Council hears update on shared mobility program; staff reports limited device use and changes to permit rules

City staff provided a study-session update on Santa Clara’s shared mobility permit program — the city’s regulation of dockless electric bikes and scooters — outlining program rules, recent usage data, enforcement practices and proposed administrative changes to permits.

Transportation Manager Steve Chan told council that Santa Clara’s current shared-mobility permit caps total devices at 3,000 across operators, requires devices to be GPS‑enabled and geofencable, and sets operational rules including a 15 mph top device speed per California Vehicle Code for scooters, a 2‑hour operator response time for improperly parked or unsafe devices, and a 24/7 customer service requirement in multiple languages. The permit also restricts device use on sidewalks and in city parks and allows devices on roadways with speed limits up to 25 mph and on high‑speed streets that have bike lanes.

Recent activity and enforcement: staff presented device and trip totals submitted by operators for recent fiscal years and a device‑use heat map showing ridership concentrated around Santa Clara Caltrain station, Santa Clara University area, Mission College, retail corridors on El Camino Real and stations along Tasman Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Reported trip volumes dropped after the first permit year: Bird recorded roughly 35,000 trips and about 41,000 miles in the initial year, but later years showed substantially fewer trips. In 2022–23 Bird’s data equated to an estimated 22,500 vehicle‑miles (VMT) reduced; later years’ VMT reductions were smaller (staff cited roughly 1,800 miles for Bird and 13,500 miles for Lime in 2023–24, and roughly 1,000 miles for the truncated 2024–25 reporting period). One operator (Veo) ceased operations citing low profitability and vandalism across the regional market, and staff said profitability — not local policy alone — was a driver for reduced deployment.

Planned permit changes: staff proposed several administrative changes to encourage operator participation: allow permit applications to be submitted year‑round, make permits valid for one year from date of issuance with an option for a one‑year renewal, and permit up to a three‑month temporary extension to bridge gaps in service. Staff also noted AB 458 (effective 2024) requires operators to offer liability insurance for riders and the program will reflect that state requirement.

Issues noted by council: members raised enforcement and equity questions. Vice Mayor Kelly Cox asked whether the program enforces the city’s requirement that a percentage of deployed devices be placed in “priority” or equity neighborhoods and whether there is enforcement for repeat parking or safety violations; staff noted the permit includes penalties and potential impoundment for unpaid or unresolved parking complaints and that geofencing can be used to restrict operations during major events. Council members also asked why ridership was low on the north side of the city; staff said land‑use patterns and less pedestrian activity in some industrial areas contributed to lower usage there.

Staffing and implementation: staff said no dedicated public‑works staff were added to manage the program when it was approved and that program management relies on existing staff resources. Data reporting from operators is required under the permit and staff makes heat‑map and usage information available on the city website for market research.

Public comment: no members of the public offered comments during the study session segment. Staff concluded by offering to return with any requested follow‑up and the council did not take formal action — the item was heard as a study session and noted for the record.