on e-bikes. Lime currently
employs several people in Ithaca depending on the season. Currently, in the winter, Lime has
Page 15
two full-time employees and six part-time employees. This will be increasing soon as
temperatures increase.
Lime attests it will not launch e-scooters without a formal agreement to do so with the city of
Ithaca (MATCom, 2019). The company is willing to conduct education and publicity events
leading up to a program launch. The maximum scooter speed will be set to 15 mph. The
company will target an average ridership of three rides per scooter per day. The Lime Access
program is still available with e-scooters.
While e-scooters are profitable to Lime, the bicycles are not. Consequently, Lime feels it is
important to introduce e-scooters to Ithaca (Goodmark, personal communication, 2019). Lime
would like to see e-scooters introduced in May and requests that Ithaca sign an exclusive
agreement with Lime for e-scooters.
New York State Law
Currently, e-scooters are illegal in New York State, but enforcement appears to be largely left to
individual municipalities. E-scooters are not clearly defined in New York State’s Vehicle Traffic
Law (Beltramo, 2018).
A proposal in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s state budget would establish state traffic laws governing
electric bikes and scooters and authorize local governments to authorize them as they prefer
(FY2020 Executive State Budget, p102+).
NACTO Guidelines
NACTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, developed a set of policy
guidelines it believes all cities should follow when navigating “shared active transportation.” See
NACTO (2018 pp. 6-9)
Conclusion
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers have found that on the whole, e-scooters represent an
exciting opportunity for the City of Ithaca. We believe Ithaca should develop an exclusive
e-scooter agreement with Lime, separate from the bike-share MOU, to launch a pilot e-scooter
program for a predefined, renewable period of time.
Ithaca should expect citizens to ride e-scooters illegally on the sidewalks. Residents will express
concern about both improper ridership and lack of enforcement. The city can help alleviate
these concerns by working with Lime to ensure proper ridership is supported and to leverage
Page 16
local interested NGOs and groups to better educate residents. We strongly support a proactive
education campaign prior to the launch of the pilot program.
The parking of e-scooters will be a second area of concern. Ithaca should act proactively with
Lime to ensure its employees are actively monitoring scooters for improper parking.
Any MOU regarding e-scooters should follow the guidelines outlined by NACTO. Ithaca should
ensure the insurance and indemnification clauses are in place and that the maximum scooter
speed is limited to 15 mph. Ithaca should establish fees associated with e-scooter operation in
the city. Because e-scooters are more expensive to ride than bicycles, and because e-scooter
ridership is limited to those 18 and older, Ithaca should consider requiring Lime to maintain a
minimum fleet of bicycles along with the e-scooter program. Lime asked for an exclusivity
agreement for e-scooters. Ithaca is small enough that it is reasonable to work exclusively with
one provider until e-scooter riding is well understood.
Page 17
Bibliography
Beltramo, Wade (2018), The future of transportation: electric bicycles and electric scooters?
Municipal Matters. Fall 2018. Retrieved via e-mail. See
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_hYx1hDcDNyaUNDUHBjYmVNTW1MUzI1TWIxaGtnT
HNyWXZJ/view
Chiquillo, Julieta (2018), How many people are getting hurt on electric scooters in Dallas?
Hospitals may have the answers. DallasNews.com. Retrieved from
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2018/10/24/many-people-getting-hurt-electric-s
cooters-dallas-hospitals-may-answers
Costonis, Theresa (2018), Bird cease and desist. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County. Retrieved from
https://mediaassets.newschannel5.com/document/BirdCeaseAndDesist.pdf?_ga=2.6558
0460.344641949.1525861247-416227429.1525861247
FY2020 New York State Executive Budget (2018), Transportation, Economic Development, and
Environmental Conservation. Article VII Legislation. Retrieved from
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy20/exec/artvii/ted-artvii.pdf
Kaufman, Sarah M., and Luke Buttenwieser (2018), The state of scooter sharing in United
States cities. Rudin Center for Transportation. Retrieved from
https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Rudin_ScooterShare_Aug2018_0.pdf
Mah, Norm (2018), New in Ballard: designated bike share parking areas. SDOT Blog. Retrieved
from
https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2018/03/15/new-designated-bike-share-parking-areas-come-
to-ballard/
Marshall, Aarian (2018), Lime’s new scooter is hardier, heavier, and built for life on the streets.
Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/lime-scooter-gen3-design/
Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (2019, February 25). Mobility,
Accessibility, and Transportation Commission Minutes. Retrieved from
https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/weblink/13/doc/857475/Page1.aspx
Mobility Committee of Council (2018), Dockless mobility program update. Austin Mobility
Committee of Council. Retrieved from
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=311739.
