Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scooter Permit Pilot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFMTA defends scooter pilot scoring after critics call for more transparency and neighborhood outreach
Summary
At a committee hearing, SFMTA described a one‑year powered‑scooter pilot, said it received 12 applications and recommended two operators for initial permits; critics faulted the agency for not publishing a fixed point-weight rubric, urged stronger labor and equity commitments, and called for clearer outreach to underserved neighborhoods.
The Land Use & Transportation Committee convened an informational hearing on Oct. 1 to review the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's powered shared scooter pilot permitting process. Tom McGuire, director of the SFMTA Sustainable Streets Division, said the agency moved quickly after unpermitted scooters appeared in March 2018 and that the Board authorized a one-year pilot and empowered the Director to set permit terms. SFMTA released an application on May 24 and received 12 applications by the June 7 deadline consisting of more than 800 pages of material.
McGuire said the agency evaluated applicants against guiding principles adopted by the MTA board and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority—chiefly safety, equity and accountability—and that two applicants scored strongest in the review. The pilot terms will initially cap each admitted operator at 625 scooters for a six-month period as the city evaluates safety, compliance and equity outcomes.
But applicants and other speakers contested SFMTA's process. Several applicants (including Lime) said their proposals demonstrated broad experience and community engagement yet were rated poorly on the agency's matrix; one outside expert (Scott Cooley) testified that the evaluation process lacked clarity and appeared biased in places. Labor advocates urged the agency to require labor-harmony provisions and employee relationships (rather than piece-rate contractor models) so that scooter-related jobs yield stable wages and protections. SFMTA replied that privacy protections and labor‑harmony commitments were included in permit terms and that safety or accountability shortfalls would be disqualifying regardless of other strengths. The agency said it had some outreach to community groups but did not use the City Administrator's emerging-technology working group to shape application weightings.
Supervisors pressed SFMTA on whether it had published weighting for individual scoring categories in advance; SFMTA replied that it published the categories and application questions but did not set a fixed scoreweight table because certain categories — notably safety and accountability — would be disqualifying if rated poor. The committee heard calls for clearer documentation of scoring weights, stronger outreach to underserved neighborhoods, and formal commitments that operators hire local residents at living wages. The committee filed the hearing for the record; SFMTA said it will monitor the pilot and produce a documented evaluation before any decision to expand or continue the program.
