Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagstaff reviews micro‑mobility options, staff recommends permit approach to manage e‑scooters and e‑bikes
Summary
City staff and regional partners presented a micro‑mobility feasibility study and asked the Sustainability Commission for initial feedback on whether to allow private operators, how to regulate them, and equity measures to include in any procurement or permit.
Flagstaff City officials and regional partners presented a micro‑mobility feasibility study and asked the Sustainability Commission for feedback on whether to permit shared e‑scooters and e‑bikes in the city and, if so, what rules to require.
Kim Austin, MetroPlan transportation demand management planner, and Jamie Larson (housing and transportation, Vista) led the briefing and said the City Council in February directed staff to engage stakeholders on whether to allow operators and, if so, how to regulate them.
"So this is just preliminary discussion, to talk about if micromobility operators should be allowed to come to Flagstaff," Kim Austin said. The presenters described two high‑level approaches: (1) retain a permissive code but create a formal permitting or procurement process that embeds conditions, or (2) revise the municipal code to ban or otherwise restrict operators.
Presenters summarized benefits cited in peer‑city research: micro‑mobility trips can reduce vehicle miles traveled, provide first‑/last‑mile connections to transit and offer lower‑cost transport options. The National Association of City Transportation Officials and a North American bikeshare association were cited for aggregate data showing carbon and trip‑replacement benefits.
City staff identified practical risks and mitigation options: personal injury and cross‑jurisdiction crashes; parking and ADA obstruction from improperly parked devices; device abandonment if vendors leave the market; staff time needed to monitor compliance; and equitable access for residents who lack smartphones or credit cards. Proposed mitigations included insurance and liability contracts, geofencing and parking corrals, designated vendor responsibilities, vendor funding of additional parking, cash payment options and targeted device deployment to underserved neighborhoods.
Commissioners discussed enforcement, infrastructure readiness and equity. Commissioner Carlson cautioned against over‑regulation that would deter vendors. MetroPlan staff said peer cities use a range of approaches; many now favor placing most operational responsibility on vendors while the city enforces standards and complaints. The presenters noted earlier Flagstaff pilots (a 2018 pilot and a post‑2019 contract with a vendor that ended during the COVID‑19 pandemic) and said current market preferences show roughly 75% of shared devices are scooters and 25% e‑bikes.
Staff described options going forward: update code and create a permit process (detailed permits seen in other cities), or run a city‑led procurement for a single vendor with contractual performance and equity requirements. Staff said they will finish stakeholder engagement, analyze feedback and bring a recommendation to City Council.
Why it matters: micro‑mobility can extend transit reach and reduce car trips, but unmanaged deployment can create sidewalk obstruction, maintenance and equity issues. The commission was asked for initial reactions and considerations to include in procurement or permitting.
What’s next: staff will complete outreach, publish a community survey and return to City Council with procurement or code options and the commission’s feedback.