Page 18
Nashville (2018), Second substitute bill BL2018-1441 (as amended). Nashville.gov. Retrieved
from
https://www.nashville.gov/Metro-Clerk/Legislative/Ordinances/Details/9335c292-44c6-40
fe-8255-8797080472ab/2015-2019/BL2018-1441.aspx
National Association of City Transportation Officials [NACTO] (2018), Guidelines for the
regulation and management of shared active transportation version 1: July 2018.
NACTO Policy 2018. Retrieved from
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NACTO-Shared-Active-Transportation-Gui
delines.pdf
Peterson, Megan (2019), Harrisonburg further regulates e-scooters ahead of possible Bird
return. The Breeze. Retrieved from
https://www.breezejmu.org/news/harrisonburg-further-regulates-e-scooters-ahead-of-pos
sible-bird-return/article_b31aaeb2-344d-11e9-9b26-234f43e0580c.html
Portland Bureau of Transportation [PBOT] (2018), 2018 e-scooter findings report. Author.
Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719
Portland Bureau of Transportation [PBOT] (2019) Shared electric scooter pilot. Author.
Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77294
.
Schmitt, Angie (Sept. 2018), E-scooter deaths show urgent need for safer streets. StreetsBlog
USA. Retrieved from
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/09/24/e-scooter-deaths-underscore-the-urgent-need-for-
safer-streets/
Schmitt, Angie (Dec. 2018), Deep dive: are e-scooters unsafe at any speed? StreetsBlog USA.
Retrieved from
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/12/19/deep-dive-are-e-scooters-unsafe-at-any-speed/
Smith, C. Scott and Joseph P. Schweiterman (2018). E-scooter scenarios: evaluating the
potential mobility benefits of shared dockless scooters in Chicago. Chaddick Institute for
Metropolitan Development at DePaul University. Retrieved from
https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-develop
ment/research-and-publications/Documents/E-ScooterScenariosMicroMobilityStudy_FIN
AL_20181212.pdf
Solomon, Dan (2018), The CDC’s first study of dockless electric scooters will happen in Austin.
Texas Monthly. Retrieved from
https://www.texasmonthly.com/article/cdc-study-electric-scooters-austin/
Page 19
St. Louis (2019), Bike share social equity and inclusion neighborhoods. St. Louis Bike Share.
Retrieved from
http://www.stlbikeshare.org/uploads/7/8/3/3/7833643/bike_share_social_equity_and_incl
usion_target_neighborhoods.pdf
Trivedi, Tarak K., Charles Liu, and Anna Liza M. Antonio (2019), Injuries associated with
standing electric scooter use. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(1):e187381.
doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7381. Retrieved from
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2722574
Walker, Alissa (2018), Bird, Lime, Lyft, Uber will all be allowed to operate scooters in Santa
Monica. Curbed: Los Angeles. Retrieved from
https://la.curbed.com/2018/8/30/17800498/scooters-santa-monica-bird-lime-lyft-uber
Page 20
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
LOOHJDOUHQWLQFUHDVHVDQGDOORZRZQHUVWRPDLQWDLQWKHLUEXLOGLQJVDQGUHDOL]HDUHDVRQDEOHSUR¿W
