GDPC Task Force questions for Mr. Jared White and Mr. Mike Rogers

Safety:
Regarding liability:
-Establishing and enforcing governing speeds, possibly engineered into the scooters.
-Holding users responsible from start to finish for each trip.

Regarding hazard to pedestrians on sidewalks in in areas like Klyde Warren Park:
-What is the city doing to get scooters onto the streets?
-Should speed-limited scooters just be permitted on sidewalks? (May be necessary where speed limits for cars are above 35 MPH, or are otherwise impractical or unsafe for scooter users.)
-What about protected bike lanes for both e-and pedaled vehicles?

Regarding Kids using scooters:
-What is the minimum age for MM operation and how can it be enforced?

Regarding vehicle laws being ignored by scooter users:
-What are shared service providers required to do to educate and enforce correct use of their vehicles? -What can law enforcement do?

Regarding dedicated lanes:
-There are many cities similar to Dallas in development of Complete Street modifications, according to Smart Growth America’s Best Practices Report.

Bike lanes that are merely painted stripes on the pavement offer no protection for cyclists, much less scooter users.
-What are the city plans for protected bike lanes for bikes, e-bikes and scooters?
Statistics (DMN) suggest that nine people every day are killed daily by distracted drivers
– what means are there to protect scooter users?

Data Collection:

Regarding statistical data gathered from scooter and dockless bike use, like frequency, duration, length of ride.
-What data can the city get from operators?
-Should data sharing be a condition for the permitting?
-What data are necessary for the City to make informed policy?

Taskforce on Micro-Mobility Policy Operation:

Regarding future permitting of micro-mobility (MM) vendors.
-Should MM Vendors be contracted by the city instead of the current method?
-What are the best practices for making intermodal connections among micro and other forms of transit (DART, etc.)?
-Are we working with them on design, and safety features such as signaling, speed controls (in designated areas) seated mobility and improved braking?

Regarding new and innovative technological solutions for MM, as well as applications of AI, drones, etc.
-Can we create “regulatory sandboxes” to test new MM solutions?
-Could we work with providers to test different ones in different areas—adjusting fees and incentive structures, or varying rules regarding vehicle parking or on-street riding to see how behaviors and outcomes change?
-Are we considering applying performance-based criteria (going beyond merely capping fleet sizes) for service providers? Some vendors call for “outcome-focused measures”. Can we work with vendors on that?

-What should Dallas’ position be on “modal neutrality”?

Regarding users:
-What are our ultimate goals for MM? (i.e., relieving congestion, complementing public transportation, reducing environmental impact, workforce mobility, access to underserved communities, etc.)
- What forms of MM are most likely to meet practical transportation needs of workforce and student users?

Observation: The current explosion of devices in US cities appears driven by venture capital speculation on future profitability. Scooters and dockless shared systems are getting the buzz right now, while private bike use for commuting and recreation grows slowly but steadily.

-How can the purpose of these vehicles get made to be recognized as universal, rather than just “recreational”, or some other category that makes it seem unimportant. This issue may jeopardize future funding streams for infrastructure improvements to accommodate MM.
-How can we build mobility systems that will address our needs once the speculative wave is gone? --How can future MM policies address and stimulate private bike and e-vehicle use?