UHQWFRQWURO,WDOVRFRYHUVEXLOGLQJVWKDWUHFHLYH-DQGDWD[EHQH¿WV2XWVLGH1HZ<RUN&LW\
7HQDQWVFDQ¿OHUHOHYDQWFRPSODLQWVRQDYDULHW\RIIRUPVFUHDWHGE\WKH'LYLVLRQRI+RXVLQJDQG
&RPPXQLW\5HQHZDO'+&5'+&5LVUHTXLUHGWRVHUYHWKHFRPSODLQWRQWKHRZQHUJDWKHUHYLGHQFH
,IDWHQDQW
VULJKWVDUHYLRODWHG'+&5FDQUHGXFHUHQWVDQGOHY\FLYLOSHQDOWLHVDJDLQVWWKHRZQHU5HQWV
PD\EHUHGXFHGLIVHUYLFHVDUHQRWPDLQWDLQHG,QFDVHVRIRYHUFKDUJH'+&5PD\DVVHVVSHQDOWLHVRI
7KH5HQW*XLGHOLQHV%RDUGVRQHLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\DQGRQHHDFKLQ1DVVDX:HVWFKHVWHUDQG5RFNODQG
\HDUDQGDUHHIIHFWLYHIRUOHDVHVEHJLQQLQJRQRUDIWHU2FWREHUVWRIHDFK\HDU1HZ<RUN6WDWH/DZ
%RWKLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\DQGWKH(73$FRXQWLHVUHQWVFDQEHLQFUHDVHGGXULQJWKHOHDVHSHULRGLQDQ\RQH
ZLWK'+&5DSSURYDOLIWKHRZQHULQVWDOOVDEXLOGLQJZLGHPDMRUFDSLWDOLPSURYHPHQWRU
LQFDVHVRIKDUGVKLSZLWK'+&5DSSURYDO
¿QGLQJRIDUHQWRYHUFKDUJH$¿QGLQJE\'+&5RIDZLOOIXOUHQWRYHUFKDUJHE\WKHRZQHUPD\UHVXOW
LQWKHDVVHVVPHQWRIWUHEOHWULSOHGDPDJHVSD\DEOHWRWKHWHQDQW'+&5LVJHQHUDOO\SURKLELWHGIURP
\HDUVEHIRUHWKH¿OLQJRIDUHQWRYHUFKDUJHFRPSODLQW
UHGXFWLRQIURP'+&5WKHRZQHUFDQQRWFROOHFWDQ\UHQWLQFUHDVHVXQWLOVHUYLFHVDUHUHVWRUHGDQG'+&5
7KHODZSURKLELWVKDUDVVPHQWRIUHQWUHJXODWHGWHQDQWV2ZQHUVIRXQGJXLOW\RILQWHQWLRQDODFWLRQVWR
VXEMHFWWRERWKFLYLODQGFULPLQDOSHQDOWLHV2ZQHUVIRXQGJXLOW\RIWHQDQWKDUDVVPHQWDUHVXEMHFWWR
¿QHVRIXSWRIRUHDFKYLRODWLRQ
:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUDQDSDUWPHQW¿UVWEHFRPHVVXEMHFWWRUHQWVWDELOL]DWLRQDQRZQHULVUHTXLUHGWR¿OH
DQLQLWLDOUHJLVWUDWLRQ$IWHUWKHLQLWLDOUHJLVWUDWLRQRZQHUVPXVW¿OHDQDQQXDOUHJLVWUDWLRQVWDWHPHQW
UHJLVWUDWLRQIRUP2ZQHUVZKRGRQRW¿OHLQLWLDORUDQQXDOVWDWHPHQWVZLOOQRWEHHOLJLEOHIRUUHQW
,Q1HZ<RUN&LW\UHQWFRQWURORSHUDWHVXQGHUWKH0D[LPXP%DVH5HQW0%5V\VWHP$PD[LPXP
EDVHUHQWLVHVWDEOLVKHGIRUHDFKDSDUWPHQWDQGDGMXVWHGHYHU\WZR\HDUVWRUHÀHFWFKDQJHVLQRSHUDWLQJ
FRVWV2ZQHUVZKRFHUWLI\WKDWWKH\DUHSURYLGLQJHVVHQWLDOVHUYLFHVDQGKDYHUHPRYHGYLRODWLRQVDUH
HQWLWOHGWRUDLVHUHQWVXSWRSHUFHQWHDFK\HDUXQWLOWKH\UHDFKWKH0%57HQDQWVPD\FKDOOHQJHWKH
)RU1HZ<RUN&LW\UHQWFRQWUROOHGDSDUWPHQWVUHQWVFDQDOVREHLQFUHDVHGEHFDXVHRILQFUHDVHVLQIXHO
FRVWVSDVVDORQJVDQGLQVRPHFDVHVWRFRYHUKLJKHUODERUFRVWV2XWVLGH1HZ<RUN&LW\WKH1HZ
<RUN6WDWH'LYLVLRQRI+RXVLQJDQG&RPPXQLW\5HQHZDO'+&5GHWHUPLQHVPD[LPXPDOORZDEOH
UDWHVRIUHQWLQFUHDVHVXQGHUUHQWFRQWURO2ZQHUVPD\DSSO\IRUWKHVHLQFUHDVHVSHULRGLFDOO\
5HQWVFDQDOVREHLQFUHDVHGLQDQ\RQHRIWKUHHZD\VERWKLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGHRI1HZ<RUN&LW\
ZLWK'+&5DSSURYDOLIWKHRZQHULQVWDOOVDEXLOGLQJZLGHPDMRUFDSLWDOLPSURYHPHQW
LQFDVHVRIKDUGVKLSZLWK'+&5DSSURYDO
+RZHYHUXSRQWKHVHUYLFHDQG¿OLQJRIDODWHUHJLVWUDWLRQDQRZQHUFDQQRWEHIRXQGWRKDYHFROOHFWHG
IRUWKHIDLOXUHWR¿OHDWLPHO\UHJLVWUDWLRQ7KHSHQDOW\RIWUHEOHGDPDJHVFDQQRWEHDVVHVVHGDJDLQVWDQ
RZQHUEDVHGVROHO\RQWKDWRZQHU
VIDLOXUHWR¿OHDWLPHO\UHJLVWUDWLRQ
HYLFWWHQDQWV7HQDQWVDUHDOVRHQWLWOHGWRUHFHLYHHVVHQWLDOVHUYLFHV2ZQHUVDUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRRIIHU
UHQHZDOOHDVHVDVWHQDQWVDUHFRQVLGHUHGVWDWXWRU\WHQDQWV7HQDQWVPD\¿OHUHOHYDQWFRPSODLQWVRQD
YDULHW\RIIRUPVFUHDWHGE\'+&5'+&5LVUHTXLUHGWRVHUYHWKHFRPSODLQWRQWKHRZQHUJDWKHU
,IDWHQDQW
VULJKWVDUHYLRODWHG'+&5FDQUHGXFHUHQWVDQGOHY\FLYLOSHQDOWLHVDJDLQVWWKHRZQHU5HQWV
PD\EHUHGXFHGLIVHUYLFHVDUHQRWPDLQWDLQHG,QFDVHVRIRYHUFKDUJH'+&5PD\HVWDEOLVKWKHODZIXO
)RUUHQWFRQWUROOHGDSDUWPHQWVFRPSODLQWVVXEPLWWHGE\WHQDQWVZLOOUHVXOWLQDQRUGHUE\'+&5WKDW
HVWDEOLVKHVWKH0D[LPXP&ROOHFWLEOH5HQWDQGGLUHFWVWKDWDQ\RYHUFKDUJHEHUHIXQGHGIRUDSHULRGRI
QRJUHDWHUWKDQWZR\HDUVEHIRUHWKH¿OLQJRIWKHFRPSODLQW,IWKHUHIXQGLVQRWPDGHWKHWHQDQWFDQ
$SDUWPHQWVVXEMHFWWR5HQW&RQWURODUHQRWUHTXLUHGWREHUHJLVWHUHGDQQXDOO\ZLWK'+&5
7KH'HUHJXODWLRQ5HQW7KUHVKROG'57FDQEHDGMXVWHGRQ-DQXDU\VWRIHDFK\HDUEDVHGRQ
7KH'HUHJXODWLRQ5HQW7KUHVKROGVIRUIRUERWKNLQGVRIGHUHJXODWLRQDUH
1HZ<RUN&LW\
1DVVDX
5RFNODQG
:HVWFKHVWHU LIWHQDQWSD\VIRUKHDWRUKRWZDWHU
2VVLQLQJ LIWHQDQWSD\VIRUKHDWRUKRWZDWHU
7KH'HUHJXODWLRQ,QFRPH7KUHVKROGZKLFKLVQRWDGMXVWHGDQQXDOO\LV'HUHJXODWLRQ
RIDQDSDUWPHQWIRU+LJK5HQW+LJK,QFRPHUHTXLUHVWKHLVVXDQFHRIDZULWWHQRUGHUE\'+&5
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRUDVVLVWDQFHFDOOWKH'+&55HQW,QIR/LQH RUYLVLW\RXU%RURXJK2I¿FHRUFDOORUYLVLW\RXU&RXQW\5HQW2I¿FH
8QLRQ+DOO6WUHHW %HDYHU6WUHHW WK)ORRU WK)ORRU -DPDLFD1< 1HZ<RUN1<
+DQVRQ3ODFH )RUGKDP3OD]D
%URRNO\Q1< %URQ[1<
:WK6WUHHW 6RXWK%URDGZD\
1HZ<RUN1< :KLWH3ODLQV1<
Ɣ
ƔʹǣȀȀǤǤȀȀȀ
ͷͲͶͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
WES T CO U R T S T R E E TWEST CO U R T S T R E E TWEST CO U R T S T R E E TWEST C O UR T ST R E ETWEST C O UR T ST R E ETWEST CO U R T S T R E E TWEST CO U R T S T R E E TWEST CO U R T S T R E E TWEST C O UR T ST R E ET
SOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETW E S T MA RT I N L UT H E R K I N G J R /S T AT E S T R
W E S T MA RT I N L UT H E R K I N G J R /S T AT E S T R
W E S T MA RT I N L UT H E R K I N G J R /S T AT E S T RWEST M A R T I N L U T H E R K IN G JR /S T A T E S T R
WES T M A R T I N L U T H E R K IN G JR /S T A T E S T RWEST MA RT I N L UT H E R K I N G J R /S T AT E S T
W E S T MA RT I N L UT H E R K I N G J R /S T AT E S T
W E S T MA RT I N L UT H E R K I N G J R /S T AT E S TWEST M A R T I N L U T H E R K IN G JR /S T A T E S T R
CE N T ER S T R EE TCENTER S T R EE TCENTER S T R EE TCENTER ST R E E TCENTER ST R E E TCENTER S T R EE TCENTER S T R EE TCENTER S T R EE TCENTER ST R E E TFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETW E S T BU F F AL O S T R E ETWEST B U F F A L O S T R E E TWEST B U F F A L O S T R E E TWEST B U F F A L O S T R E E TWEST B U F F A L O S T RE E TWEST BU F F AL O S T R E ETWEST B U F F A L O S T R E E TWEST BU F F AL O S T R E ETWEST B U F F A L O S T RE E T
W E S T G R E E N S T R E ETWEST G R E E N S T R E ETWEST G R E E N S T R E ETWEST GR EEN S T RE E TWEST G R E E N S T R E E TWEST G R E E N S T R E E TWEST G R E E N S T R E E TWEST G R E E N S T R E E TWEST GR EEN S T RE E T
W E ST SE N E C A ST R E ETWEST SE N E C A ST R E ETWEST SE N E C A ST R E ETWEST S E N EC A S T R E E TWEST S E N EC A S T R E E TWEST SE N E C A ST R E ETWEST SE N E C A ST R E ETWEST SE N E C A ST R E ETWEST S E N EC A S T R E E T
SOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETW ES T CL I N T O N ST R E E TWEST CL I N T O N ST R E E TWEST CL I N T O N ST R E E TWEST C L I N T O N S T R EE TWEST C L I N T O N S T R EE TWEST CL I N T O N ST R E E TWEST CL I N T O N ST R E E TWEST CL I N T O N ST R E E TWEST C L I N T O N S T R EE T SOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETN
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H
S
O
U
T
H NORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREET(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)E R T E 7 9
T E R O U T E 9 6 )
CL E V E L A N D A V E N U ECLEVELAND A V E N U ECLEVELAND A V E N U ECLEVELAND A V E N U ECLEVELAND A VE NU ECLEVELAND A V E N U ECLEVELAND A V E N U ECLEVELAND A V E N U ECLEVELAND A VE NU E
N ST
REET
600
feet
300
300 Block
0
4 00 B l o ck500 Block
Proposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State StreetProposed Area for 15' Steback Requirement Along West State Street
Ͳ
x Ͳ
x
x
x Ͳ
x
x Ͳ
x
Ͳ
Ͳ
WůĂŶ/ƚŚĂĐĂ
WůĂŶ/ƚŚĂĐĂ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ WůĂŶ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ WůĂŶ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞ
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWůĂŶ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ WůĂŶ
Ͳ Ͳ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWůĂŶ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWůĂŶ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWůĂŶ
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ Ͳ
x
x
Ͳ
x
x
x
x Ͳ
x Ͳ
x
Resolution to Select Artwork for City Mural Program
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, in 2010, the City created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city,
while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, throughout
the City, by resolution on May 19, 2010 and the City-owned parking garages and municipal electrical boxes are
pre-approved mural locations, and
WHEREAS, Rusty Keller, Melody Often, and Annabelle Popa have submitted proposals to paint murals on an
electrical box on S. Titus Ave, in the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and on the exterior of the Seneca Street
Parking Garage, respectively, and
WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission formed a mural subcommittee to assess mural proposals, hold
public comment and recommend proposals for consideration, and
WHEREAS, the Mural Subcommittee held a public comment period on the mural designs and locations at its
meeting on March 12, 2019 to gather input on the proposed murals, and the responses to the proposals have
been mixed, and
WHEREAS, the installation of the murals will be funded by the artists and will be budget-neutral to the City,
and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 18, 2019, the Community Life Commission voted to recommend that the
Common Council approve the three mural projects at their proposed locations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the proposals by Rusty Keller, Melody Often,
and Annabelle Popa as recommended by the Community Life Commission, for installation on an electrical box
on S. Titus Avenue, in the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and on the exterior of the Seneca Street Parking
Garage, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their murals upon the execution of
an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney.