►
From YouTube: City Council Study Session 10-27-20
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
He
didn't
tell
me
he
wouldn't
be
here,
so
we
can.
We
can
wait
the
minute
for
him
to
get
here
for
sure.
C
B
And
here's
my
script:
okay,
just
in
case
anyone
forgot
we're
doing
rotation
of
council
members
for
study
sessions.
So
this
is
I
I
got
the
short
straw
on
this
evening.
Welcome
to
the
tuesday
october
27th
study
session
of
boulder
city
council
to
begin
the
meeting.
We
do
have
a
couple
of
announcements.
This
evening.
B
First
announcement,
the
city
of
boulder
has
decided
to
fill
the
two
open
ex
officio
positions
on
the
cannabis
licensing
advisory
board.
These
two
non-voting
positions
will
advise.
The
advisory
board
will
will
be
appointed
to
five-year
terms,
beginning
retroactively
april
1st
2020
and
may
be
filled
both
by
resident
and
non-resident
applicants.
B
We
began
accepting
applications
for
this
board
beginning
monday
october
26
2020
and
we'll
stop
accepting
them
at
5
pm
on
thursday
november
12
2020..
If
you
are
interested
in
applying
for
the
cannabis,
license
advisory
board.
Please
visit
the
city's
boardroom
commission
webpage
at
boulder
colorado.gov
backslash
boards,
slash
commissions.
B
Second
announcement.
The
state
of
colorado
has
implemented
a
new
covered
exposure
notification
system
through
mobile
phones.
This
feature
can
be
easily
activated
on
your
phone
and
will
provide
you
with
an
exposure
alert
when
you
may
have
crossed
paths
with
another
person
who
has
this
feature
enabled
and
who
is
subsequently
diagnosed
with
covet.
B
The
more
people
who
turn
on
this
notification
feature
the
more
helpful
the
tool
will
be
for
all
of
us,
notably
the
feature
will
not
collect
or
store
any
of
our
personal
information.
This
is
a
simple
but
crucial
step.
We
can
all
take
to
keep
rates
our
rates
as
low
as
possible
to
ensure
ensure
your
phone
has
notifications
enabled
please
visit
www.add,
your
phone,
a
d
d
y
o?
B
U
r,
p,
h,
o
n
e
dot
com
and
now
moving
on
to
the
agenda
tonight,
we'll
be
covering
two
items:
an
update
on
the
boulder
bike,
share
b
cycle
strategic
plan
and
the
regulation
of
human
and
electric
powered
micro
mobility,
devices
on
streets
paths
and
sidewalks.
So
a
whole
lot
of
transportation
this
evening
and
I'll
send
it
over
to.
I
believe,
dk.
F
I
am
thank
you
good
evening,
mary
members
of
council,
I'm
erica
vannenbrand.
The
director
of
transportation
mobility
here
in
boulder
staff,
is
very
pleased
when
meeting
with
guests
from
the
tab,
boulder
bike
share,
cu,
boulder
and
the
boulder
police
department
to
discuss
and
explore
with
council
to
micro
mobility
related
topics.
F
The
first
topic
focuses
on
the
evolution
of
the
city's
shared
micro
mobility
program.
The
second
topic
addresses
where
the
place
or
the
where
both
shared
and
private
electric
mobility
devices
can
be
illegally
used
on
city,
streets,
sidewalks
and
multi-use
paths
based
on
council's
recent
direction.
The
city's
shared
micro
mobility
program
will
be
changing
and
evolving
for
over
10
years,
the
program
has
consisted
of
a
bike
share
system
operated
by
a
local
non-profit,
boulder
bike
share,
which
uses
a
platform
provided
by
b
cycle.
F
A
limited
liability
corporation
in
the
private
sector,
owned
by
trek
bicycle
company
council,
has
directed
staff
to
expand
the
shared
micro
mobility
program
to
include
shared
e-scooters
on
a
limited
geographic
basis
and
to
evolve
the
bike
share
platform
to
include
electric
assisted
bicycles,
to
add,
e-scooters
and
evolve.
The
bike
share
component.
The
city
will
be
issuing
a
request
for
proposals
in
early
2021..
F
The
intent
of
this
information
this
evening
is
not
to
select
a
preferred
alternative
program
scenario,
but
rather
to
get
your
feedback
on
the
criteria
that
we'll
be
using
to
evaluate
the
proposals
from
the
rfp
process
in
the
next
several
months,
and
we
look
forward
to
hearing
your
feedback
now
for
the
second
portion
of
the
discussion.
The
second
item
with
council
is
to
identify
both
where
both
private
and
shared
electric
devices
can
be
legally
operated
on
city
facilities.
F
Many
community
members
already
need
already
using
a
diverse
array
of
new
electric
devices
like
e-scooters,
electric
skateboards,
one
wheels,
etc
with
the
increasing
private
use
and
the
changes
coming
forward
in
our
shared
micro
mobility
program.
The
city
will
need
to
update
our
existing
ordinances
about
where
these
devices
can
be
legally
operated
on
the
streets,
sidewalks
and
multi-use
paths,
and
through
both
internal
discussions
and
community
outreach.
We've
been
exploring
these
options
and
would
like
to
get
council's
input
before
returning
with
recommendations
and
a
draft
ordinance
in
january
2021..
G
Great,
thank
you
very
much
erica.
I
do
appreciate
the
introduction
for
this
evening's
topics
and
good
evening
mayor
and
members
of
city
council,
I'm
dave,
kemp
senior
transportation,
planner
and
with
the
transportation
and
mobility
department
and
joining
me
this
evening
is
kevin.
Krauss
executive
director
for
boulder
bike
share
brandon
smith
assistant,
director
of
sustainable
transportation,
with
cu's
environmental
center,
heidi
van
genderen,
with
cu,
cu's,
chief
sustainability
officer,
and
they
will
be
available
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
during
the
discussion
this
evening,
followed
by
my
presentation.
H
All
right,
you're,
protecting
them
from
your
ndk,
is
that
right.
G
G
Thank
you
very
much,
chris.
Okay,
sorry
about
that.
Over
the
last
several
months,
boulder
bike
share
staff,
its
board
members
and
staff
from
the
city
of
boulder
and
cu
boulder
have
been
engaged
in
a
strategic
planning
process
to
determine
the
purpose
and
next
logical
steps
for
the
boulder
bike
share
organization
and
the
b
cycle
program.
G
Operator,
so
a
little
bit
about
boulder
bike
share
first,
as
erica
described
boulder
bike
share
is
the
nonprofit
behind
the
b
cycle
system
and
again
this
system
was
purchased
by
through
b
cycle
llc,
which
is
manufactured
by
the
trek
bicycle
corporation.
G
G
This
did
happen
in
other
communities
where
kaiser
permanente
pulled
out
as
the
presenting
sponsor
and
we
increase
our
subsidy
245
000
to
keep
operations
alive
in
2020
through
coordination
with
some
of
our
funding
partners,
we
were
able
to
continue
with
boulder
bike
share
efforts
and
we
all
pitched
in
to
make
2020
reality
and
looking
forward
in
2021
here
right
now,
in
transportation
mobility
we
have
approximately
fifty
thousand
dollars
budgeted
and,
of
course,
the
impacts
from
coven
19
has
had
a
tremendous
effect
on
the
city's
budget,
much
alone
transportation,
mobilities,
and
so
it's
very
important
that
we
continue
our
coordination
with
cu,
boulder
and
boulder
county
moving
forward
to
determine
our
best
next
steps
with
our
micro
mobility
program,
I
will
say
that
since
2011,
the
city's
663
thousand
dollar
operational
investment
has
helped
boulder
bike
share,
provide
reliable
transportation
to
a
hundred
thousand
unique
riders,
introducing
shared
on-demand
microability
as
an
option
for
nearly
seven
hundred
thousand
essential
and
recreational
trips,
seven
hundred
thousand
trips.
G
So,
in
terms
of
system
use,
ridership
did
decline
in
april
to
the
impact
of
coven
19
in
our
community,
but
has
significantly
bounced
back
in
recent
months,
mainly
due
to
the
return
of
cu.
Boulder
students
who
now
comprise
about
60
of
our
current
use
and
since
august
average.
Trips
per
bike
per
day
are.
G
G
G
G
Okay
with
that
I'd
like
to
shift
the
focus
for
the
remainder
of
the
presentation
to
the
development
of
the
city's
shared
micro
mobility
program,
including
program
goals,
potential
program
scenarios,
the
evaluation
criteria
and
an
evaluation
matrix,
we
developed
to
help
illustrate
how
the
different
program
scenarios
work
to
fulfill
the
evaluation
criteria
that
will
use.
That
would
be
primarily
used
for
the
upcoming
request
for
proposal
process.
G
So,
as
we've
worked
to
envision,
what
a
world
class
shared
micro
mobility
program
looks
like
we've
identified
six
goal
areas
that
we'd
strive
to
achieve
in
a
comprehensive
program.
These
goal
areas
transcend
into
evaluation
criteria
that
will
be
used
to
select
an
operator
from
the
through
the
request
for
proposal
process
later
this
year,
and
I'm
going
to
walk
through
these
criteria
and
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
them
for
safety.
G
G
And
so
understanding,
where
we've
been
in
the
last
10
years
and
looking
to
the
future
and
thinking
about
how
we
would
incorporate
these
program
goals,
we
identified
four
different
scenarios,
ranging
in
a
diversity
of
partnership
models
and
types
of
shared
micro
mobility
platforms,
and
I
just
wanted
to
walk
through
these
different
scenarios.
So
everyone
has
a
keen
understanding
of
what
we're
looking
at
here
so
scenario
a
would
be
to
go
into
business
with
a
new
private
sector,
a
service
provider.
G
G
Scenario
b
is
very
similar
to
scenario
a
where
we
would
have
a
new
private
sector
service
provider
and
dismantle
the
b
cycle
system.
However,
boulder
bike
share
would
operate
the
system
through
a
franchise
model
and
then
scenario
c
b
cycle
llc
again
the
company
that
owns
the
equipment
or
had
owned
the
equipment.
The
trek
bicycle
manufacturing
company
would
operate
the
existing
platform
and
that
could
be
with
a
partnership
or
without
a
partnership
with
boulder
bike
share
and
then
finally,
sonar
iod
would
be
boulder.
Bike
share
continues
to
operate.
G
The
items
in
blue
are
to
be
determined
to
the
rfp
process.
The
green
boxes
currently
work
well
to
satisfy
criteria.
The
yellow
boxes
works
part
way
and
the
red
boxes
do
not
satisfy
the
criteria
today
and
so
for
tonight.
I
like
to
walk
through
a
couple
of
the
yellow
and
the
red
boxes
to
help
you
better
understand
why
those
are
colored,
the
way
we've
colored
them,
and
so
looking
at
scenario
c
and
state
of
the
art
technology,
the
yellow
box.
G
G
Second
and
then
looking
over
at
scenario
d
and
going
down
to
financial
viability,
the
red
box
again
right
now,
as
I
just
mentioned,
this
would
be
dependent
upon
us,
an
annual
city
subsidy
and
in
terms
of
the
equity
and
being
able
to
provide
services
in
underserved
neighborhoods.
This
potentially
could
require
additional
city
investment,
and
then
we
believe
that
with
improved
technology
for
the
shifted
trips
and
device
device
lifespan
that
we
can
actually
get
more
trips
per
bike
per
day
on
e-bikes
versus
traditional
pedal
bikes,
and
then
we
talk
about
the
state-of-the-art
technology
again.
G
These
bikes
with
the
current
system,
has
done
well
for
the
city
of
boulder.
It's
been.
It
was
a
good
investment
they're
now
reaching
their
lifespan
of
over
10
years
old,
and
while
they
still
work
and
are
safe,
it's
time
to
think
about
upgrading
the
technology
to
e-bikes
and
the
same
goes
for
the
docks.
The
docking
systems
are
aging
as
well,
and
we've
got
to
think
about
their
future
replacement
and
again,
the
type
of
data
that
we
currently
receive
needs
to
be
enhanced
to
allow
for
for
better
planning
opportunities
for
transportation
planners.
G
Although
I
will
say
the
boulder
bike
share,
through
its
app
has
managed
to
document
routes
through
the
city
for
approximately
10
percent
of
the
trips
in
2019,
which
has
helped
us
and
in
terms
of
accessibility.
The
same
with
scenario.
C,
it's
more
difficult
to
achieve.
Ongoing
demand
base
cap
to
the
limit
number
of
docking
spaces,
with
the
limited
funding
that
we
currently.
G
G
Okay
and
now
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
tab
and
tabs
and
put
on
the
matter,
the
transportation
advisory
board
is
very
appreciative
of
boulder
bike
share
service
to
the
community
for
the
last
10
years.
Tab
tab
wants
the
city's
current
bike
share
program
to
evolve,
to
become
a
shared
micro
mobility
program
that
includes
e-bikes
and
e-scooters.
G
Tab
acknowledges
the
city's
current
budget
limitations
that
the
transportation
and
mobility
departments
has
in
2021
and
the
fact
that
we
cannot
meet
builder
bike
shares
annual
operational
budget
tab
concurs
with
staff
on
the
ongoing
coordination
with
cu,
boulder,
boulder
county
and
the
boulder
chamber.
This
is
all
a
very
paramount
to
creating
a
successful,
shared
micro
mobility
program
that
works
for
all
of
our
partners
in
the
community,
and
that
is
our
primary
goal.
G
Okay,
looking
at
next
steps
here,
we
are
tonight
october
27th,
talking
about
the
results
of
the
strategic
plan
and
potential
scenarios
moving
forward
in
fourth
quarter,
we'll
issue
a
request
for
proposal
and
hope
to
select
a
a
new
operator
by
hopefully
the
first
quarter
of
2021
and
then
looking
into
the
second
quarter
of
2021.
We
would
like
to
launch
a
new
or
refined
shared
mobility
program
and
the
little
note
on
the
bottom
there
is.
We
just
wanted
to
ensure
console
that
we
do
plan
to
fold
both
e-bikes
and
e-scooters
into
the
shared
micro
mobility
program.
G
B
Thanks
for
that,
dk
we'll
start
with
questions
first
before
we
get
into
feedback.
So
any
questions
on
the
presentation
I
see
bob's
hand
raised
first.
D
Thanks
adam
thanks
dk,
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
I
have
three
or
four
questions.
I
saved
my
comments
towards
the
last.
Can
you
go
back
to
slide
number
three
dk.
You
bet.
D
I
just
try
to
like
to
try
to
understand
a
little
bit
better.
I
I'm
looking
likely
towards
this
pretty
significant
change
here,
so
we
don't
need
to
dwell
a
whole
lot
on
the
past
or
even
the
present,
but
I
do
think
it's
important
for
us
to
understand
the
current
state
of
affairs
so
that
we
are
intelligent
about
whatever
rfp
we
issue
and
what
criteria
we
might
apply.
So
I'm
trying
to
understand
a
little
bit
about
ridership.
D
So
in
this
slide
it
shows
that
we've
had
an
average
of
105
000
rides
per
year
sounds
like
they
might
be
down
a
little
bit
this
year.
But
that's
okay,
I'd
like
to
understand
the
kind
of
the
breakdown
in
the
105
000
rides.
D
First,
I
guess
the
first
question
is,
as
I
understand
it,
there's
really
effectively
two
types
of
writers,
those
with
subscriptions
who
can
ride
effectively
for
free
for
at
least
a
period
of
time,
and
then
those
who
might
come
in
particularly
tourists
who
might
buy
a
day
pass
or
pay
by
the
hour.
Do
we
have
a
breakdown
and
if
you
need
to
defer
to
kevin
on
this,
that's
perfectly
fine
dk.
Do
you
have
a
breakdown
on
how
many
of
those
hundred
and
five
thousand
rides
were
like
day
past
hourly
versus
subscribers?.
G
Yes
and
you're
right
bob
kevin
would
have
that
information
is
the
expert
on
his
organization,
so
ryan.
If
we
can
make
sure
that
kevin
has
speaking
privileges
on
this
link,
that
would
be
fantastic
to
answer
some
of
bob's
questions
regarding
the
specifics
good
thing.
H
Thanks,
ryan
and
good
evening,
council
yeah
councilman,
I'm
happy
to
speak
to
that.
Basically,
over
the
last
few
years,
it's
been
the
case
that
the
number
of
trips
from
what
we
call
our
day
tripper
pass
casual
walk-up
users
who
are
just
paying
for
system
access.
For
that
day,
they
usually
take
about
an
average
of
1.5
trips
per
person,
obviously
no
one's
taking
exactly
that
number,
but
that
number
has
been
going
a
little
bit
down
as
users
of
the
system
who
have
annual
passes
either
through
larger
corporate
membership.
D
Thanks
kevin:
do
you
have
an
estimate
of
the
105
000
average
rides
per
year?
How
many
of
those
rides
are
day
trippers
versus
subscribers.
H
Yeah,
let's
see,
I
think,
looking
even
back
at
last
year,
I'm
gonna
need
to
double
check,
but
I
want
to
say
that
the
out
of
a
hundred
and
five
thousand,
I
think
that
we
were
in
the
low
twenty.
Thousands
were
from
casual
walk-up
users
who
were
taking.
H
You
know
just
a
little
over
one
trip
per
person,
largely
tourists
and
visitors,
and
then
the
number
of
trips
by
by
pro
membership
programs
and
ceo
affiliates
has
been
going
way
up
and
year
to
date
this
year,
we're
at
about,
I
think,
we're
over
70
of
our
trips
here
today.
This
year
are
from
cu
affiliates.
Only
those
would
be
students,
mostly
with
annual
passes.
D
Okay,
that's
that's
good
enough
for,
for,
for
my
purposes,
kevin
what
I'm
trying
to
get
to
I'm
going
to
ask
you
a
couple
two
three
questions:
I'm
trying
to
get
to
try
to
get
a
sense
for
how
many
people
use
these
bikes
for
commuting
purposes.
So,
let's
just
use
your
20
or
25
000
day,
trippers,
so
backing
that
out
of
105
000
gets
us
down
to
call
it
80
or
85
000
rides
by
subscribers.
If
I
divide
15
000
subscribers
into
that
comes
to
a
little
bit
less
than
six
rides
per
year
per
subscriber.
H
Except
for
of
those
fifteen
thousand
subscribers,
that
includes
a
fair
number
of
includes
all
of
the
walk-up
casual
day,
users.
H
We
we
call
that
person
like
a
casual
walk-up
member
like
in
the
industry.
We
usually
call
them
casual
or
walk-out
members.
People
do
not
have
a
monthly
or
yearly
subscription
are
just
purchasing
access
for
the
day.
D
That
would
obviously
decrease
the
number
of
rides
remaining
rides
among
those
85
000
to
the
among
the
other
6
000
subscribers,
any
guesstimate.
If
you,
if
you
call
like
a
commuter
somebody
who
rides
more
than
a
hundred
times
a
year,
I
mean
you
know
a
round
trip
times.
250
working
days
would
be
500,
but,
let's
just
say
100,
which
would
be
a
means.
A
fifth
of
your
commuting
trips
were
on
the
b
cycle.
How
many
hundred
plus
writers
do
you
have
per
year
roughly.
H
H
H
But
obviously
it
falls
off
quickly
from
there
and
then
you
get
more
into
the
average.
What
we
call,
maybe
called
more
an
average
user,
so
that
number
of
trips
is
obviously
very
different
for
a
monthly
pass
or
an
annual
pass,
or
even
this
year
has
actually
seen
the
greatest
use
of
our
pay
per
trip
pass.
That
requires
no
sort
of
subscription
in
advance
and
you
just
pay
for
it
when
you're
using
it.
D
D
If,
if
60,
I
know
historically
about
40
of
the
rides
have
been
taken
by
cu,
affiliates
students
and
faculty
members
and
staff,
but
it
sounds
like
that
shifted
this
year
and
whether
that's
a
permanent
shift
or
not,
we
don't
know,
but
if,
if
60
of
the
writers
are
now
cu
student
or
sue
affiliates
and
that
continues
into
the
future,
what's
cu's
feeling
about
subsidizing
a
system
whatever
system
we'll
talk
we'll
talk
about
that
a
bit,
but
let's
assume
that
a
system
requires
a
subsidy
and,
let's
assume
that
half
ish
is,
is
used
by
cu
affiliates.
G
J
Yes,
I'm
I'm
here.
This
is
brandon
smith,
I'm
assistant
director
of
the
cu
environmental
center,
and
last
year
we
provided
a
subsidy
of
78
000,
which
allowed
us
to
basically
give
out
memberships
to
cu
affiliates,
and
you
know
we
have
seen
a
great
success
in
that.
So
I
I
feel
good
about
that
subsidy
and
providing
a
similar
subsidy
in
the
future.
You
know
everybody's
got
budget
constraints
right
now
with
covet,
as
does
the
program
I
manage,
but
if,
if
the
numbers
work
out,
we
would
do
everything
that
we
could.
D
Thanks
brandon,
that
was
helpful,
adam
just
with
your
indulgence.
I
only
have
one
more
question.
D
Dk,
can
you
walk
us
through
the
difference
between
option
a
and
option
b?
As
you
said,
they
look
really
really
close
to
me.
It
looked
to
me
like
the
difference
between
a
and
b
is,
is
both
of
them
when
involved
in
rfp
and
a
would
would
let
the
successful
bidder,
I
guess
I'll
call
them
operate
as
they
wish
and
scenario
b
would
would
require
the
successful
bidder
to
use
boulder
bike
share
as
a
operator.
Is
that
the
primary
difference
between
the
two.
G
Yeah
you
got
it
bob.
Essentially,
it
depends
on.
If
the
private
sector,
the
service
provider
or
boulder
bike
share
would
apply
for
the
or
would
they
would
respond
to
the
rfp
they
so
in
scenario,
they
would
be
the
organization
that
would
operate
the
system,
so
it
might,
let's
let
let's
throw
out
like
just
a
hypothetical
company,
say
like
ride
fast
or
something
you
know.
G
If
we,
if
we
took
in
ride
fast
bikes
and
ride
fast
scooters,
then
boulder
bike
share
would
then
be
the
organization
that
would
operate
the
system,
but
they
would
be
long.
The
equipment
would
belong
to
that.
That
company.
D
B
D
D
Thank
you
was
the
successful
bidder.
What
what
would
be
the
reason
we
there
may
be
a
really
good
reason.
I
just
want
to
know
what
it
is.
What
would
be
the
reason
that
we
would
require
under
scenario
b,
that
ride
safe
would
be
required
to
use
boulder
bike
share
as
their
operator
like,
what's
what's
kind
of
in
it,
for
us
for
cu
and
for
the
boulder
community.
G
Sure
and
it's
so
it's
it's
an
option,
and
so
it's
one
way
in
which
one
of
the
companies
may
solicit
a
response
to
the
rfp.
But
I
think
that
what
we
would
keep
or
continue
to
gain
is
the
institutional
knowledge
that
we've
had
through
boulder
bikeshare
over
the
last
10
years,
they've
developed
a
number
of
relationships
in
the
community,
they're
well
known,
and
so
I
I
think,
maintaining
their
presence
as
the
operator
would
be
helpful
and-
and
we
also
have
a
great
working
relationship
with
them.
D
They're
they're
great
people
and
don't
take
my
question
as
critical
of
boulder
bikeshare,
I
think
they've
been
fantastic.
They
provided
fantastic
service
to
the
to
the
community
for
over
a
decade.
I
just
wanted
to
understand
the
thinking
between
a
and
b,
so
that
was
helpful.
Dk
appreciate
it.
Those
are
all
my
questions.
I'll
have
some
comments
later
on
thanks
adam.
K
Can
I
call
away
with
you
on
that
letter,
go
ahead,
mark
adam
and
said?
Okay,
thank
you
with
respect
to
scenario
b,
if
b
bbs
were
to
operate
the
system
to
a
franchise
model,
would
that
be
a
fee
based
service
that
they're
performing
or
would
it
be
in
effect
pro
bono
and
and
how
would
that
impact?
The
overall
economics
of
providing
the
system
with
having
a
franchisee
versus
having
the
designated
provider
handle
all
aspects
of
the
service.
H
Sure
I'd
love
to
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity.
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
that
maybe
the
best
way
of
answering
that
is
many
in
many
cities,
the
provider.
H
H
I
think
the
reason
it
would
impact
the
economics
is
highly
dependent
on
the
service
area
and
devices
and
potential
competition
that
company
would
be
in
they.
An
equipment
operator
could
be
in
the
position
of
paying
a
local
service
provider
like
our
nonprofit
to
run
a
system
for
them,
because
they're
making
sufficient
revenue
to
do.
F
H
H
H
G
Mark
bob,
if
I
could
just
weigh
in
on
that
a
bit
too
oops,
sorry
about
that,
I
think
it's
important
to
clarify
for
you
that
you
know
these
are
just
options
right
now
that
could
come
from
the
market
from
the
rfp
process.
We're
not
going
to
be
shaping
the
rfp
to
cater
to
each
one
of
these
different
scenarios,
and
so
we're
right
now
just
currently
speculating
that
these
could
be
potential
scenarios
moving
forward
that
could
come
out
of
the
rfp
process.
Does
that
make
sense,
yeah
that
that
helps
okay,
good.
C
Great
and
dk,
thanks
for
that
last
bit,
because
I
was
going
to
ask
that
clarification
so
essentially
just
to
clarify
the
the
rfp
process
is
going
to
be
fairly
open-ended,
and
then
these
are
some
of
the
responses
that
types
of
responses
that
may
come
out
of
it
is
that
right.
So
we're
not
you're
not
issuing
an
rfp
for
just
scenario,
one
or
just
scenario:
a
or
just
b.
G
That's
right,
and
then
you
probably
should
have
painted
the
picture
for
you
better
in
the
beginning
that,
yes,
exactly
we
we
speculate.
These
are
the
types
of
scenarios
that
would
come
out
of
the
rfp
process
and
that
the
rfp
process
will
be
built
on
the
criteria
that
we've
provided
for
you
tonight.
C
Great
okay,
yeah
thanks
now
it's
good
to
have
an
understanding
of
that
and
that
just
the
other
thing
I
had
is
I
just
wanted.
I
know
we
have
robert
hutchison
from
the
transportation
advisory
board,
so
just
want
to
invite
him
if
he
wanted
to
add
any
color
to
tabs
feedback
that
we
already
heard
just
to
give
him
that
opportunity.
C
B
No,
this
is,
this
is
a
good
time
just
introduce
yourself
real,
quick,
rob.
L
Sure
my
name's
robert
hutchinson,
I
go
by
hutch
and
I'm
one
of
the
five
tab
members
and
with
a
particular
interest
in
this
topic,
so
I'm
the
lucky
guy
that
gets
to
be
part
of
this
discussion.
L
I
think,
in
addition
to
the
nice
summary
that
dk
put
together
of
some
of
our
feedback-
there's
probably
three
other
things
just
to
emphasize
one
is
and-
and
the
team
has
mentioned-
data
and
planning
in
a
pretty
high
level
way,
but
I
wanted
to
emphasize
that
there
are
cities
where
what
they're
learning
about
who
does
what,
when
from
more
modern
shared
systems,
is
amazing
in
terms
of
really
thinking
about
transportation
dynamics
in
a
city,
particularly
around
things
that
are
not
the
operational
construct
of
the
city,
everybody
goes
to
school
every
monday
every
every
morning
everybody
goes
to
work
every
morning.
L
It's
the
non-standard
flow.
You
don't
really
look
to
these
devices
or
these
shared
systems
to
be
people's
daily
commutes
if
they
commute
daily
they're
going
to
have
their
own
bike,
because
it's
more
comfortable
because,
whatever
whatever
you
know
you
you
can
guess
it
right.
So
don't
think
about
it
as
oh.
How
many
commutes
are
we
getting
rid
of?
That's
that's
not
so
relevant
and
do
think
about
what
we're
going
to
learn
about
the
more
random
overlays.
When
do
people
end
up
downtown?
When
do
they
end
up
in
the
shopping?
L
Do
they
shop
with
one
of
these
micro
abilities?
So
that's
point
one
point
two:
I
think
people
kind
of
get
it
but
e-bikes
are
a
really
really
big
deal.
E-Bike
sales
in
this
country
doubled
over
last
year
in
europe
they
went
up
by
a
factor
of
five
or
six
in
many
places
this
year,
for
various
reasons,
there's
there's
more
support
for
various
people
to
buy
them,
and
things
like
that,
but
expect
to
see
a
massive
numbers
of
e-bikes
and
b.
L
L
I
I
believe-
and
I
don't
I
don't
know
how
the
cu
membership
affects.
That
depends
how
we
price-
I
don't
know
the
route
structure
of
the
cu.
Kids.
A
lot
of
them
are
actually
pretty
close
to
campus.
L
So
I
don't
know
how
that
works,
but
e-bikes
are
a
big
deal
and
then,
finally,
just
a
little
bit
of
a
word
of
warning
that
I
I
shared
directly
with
dk
and
the
team
before
from
what
we
know,
there's
a
set
of
big
cities
where
I
think,
a
a
fair
amount
of
the
wrinkles
in
the
business
model
and
the
construct.
And
how
do
you
make
money
and
where
is
this
going,
is
starting
to
mature
and
that's
the
biggest
cities?
L
L
Maybe
we
can
help
a
little
bit
with
this
rfp
because
expecting
somebody
to
come
in
and
say
I'm
100,
confident
that
for
you
little
guys
that
are
very
odd
and
have
a
university
in
the
middle
that
this
is
the
business
model
that
works.
L
I
think
you're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
fast
footing
because
they
don't
know-
and
so
we
have
to
run
the
process
in
such
a
way
that
we
we
can
learn
and
choose
who's
going
to
be
the
best
in
that
construct.
So
those
are
our
three
additional
comments.
B
Thanks
for
that
hutch,
if
anyone
has
any
further
questions
for
hutch
just
feel
free
to
put
your
hand
up
and
we'll
ask
them,
as
as
we
go
on
here
next
up,
we
have
mary,
followed
by
rachel
and
juni.
M
Thank
you
adam
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
dk
and
hutch
and
kevin.
I
have
several
questions.
The
first
one
is
just
did
I
hear
you
say
correctly,
dk
that
the
60
40
split
city,
university,
flipped,
so.
G
Some
of
it
may
be
the
fact
that
students
are
not
using
transit
right
now
because
of
kogan
19.
That
is
one
speculation
that
we
have
for
the
increased
use
and
we're
not
quite
sure
and
probably
kevin,
can
speak
to
the
general
community
use
with
with
boulder
bike
share
and
why
that's
not
bouncing
back
or
perhaps
it
is
bouncing
back
but
a
bit
slower,
but
I
suspect
that
has
a
lot
to
do
with
it.
The
fact
that
transit
is
no
longer
looked
at
as
an
appealing
mode
of
transportation
because
of
the
company.
M
Okay,
great
thank
you
and
then
I
noticed
in
the
categories
of
requirements
for
the
rfp
in
equity.
You
had
affordable
and
inclusive.
M
I
believe
now
is
that
something
that
is
going
to
be
yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Affordability
and
inclusivity
is
that
the
affordability
and
inclusivity,
especially
the
inclusivity,
is
that
something
that
is
going
to
be
defined
by
the
rfp
or
are
we
defining
for
them?
What
we're
looking
for.
G
I
think
that
we
would
define
what
we're
looking
for
and
then
have
them
respond
through
the
request
for
proposal
to
determine
what
they're
able
to
do.
G
But
it
is
our
goal
to
create
a
program
that
you
know
has
a
sort
of
a
cash
payment
plan,
or
potentially
even
a
subsidized
plan
to
some
degree
and
then
making
sure
that
it's
also
so
for
those
folks
that
don't
have
credit
cards
and
or
mobile
phones.
How
do
they
use?
How
do
they
use
this
program
and
then
also
making
sure
that
we
have
these
devices
deployed
in
these
underserved
neighborhoods
throughout
town.
M
No
thank
you
I
I
didn't
mean
to
incorrupt,
but
that
was
that
okay,
great!
Thank
you
thank
you
for
that,
and
then
so
that
was.
I
guess
that
was
my
questions
two
and
three.
So
the
other
thing
that
I
found
curious
was
in
the
next
slide,
with
all
of
the
different
colored
based
on
their
efficacy.
M
I
was
curious
about
in
the
equity
piece
where
it
says
required
by
business
license,
so
is
that
something
new?
Is
that
something
that
all
business
licenses
require
and
how
does
that
work?.
G
O
Thanks
adam,
my
first
question
is:
I
know
that
we're
leaving
the
rfp
pretty
open,
but
it
seems
to
me,
like
particularly
scenario
d
under
the
color
coding,
is
like
dead
in
the
water
and
c.
Doesn't
look
real
viable
either
so
like?
Why
are
we
still
looking
at
those
two,
I
guess
is
my
question.
G
Right
so
so,
council
does
have
the
choice
to
allocate
funds
as
they
see
fit.
Currently,
in
our
budget,
we
we
do
have
limited
funds,
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
2021.,
and
so,
if
it
was
under,
if
it
was
council's
purview
to
continue
the
operations
as
they
were
today
they
could
they
could.
We
could
work
on
that
absolutely.
G
It's
up
to
you
absolutely
we'll,
take
any
input
we
can
on
the
matter,
and
so
that
would
be
helpful
to
know.
O
Okay
thanks
and
then
I
just
one
other
question
something
that
hutch
mentioned.
It
intrigues
me
that
europe's
e-bike
volumes
have
gone
up
by
a
factor
of
five
or
six
or
something
like
that,
and
he
mentioned
that
there
were
maybe
subsidies
involved.
So
I
know
sometimes
the
county
has
offered
subsidies
on
electric
cars
and
bikes
in
the
past.
As
a
city
have
we
looked
at
any
incentives
and
if
we,
you
know,
maybe
have
some
funding
that
we're
doing
less
for
the
bike
shared
model.
O
N
G
Okay
and
and
rachel,
that
is
in
our
transportation
master
plan,
one
of
our
objectives
to
do
that.
Just
that
very
same
thing.
So
there
are,
there
is
actually
a
grant
opportunity
that
is
available
right
now
that
the
city
and
our
community
partners
are
looking
at
to
see
how
we
might
be
able
to
actually
purchase
e-bikes
for
under-served
community
members.
That's
one
program.
G
If
I
could
just
if
I
could
just
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
option
d,
I
just
wanted
to
just
add
that
you
know
if
it
if
it
is
option
d
that
council
wanted
to
go
with
that,
we
could
scale
back
the
delivery
of
the
services
under
the
current
model.
P
Thank
you
adam.
P
I
am
slightly
confused
and
I
think
probably
people
who
are
watching
us
might
be
confused
as
well.
I've
been
on
the
b
cycle
website
and
also
the
boulder
share
website
and,
from
my
understanding,
actually
scenario,
d
kind
of
looks
like
a
present
system,
meaning
that
currently,
that
b,
boulder
bike
share
currently
operates
b
cycle.
G
P
I
do
have
another
question
and
I
think
it
goes
back
to
looking
at
scenario
a
and
scenario
b,
and
I
think
I
had
a
similar
question
to
what
mary,
I
think,
that's
you
know
just
came
up
to
me
as
well
was
the
idea
of
equity,
affordability
and
location,
because
you
mentioned
the
solution
of
b
cycle
and
I'm
wondering
what
does
that
really
mean?
Does
that
mean
I
am
a
proponent
of
e-scooters,
but
at
the
same
time
I'm
wondering
what
are
some
of
the
perimeters
that
will.
G
The
ordinance
for
the
the
dockless
e-bikes
is
to
have
an
initial
fleet
size
of
500
bikes
and
then
for
and
then
for
the
e-scooter
ordinance,
it's
200
at
the
start
and
and
both
and
then
both
of
those
modes
are
subject
to
a
demand-based
cap.
That
means
if
they
can
achieve
a
certain
amount
of
rides
per
day
per
vehicle
or
per
device
they're
able
to
increase
the
number
of
units
they
would
have
deployed
within
the
city.
So
we
are
looking
at
a
combination
of
both
of
those
devices
available
to
community
members.
P
Let's
say,
for
instance,
I
know
there
are
a
bunch
of
bicycles
in
my
on
on
the
bike
path
near
the
boulder
library
and
in
different
locations.
Well,
these
locations
still
be
the
place
as
well,
including
other
parts
in
the
community,
or
will
it
be
left
to
these
institutions
or
whichever
is
that
private
sector
service
provider?
G
Locations,
shift
and
we've
seen
that
with
older
bike
share,
where
we've
moved
some
stations
to
other
locations,
because
there
was
a
greater
demand
in
a
new
location
where
there
was
lesser
in
the
in
the
previous
and
so
having
that
capability
of
being
flexible,
but
then
also
helping
well
requiring
the
provider
to
deploy
the
bikes
and
e-scooters
in
specific
areas
is
under
our
purview
and
is
required
through
their
business
license.
B
Thank
you
juni.
My
question
is
on
the
timeline
slide.
If
you
want
to
go
to
that
dk-
and
it
mentions
at
the
bottom
in
your
asterisk
that
the
e-scooter
program
will
be
rolled
into
the
shared
micro
mobility
program-
and
I
was
just
wondering
that
is
with
the
constraints
the
council
placed
on
it
correct.
So.
B
G
B
D
Three
items
of
feedback
dk:
this
was
a
really
helpful
presentation
and
thanks
for
everybody
who
participated
and
put
this
together-
and
this
is
very
understandable
and
cogent-
I
have
just
three
items
of
feedback.
First,
I
I
want
to
agree
with
what
hutch
said
about
the
popularity
of
ebikes,
not
just
people
who
are
buying
e-bikes
but
also
e-bike
rentals.
D
I
recently
came
back
from
a
trip
to
new
york
city
and
on
several
days
road
on
the
the
the
the
the
shared
bike
system
there,
which
is
called
city
bike
and
city
bike,
has
expanded
its
offerings
from
pedal
bikes
to
about
five
to
ten
percent
of
its
inventory.
Now
is
e-bikes
and
it's
on
the
same
terms.
They
sit
in
the
same
docks
and
I
think,
there's
a
slight
up
charge.
It's
like
10
cents,
a
minute,
but
other
than
that.
It's
it's
it's
exactly
the
same
as
as
the
other
bikes.
D
I
will
tell
you
anecdotally,
having
done
that,
maybe
10
or
15
times
in
new
york
city.
Over
the
last
couple
weeks,
these
e-bikes
were
fabulously
popular.
You
can
go
on
the
app
and
find
out
how
many
e-bikes
are
at
each
docking
station
and
maybe
40
pedal
bikes
and
one
or
two
e-bikes
and
people
would
flock
to
the
the
docking
stations
on
the
e-bikes
people
would
stand
in
line
waiting
for
an
e-bike
to
come
back
so
that
they
could
take
it
out
themselves.
D
I
even
saw
almost
a
fight
developed
between
two
people
who
showed
up
at
the
same
time
wanting
the
last
e-bike
in
the
system.
So
I
would
urge
us,
as
we
put
together
this
rfp,
to
have
a
big
emphasis
on
e-bike
rentals
as
part
of
this,
because
I
do
agree
completely
with
hutch.
This
is
the
wave
of
the
future,
and
while
a
mix
between
pedal
bikes
and
e-bikes
is
going
to
be
healthy,
I
think
the
biggest
problem
they're
having
in
new
york
is
they
have
too
few
e-bikes.
D
It's
only
about
five
or
ten
percent
of
their
stock,
and
my
guess
is
if
they
made
it
fifty
percent
of
their
stock,
they
could
keep
all
those
e-bikes
out
on
the
streets.
D
It'd
be
interesting
to
see
what
their
ratio
is
of
of
rides
per
day
on
e-bikes
versus
pedal
bikes,
but
I'm
going
to
guess
it's
probably
an
order
of
magnitude
different.
So
that's
item
number
one
number,
two
as
to
option
a
and
option
b.
I
think
it's
great
that
boulder
bike
share
is
willing
to
be
on
standby
and
to
support
any
for-profit
up
entity
that
wants
to
come
in
and
provide
this
service
to
us.
D
I
think
I'd
just
be
really
careful
in
the
rfp
to
indicate
that
that's
an
option
for
the
bidder
and
that
boulder
bike
share
would
be
available
if
they,
if
the
bidder
chooses
to
provide
local
on
the
ground
operations
and
and
share
its
institutional
knowledge
as
knowledge
of
boulder,
but
not
impose
that
upon
a
better.
If
a
bidder
doesn't
need
that
type
of
support,
I
wouldn't
want
to
scare
them
off
and
say
that
they
must
use
boulder
bike
share.
D
So
I
guess
I'd
be
in
favor
of
kind
of
a
hybrid
between
a
and
b.
I
think
the
rfp
is
well
thought
out.
Dk
and
if
boulder
bike
share
wants
to
be
on
standby,
to
provide
assistance,
that's
really
kind
of
between,
quite
frankly,
the
better
and
and
boulder
bike
share,
and
then
finally
I'd
be
remiss.
If
I
didn't
voice
my
continued
objection
to
the
e-scooter
proposal,
I
know
I
lost
that
vote
the
last
time
we
talked
about
this
a
few
weeks
ago
and
I
hate
to
one
margin.
D
So
I
want
belabor
the
point,
but
I
do
want
to
reflect
the
fact
that
by
some
studies,
e-scooters
are
100
times
more
dangerous
than
bicycles
on
a
miles
ridden
basis,
and
we
see
tens
of
thousands
of
people.
No
exaggeration,
tens
of
thousands
of
people
injured
and
even
a
few
killed
on
e-scooters
in
this
country
every
year,
and
I'm
I'm
not
excited
about
the
fact
that
we're
going
to
have
e-scooters
as
part
of
this
program
so
much
so
that
I
probably
would
tend
to
vote
against.
B
Thank
you
bob
and
just
to
clarify
the
vote
was
originally
6-3
turn
7-2
in
order
to
get
it
past
that
evening,.
I
Great
thanks
and
thanks
dk
for
the
presentation
it
was
quite
complete
and
good.
I
will
note
that
the
boulder
bike
share
strategic
planning
exercise
is
the
one
that
identified
the
four
scenarios
that
are
in
the
memo.
I
So
I
really
view
the
scenarios
more
as
possible
outcomes
to
an
rfp
rather
than
something
the
rfp
would
necessarily
specify.
I
do
think
scenario.
D
just
doesn't
work
at
all,
so
we
shouldn't
think
about
it
as
rachel
pointed
out,
but
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
the
scenarios
came
out
of
the
boulder
bike
share
strategic
planning
process,
and
I
agree
that
we
shouldn't
specify
whether
boulder
bike
share
is
involved
or
whether
a
company,
that's
vertically
integrated,
who
has
a
great
response
to
the
rfp,
should
get
the
award.
I
So
I
the
way
I
read
the
boulder
bike
share
strategic
planning
document
was
that
in
response
to
the
rfp
older
bike
share
would
go
seeking
private
partners
who
they
would
bid
with,
and
that
may
be
just
one
or
maybe
a
couple,
but
I
think
that's
probably
the
the
best
role
for
us
is
to
acknowledge
that
boulder
bike
share
has
a
lot
of
local
on
the
ground.
I
Expertise
and
then
allow
the
market
to
sort
out
who
might
want
to
work
with
them
and
who
might
not,
and
so
that's
question
one
questions
or
comments
regarding
the
strategic
planning
process.
I
thought
it
was
good
exercise
on
boulder
bike
shares
part,
and
I
hope
that
they're
able
to
find
one
or
more
private
partners
to
work
with
as
the
rfp
comes
out.
I
will
note
you
know
I
totally
agree
with
hutch
and
bob
e-bikes
are
a
big
sea
change.
I
My
e-bike
changed
my
commuting
habits
greatly,
compared
to
just
normal
bike,
a
lot
of
reasons
for
that,
but
we're
in
hilly
terrain
and
tourists,
for
instance,
could
want
an
e-bike
because
they
may
not
be
acclimated
yet,
and
certainly
people
who
are
carrying
groceries
or
books
or
anything
like
that
in
the
silly
terrain
would
probably
prefer
an
e-bike
to
normal
bikes.
So
I
think
that
that
is
a
big
deal.
I
It's
a
game
changer
for
use,
I'll
point
out
that
with
the
number
of
bikes
and
the
current
bike
share
program,
300,
bikes
and
105
000
rides
it's
about
one
ride
per
bike
per
day,
and
I
don't
know
what
we're
shooting
for.
But
that
seems
too
low
to
me,
and
I
expect,
with
e-bikes
kind
of
like
bob
described,
that
if
we
have
a
mix,
the
e-bikes
will
be
more
popular,
and
so
I
think
we
should
plan
for
that
in
the
rfp
and
hope
to
specify
some
relatively
high
fraction
of
e-bikes
to
just
normal
bikes.
I
On
the
subject
of
e-bikes
there's
multiple
kinds:
there
are
e-bikes
that
are
pedal,
assist
which
the
memo
refers
to
multiple
times,
there's
also
e-bikes
that
are
essentially
just
scooters.
Electric
scooters
where
they
don't
have
pedal
assist.
Some
of
them
don't
even
have
pedals,
and
I
would
like
us
to
have
our
e-bikes
that
we're
going
to
put
the
rfp
out
for
b
pedal,
assist,
there's
also
blends,
which
are
you
can
have
pedal
assist,
or
you
can
just
use
the
the
throttle.
I
think
for
what
we're
trying
to
get
done.
I
The
other
thing
to
think
about
is
there's
what
three
types
of
e-bikes
based
on
the
max
speed.
We
definitely
want
to
stay
away
from
the
type
3,
I
think,
which
is
the
highest
speed.
I
think
we
would
want
our
b
cycle
or
whatever
the
program
is
those
e-bikes
to
be
governed
at
15
miles
an
hour,
because
our
paths
have
a
15
mile,
an
hour,
speed,
limit
type
2.
My
type
2
e
bike
will
go
18
miles
an
hour
before
the
assist
turns
off.
I
So
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
and
specify
the
type
of
e-bikes
if
we're
going
forward
with
that
for
the
shared
micro
mobility
program,
and
then
one
of
the
things
that
you
asked
for
dk
was
the
criteria
that
we
thought
were
the
most
important,
and
I
wanted
to
pop
back
to
that.
I
think
it's.
Of
course,
safety
is
the
first
one
that's
listed
and
I
think
that's
critical
and
that
gets
to
bob's
point
about
e-scooters
and
we've
kind
of
restricted
that
e-scooter
program
to
be
in
an
area
with
less
congestion.
East
boulder.
I
I
If
we
go
through
this
entire
rfp
and
we
pick
some
model
that
is
not
financially
viable,
we're
going
to
have
wasted
time
and
money
getting
there,
so
I
think
evaluating
the
the
viability,
the
financial
viability
and
the
number
of
bikes
that
will
be
provided-
and
you
know
number
of
rides
that
we
expect
per
bike.
That's
going
to
have
a
lot
to
do
with
whether
this
is
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
last
a
decade
or
last
a
year
or
two,
and
if
it
only
lasts
a
year
or
two.
I
I
think
that
would
be
a
big
negative
for
us.
So
to
me,
safety
and
financial
viability,
equity.
I
think
we
should
definitely
make
sure
the
rfp
specifies
the
measures
of
affordability,
but
also
where
stations
will
be
located.
I
don't
know
if
the
number
right
now
45-ish
stations
is
the
right
number
or
not,
but
whatever
the
number
is.
We
do
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
geographic
accessibility,
so
safety,
financial
viability
and
equity
are
at
the
top
of
the
list.
Environmental
sustainability.
I
I
really
think
with
e-bikes
many
of
them
are-
are
very
sturdy
and
long-lasting,
they're,
typically
built
for
people
who
want
to
run
them
for
years.
So
I'm
not
as
concerned
with
environmental
sustainability
for
e-bikes
I
mean
we
should
look
at
it,
but
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
a
challenge.
I
think
there's
dozens
that
could
meet
that.
I
think
with
the
e-scooters
it's
a
much
bigger
deal.
I
So
you
know
environmental
sustainability
to
me
is
more
of
a
check
box
for
the
e-bikes,
but
for
the
scooters
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
more
research
and
you
know
diligence
on
what
the
potential
providers
are
going
to
say.
I
guess
I
would
also
say
I
don't
think
it
really
matters
if
it's
one
company
doing
both
scooters
and
e-bikes
and
pedal
bikes,
or
if
it's
two
companies,
one
for
the
bikes
and
one
for
the
scooters
and
then
state-of-the-art
technology,
that's
nice,
but
it's
not
to
me
as
important
as
the
others
accessibility.
I
I
kind
of
tie
that
in
with
equity,
I
think
they're.
You
know
a
couple
different
sides
of
the
same
kind
of
coin
and
responsiveness
to
operational
issues.
I
think
it's
hard
to
suss
that
out
ahead
of
time
we
know
boulder
bike
share,
so
that's
good.
We
we
understand
how
they
work.
Others
it'll
be
harder.
Maybe
they
have
other
cities
they
can
reference,
but
for
the
criteria,
I
think
the
ones
on
the
left
of
your
slide
to
me
are
the
most
important
and
kind
of
in
the
order
that
you
have
them
listed.
I
I
think
equity
and
financial
viability
are
kind
of
side
by
side
for
me,
so
I
think
that's
all
I've
got.
I
think
this
will
be
exciting
to
see
what
we
get
out
of
it.
It
is
going
to
be
a
time
for
change.
I
want
to
thank
boulder
bikeshare
for
all
the
services
they've
provided
boulder
for
the
last
decade.
I
hope
that
they
are
involved
with
the
next
decade,
but
I
think
we
have
to
let
the
private
market
sort
that
out
a
little
bit.
So
thanks
dk
and
thank
you
all.
M
Thank
you,
adam
yeah.
I
want
to
agree
with
bob
and
sam
with
respect
to
the
e-bike
split
to
perhaps
make
it
greater
than
we
may
have
thought
to
the
extent
possible
and
then
with
sam,
regarding
the
type
of
bike,
to
make
sure
that
it
can't
go
faster
than
what
the
speed
limit
is
on
our
multi-use
pads
and
bike
paths.
So
those
two
things
I
wanted
to
agree
with
and
also
sam
brought
up
the
idea
that
equity
and
accessibility
are
kind
of.
M
Similar
or
are
subsets
of
each
other,
and
I
was
going
to
bring
that
up
as
well
and
suggest
that
what
we
do
is
that
we
combine
equity
and
accessibility
and
to
me
equity,
is
about
providing
access
and
access
is
recognized
as
a
five-dimensional
kind
of
concept,
and
the
five
dimensions
include
the
accessibility,
which
is
like
accessibility
for
people
with
disabilities.
M
And
then
then
you
have
the
availability,
which
is
what
the
accessibility
I
think
is
referring
to
in
this
slide
that
you
have
up,
you
have
accommodations,
which
are,
I
think,
part
of
well.
I
don't
see
it
included
anywhere
here,
but
the
accommodations
would
include
things
like
providing
the
information
in
languages
other
than
english
and
as
well
as
making
it
available
via
cash.
M
So
those
are
accommodations,
and
then
you
have,
of
course,
the
affordability
as
part
of
those
five
dimensions,
and
then
you
have
the
acceptability
which
of
which
inclusivity
would
be
part
of.
So
I
would
combine
equity
and
accessibility
and
within
the
rfp
mention
that
that
we're
looking
at
this
as
a
multi-dimensional
kind
of
concept
and
include
those
five
dimensions.
M
So
that
was
my
main
comment.
Thank
you.
C
Yeah
I
was
going
to
make
a
a
comment
about
the
accessibility
tying
into
the
equity
piece.
Mary
made
it
better
and
more
thoroughly
than
I
did
would
have
so
I'll,
just
tag
on
to
her
comments
and
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said
about
e-bikes
and
and
the
importance
of
them
and
and
the
game
changing
nature
of
them
and
just
look
forward
to
seeing
what
we
get
back
here.
So
you
know,
I
think
your
criteria
are
on
target
and
so
it'll
be
really
interesting
to
see
what
folks
come
back
with.
C
I
also
very
much
thank
be
cycle
for
their
10
years
of
service,
and
I
hope
that
that
the
next
10
years
involved
them
as
well,
but,
like
others
have
said,
we
want
to
see
what's
out
there
and
what
meets
the
needs
of
the
city,
because
you
know
we
can
keep
those
various
scenarios
in
our
heads
as
we
move
to
the
next
stage.
But
you
know
the
reality
is
that
we
don't
really
have
the
money
available
right
now
for
the
same
level
of
subsidies
that
we've
been
putting
in
right.
C
B
Thank
you,
aaron
nearby,
rachel
and
mark.
Q
I'll
just
keep
my
comments
short.
First
of
all,
congratulations
to
the
10
years
for
b
cycle,
and
I
think
sam
really
summed
up
most
of
how
I
was
feeling
very
well
in
his
explanation.
But
I
will
also
say
that
I
was
not
at
the
meeting
that
bob
was
referring
to
about
the
scooters
and
I
also
am
with
bob
in
terms
of
not
wanting
to
really
support
a
program
with
the
scooters.
So
I
I
know
I
wasn't
at
that,
but
I
did
write
a
letter
in.
N
Q
I
have
big
concerns
around
that
as
well,
as
I
think
many
of
our
community
members
so
I'll
just
put
that
in
there,
but
I'm
fine
with
incorporating
what
mary
just
stated
as
well
so
again
to
keep
it
simple,
I'll,
just
kind
of
go
along
with
what
bob
and
sam
has
said,
with
mary's
add-in.
B
Mayor
bye,
rachel
and
mark.
O
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
disagree
with
one
thing
that
sam
said,
which
was
about
the
pedal,
assist
and
the
way
that
I
would
hope
that
staff
evaluates
the
rfps
there
is
you
know,
how
does
it
measure
up
for
safety,
financial
viability,
equity
and
all
the
others?
So
if
a
hybrid
bike
is
more
safe
or
more
financially
viable?
Why
would
we
take
that
out
of
the
equation
now?
O
So
I
would
give
staff
and
the
rfp
process
maximum
flexibility
to
to
get
us
a
product,
that's
going
to
work
best
for
our
community,
so
I
would
not
be
overly
prescriptive
and
and
limit
in
that
way.
That's
all.
O
Don't
exclude
anything
else
in
all
of
the
ways
that
we
are
evaluating
these
criteria
if
we
limit
what
we're
looking
at
to
the
pedal,
assist
bikes
and
take
off
the
ones
where
you
can
also,
you
know,
hit
a
throttle
and
pedal
also
that
may
be
taking
the
best
bike
option
that
is
the
highest
rated
for
safety
and
accessibility
and
financial
viability
out
of
the
equation,
and
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
do
that.
K
I
am
supportive
of
the
comments
that
sam
and
mary
made.
I
I
think
that
we
ought
to
be
careful
about
what
type
of
equipment
we're
going
to
put
out
there,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
easily
available
to
all
segments
of
our
community.
I
do
have
one
late
question
that
I'll
ask
dk
and
again
dk.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
It
was
very
helpful.
Did
I
miss
something
where,
when
we
authorized
a
pilot
program
for
e-scooters?
K
G
You
are
correct
on
on
the
latter
there
that
we
would
include
those
parameters
within
the
rfp
and
we
will
be
sharing
with
council,
perhaps
not
through
a
council
meeting,
but
through
an
email
through
hotline
or
another
method
that
the
city
manager
might
suggest.
Regarding
the
parameters
of
the
where
the
e-scooters
can
operate.
We
are
looking
at
that
right
now
and,
most
importantly,
we're
coordinating
with
our
partners
and
cu
boulder
being
one
of
those
strategic
partners
with
respect
to
where
these
devices
can
operate.
K
As
bob
said,
I
am
also
not
a
big
fan
of
these
scooters,
but
if
we
are
going
to
do
a
program,
I
would
very
much
like
it
to
be
correct
in
scope
and
correct
an
implementation,
and
so
I
would
it's
something
I
would
like
to
see
before
we
go
out
to
the
business
community
and
and
make
it
part
of
the
rfp.
P
P
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
I
agree
with
the
need
to
fully
understand
where
these
e-scooters
will
be
placed,
whether
it's
gonna
be
near
the
bikes,
or,
I
think
that's
very
important
because
again,
I
know
that
sam
mentioned
it
would
be
an
east
boulder,
but
actually
I
remember
the
last
time
we
talked
about
it.
I
could
be
wrong.
P
It
was
somewhere
near
28th
and
30th
street,
so
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
have
a
better
understand
of
where
these
e-scooters
will
be
placed,
because
safety
of
members
of
our
community
is
very
important
and
we
cannot
just
allow
these
e-scooters
in
places
where
we
know
it's
unsafe,
where
you
know
with
high
traffic
areas,
we
have
to
be
very
careful
when
it
comes
to
these
things,
so
I
think
again
we
need
those
constraints
before
we
go
ahead
with
e-scooters.
That's
very
important
to
me.
P
So
I
think
these
constraints
are
very
important
for
these
perimeters
and
not
just
leave
it
to
to
whoever
whether
it's
a
private
company
or
or
just
you
know,
whichever
institution
that
we
choose
to
decide.
So
I
think
accessibility
and
location,
which
is
part
of
the
safety
to
me,
is
the
highest
priority
when
it
comes
to
these.
B
Thank
you
juni
and
last.
My
feedback
are
thanks
for
being
on
the
goals
area
sheet.
That's
what
I
was
looking
for.
I
would
love
to
see
sort
of
what
the
metrics
of
measurement
on
these
would
be
for
the
rfp.
B
I
think
that's
an
important
component,
so
we
can
sort
of
see
what
those
measurable
metrics
are
before
we
go
asking
companies
what
they
can
actually
do
a
along
those
lines.
I
share
a
lot
of
the
same
interests
with
sam
and
bob
and
mary,
and
I
think,
you're,
asking
a
lot
of
the
right
questions.
I'd
just
like
to
see
the
measurable
amounts
that
you
plan
on
asking
for.
B
I
also
agree
that
e-bikes
are
probably
coming
up
fast
and
we
should
plan
for
that.
I
also
really
like
the
concept
of
docks
for
whether
that
be
e-bikes
or
scooters.
I
think
docks
they
really
keep
sort
of
the
constraints
in
place
that
a
lot
of
the
community
is
worried
about.
Obviously,
safety
is
still
a
concern,
but
a
lot
of
the
other
concerns
are
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
be
left
or
even
create
a
hazard
in
walkways,
so
maybe
making
sure
there's
a
dock
component.
B
I
didn't
hear
a
whole
lot
about
that,
but
that's
that's
a
personal
interest
to
me
and
I
think
that's
going
to
be
it
for
me.
So
does
anyone
else
have
any
other
input
before
I
summarize,
and
we
move
on
I'm
just
going
to
wait
a
second
for
any
hands
and
seeing
none.
What
we
heard
is
option
d
may
not
be
very
options.
D
and
c
may
not
be
very
helpful,
going
forward,
but
options
or
sorry.
These
are
not
options.
These
are
scenarios
but
a
and
b.
B
We
all
seem
to
have
a
relative
interest
in
making
sure
that
the
rfp
process
is
open.
The
there
is
substantial
interest
in
weighting
it
towards
e-bikes.
To
some
degree
the
the
components
of
those
e-bikes
are
still
in
question,
but
operating
within
speed
limits
might
be
a
good
option.
B
Looking
at
pedal,
assist
and
non-pedal
assist
depending
upon
what
the
safety
mechanics
of
those
are
and
making
sure
that
equity
and
accessibility
are
sort
of
top
measurements
when
we're
in
the
rfp
process
to
make
sure
that
not
only
are
things
accessible
but
they're
accessible
in
the
right
places
to
reach
our
goals,
and
there
are
still
concerns
about
e-scooters.
B
B
Perfect
doing
a
quick
time
check
here,
we're
a
little
bit
ahead
of
schedule,
so
I
suggest
we
do
a
a
four-minute
break
and
reconvene
at
7
25
for
our
next
topic.
N
N
G
Thank
you
adam
appreciate
that,
and
so
yes,
let's
shift
modes
now
so
to
speak
and
discuss
the
regulation
of
human
and
electric
power
devices
on
streets
paths
and
sidewalks
and
joining
us
tonight.
G
Operations,
and
so
we
do
have
a
number
of
items
to
discuss
with
you
and
it's
important
to
note
that
just
like
the
last
line-
and
we
are
very
much
in
the
exploratory
phase
of
this
topic,
based
upon
your
input
tonight,
council
will
return
to
you
in
january
with
proposed
modifications
to
current
ordinances
to
best
accommodate
our
communities.
Transportation
needs,
but
to
get
us
started
and
to
help
us
become
more
familiar
with
the
topic
at
hand.
G
We'll
first
review
some
of
the
types
of
human
and
electrocard
devices
discuss
potential
changes
to
the
city's
dismount
zones
and
then
examine
the
types
of
facilities
discuss
where
these
devices
should
be
allowed
or
not
allowed
to
operate.
G
Okay,
we've
seen
some
of
these.
Let's
refresh
our
memory
with
the
types
of
devices.
G
And
we've
probably
seen
some
of
these
around
town
as
well.
A
nice
collection
of
electric
powered
devices,
one
wheel,
e-skateboard
e-scooter
e-unicycle-
are
some
of
the
examples
of
these
vehicles.
These
devices,
and
so
electric
power
devices
are
currently
not
allowed
on
sidewalks
multi-use
paths
or
streets.
G
Okay,
let's
first
take
a
look
at
potential
revisions
to
the
dismount
zone.
Ordinance,
and
so
we
recognize
staff
recognizes
that
the
current
distinction
of
where
human
power
devices,
including
e-bikes
and
skateboards,
can
and
cannot
be
ridden
on
sidewalks.
It
can
be
confusing
and
difficult
for
some
community
members
to
discern
staff
is
proposing
modifications
to
current
dismount
zone
ordinance
to
designate
the
dismount
zones
based
upon
the
boundaries
of
the
city's
general
improvement
improvement
districts,
which
correlates
to
the
downtown
university
hill
in
boulder
junction
areas.
G
The
ordinance
currently
in
place
identifies
dismount
zones
based
upon
commercial
land
use,
and
this
is
very
sporadic
throughout
boulder.
This
modification
would
make
it
legal
to
ride
human
power
devices
on
more
sidewalks,
while
maintaining
the
dismount
zones
in
our
high
pedestrian
volume
areas.
That
is
key.
G
It
would
also
be
easier
for
community
members
to
discern
where
cycling
is
allowed
and
more
feasible
for
staff
to
appropriately
sign
and
mark,
as
well
as
educate
users
on
the
limits
of
the
dismount
zone,
depending
upon
which
direction
council
prefers
to
go.
Staff
would
develop
a
communications
plan
to
educate
all
road
users
on
the
limits
of
the
dismount
zone
and
how
to
safely
navigate
those
intersections.
G
It's
important
to
note,
however,
that
crashes
involving
turning
vehicles
and
pedestrians
and
cyclists
on
sidewalks
and
multi-use
paths
adjacent
to
roadways
continues
to
occur
throughout
boulder,
but
it
is,
it
is
done
so
in
a
non-trending
manner,
which
is
a
good
thing.
Crash
data
does
identify
locations
where
crashes
between
cyclists
and
pedestrians
have
occurred,
and
staff
is
working
to
mitigate
those
vehicles.
G
Excuse
me,
those
crashes
and
so
as
part
of
this
dismount
zone
revision,
the
boulder
police
department
has
also
weighed
heavily
in
and
on
this
topic
and
has
asked
that
transportation,
mobility,
stat
staff
perform
a
proactive
view
of
intersex
intersection
locations
that
have
certain
characteristics
to
determine
the
potentiality
for
future
crashes
once
identified
and
evaluated.
We
would
then
apply
the
appropriate
mitigation
tactics
to
proactively
prevent
future
crashes
more
feasible.
G
Okay,
this
next
set
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
the
different
types
of
facilities,
sidewalks
multi-youth
paths
and
streets,
so
for
the
same
reason
that
people
choose
to
ride
bikes
on
sidewalks,
people
may
also
choose
to
ride
their
electric
power
devices
on
sidewalks.
The
primary
staff
concern
about
sharing
sidewalks
with
these
devices
is
speed.
Many
of
these
devices
can
travel
up
to
20
miles
per
hour
and
have
the
potential
to
cause
severe
injury
crashes
with
other
sidewalk
users.
G
These
electric
power
devices
can
also
travel
quickly
through
intersections
along
sidewalks
and
encounter
a
turning
vehicle
whose
driver
may
not
be
able
to
react
in
time
so
potential
solutions.
If
we
did
allow
electric
power
devices
on
sidewalks
may
be
to
modify
the
current
ordinances,
which
currently
require
cyclists
to
slow
down
to
eight
miles
per
hour
in
crossing
and
crosswalks,
and
to
also
activate
pedestrian
crossing
tunnels
when
present,
and
so
if
the
use
of
these
devices
are
is
allowed
on
sidewalks
outside
the
dismount
zones.
G
And
taking
a
look
at
multi-use
paths,
we
recognize
that
many
people
travel
along
the
multi-use
path
system
today
and
a
lot
of
folks
are
using
electric
power
devices.
The
operation
of
all
motorized
vehicles
is
prohibited
on
multi-use
paths
and
trails
on
open
space
land
too.
That's
an
important
clarification.
We
need
to
make
e-bikes
are
allowed
on
a
multi-use
path.
That's
an
important
another
important
clarification
to
make,
and
that
was
an
ordinance
change
that
was
made
in
2014..
G
G
They
do
not
have
the
proper
brakes
or
lights
and
when
in
the
street
they
can
travel
fast
and
unpredictably.
Skateboards,
for
example,
require
the
user
to
carve
back
and
forth
with
an
entire
street
with
to
regulate
their
speed.
There
are
also
concerns
regarding
their
visibility
by
drivers
and
motor
vehicles.
If
allowed
on
streets.
The
ordinance
should
govern
their
safe
and
proper
use
to
not
cause
crashes
to
occur.
G
G
Staff
has
also
worked
very
closely
with
the
boulder
police
department
on
this
topic
and
the
city's
pedestrian
action
committee
to
work
through
several
of
the
nuances
associated
with
where
these
devices
should
be
allowed
to
operate.
And,
of
course,
the
transportation
advisory
board
weighed
in
on
this
topic.
G
At
their
october,
12th
meet
october
12th
meeting
I'll
share
their
input
next,
but
first
I'd
like
to
share
the
results
of
the
be
heard
boulder
online
community
questionnaire,
which
is
more
of
our
general
public
input
that
we
conducted
for
this
particular
topic
and
we
named
it
which
which
wheels
go
where
and
this
questionnaire
was
live
for
a
little
over
two
weeks
and
received
about
360
responses.
And
so
I
would
like
to
walk
through
these
particular
questions.
We
asked
and
their
responses.
G
And
so
before
I
go
before
I
do
that,
though,
to
to
preference
this
next
set
of
slides,
we
did
provide
a
brief
introduction
in
the
be
heard
boulder
questionnaire
to
the
effect
of
that.
We
are
working
toward
the
goals
of
our
transportation
master
plan
and
that
we
recognize
that
these
smaller
scale,
personal
micro
mobility
devices,
such
as
e-bikes
and
e-scooters,
can
help
reduce
single
occupancy
vehicle
trips,
provide
more
travel
choices
and
fill
in
gaps
in
our
transportation
network.
G
Some
of
the
other
examples
are
that
they
are
too
narrow
and-
and
some
and
some
folks
are
not
concerned
about
the
device
necessarily
but
they're
concerned
about
how
they're
used
and
how
they're
enforced.
G
G
When
we
look
at
their
top
concerns
regarding
the
use
of
electric
power
on
devices
on
multi-use
paths,
what
was
surprising
here
is
that
42
of
the
respondents
did
not
have
a
concern.
There
was
no
concern
regarding
their
use,
but
again
a
speed
may
travel
too
fast
as
a
common
occurrence
or
a
common
concern
that
is
coming
up
through
this.
B
G
Okay,
let's
see
doing
quick
math,
I
could
add
them
up.
I
tell
you
what
adam
I
need
to
continue
the
conversa,
the
presentation.
I
can
come
back
to
that
and
figure
out
if
there
is
a
discrepancy
and
follow
up
with
you.
G
And
then
we
look
at
what
is
your
top
concern
regarding
the
use
of
human-powered
skateboards
on
residential
streets?
Again,
37
percent?
No
concern
32
people
not
following
the
rules
of
the
road.
G
And
then
what
is
your
top
concern
regarding
the
use
of
human-powered,
skateboards
and
bike
lanes
again,
a
common
theme
we're
seeing
is
that
there's
a
large
percentage
of
people
that
are
that
have
don't
have
concerns
with
some
devices
and
multi-use
paths,
and
also
on
the
streets
and
streets
of
bike
lanes.
G
And,
of
course,
some
of
the
other
comments
skateboards
are
unpredictable.
We
see
a
lack
of
product.
Protected
facilities
will
will
be
hard
to
get
skateboards
to
follow
the
rules
of
the
road
and
then
what
is
your
top
concern
regarding
the
use
of
electric
powered
skateboards
one
wheels
and
the
e's,
the
unicycles
and
electric
skateboards
and
residential
streets
again
30
no
concern
again
not
following
the
rules
of
the
road.
The
unpredictability
associated
with
these
types
of
devices.
G
G
And
then,
in
terms
of
next
steps,
again
we'll
be
taking
these
based
upon
your
input
tonight.
We
will
then
begin
to
look
at
how
we
might
modify
the
current
ordinances
to
achieve
council's
goals
and
the
goals
of
our
transportation
master
plan.
And
so
we
would
bring
to
tab
in
december,
propose
changes
to
those
ordinances,
and
then
we
would
return
to
council
in
january
january
5th
and
19th
respectively
up
for
the
public
hearing
to
look
at
these
ordinances
and
if
any
changes
are
necessary.
G
G
What
are
your
questions
and
concerns
regarding
the
use
of
human-powered
skateboards
and
electric
powered
devices
on
residential
streets
in
the
bike
lane
and
on
all
other
streets
again,
thank
you
very
much
for
listening.
I
know
that's
a
lot
of
information
and
we
look
forward
to
working
through
the
details
with
you
all.
B
Thank
you
dk.
Can
you
roll
back
one
slide
just
so
we
have
those
questions
up
as
we
begin
the
process
here.
First,
let's
take
general
questions
about
the
presentation
and
then
we'll
go
into
these
one
at
a
time.
B
I
I
I
guess
I
only
have
one
question
to
start
with,
as
I've
observed,
the
various
flavors
of
electric
powered
vehicles
that
aren't
e-bikes
on
the
pass,
the
the
unicycles
seem
to
be
the
one
that
folks
will
put
a
helmet
on
and
armor
on
and
go
really
fast
on
the
paths.
So
I
was
curious
what
you
know
about
those
unicycles
top
speeds.
I
G
I
know
that
daredevil,
the
exact
air
double
you're,
talking
about
right
now
he's
got
a
full
face.
Helmet
on
right,
right
he's,
got
the
electric
unicycle
and
he's
typically
on
the
boulder
creek
path
that
we
see
him
and
he's
going
at
a
pretty
high
rate
of
speed.
Absolutely
I
I
know
that
I
don't
see
too
many
of
these
users.
Currently,
I
would
say
that
some
of
these
devices
can
be
modified.
I
Got
it,
and,
and
just
one
other
question
given
that
some
e-bikes
type
threes
can
go
faster
than
than
20
miles
an
hour
and
that
obviously
some
of
the
unicycles
can
be
modified
and
some
have
been
modified.
I
How
does
transportation
and
the
police
department
look
at
trying
to
get
the
message
across
that
on
multi-use
paths
on
sidewalks
and
even
bike
lanes
that
there
are
speed
restrictions
because
I
think
that's
it
came
up
as
the
most
concerning
element
on
sidewalks.
So
I
was
just
curious.
You
know.
Obviously
the
path
has
a
15
mile,
an
hour
speed
limit,
there's
some
attempt
to
communicate
to
users
that
that's
the
case.
G
Right
so
correct,
the
there
is
a
15
mile,
an
hour,
speed
limit
on
the
multi-path
system.
Today,
there's
an
ordinance
behind
that,
and
I
think
that
what
we
could
do
a
better
job
of
right
now
is
communicating
these
messages
and
also
installing
signing
and
marking
along
the
multi-use
path
that
reflect
the
messages,
safety
messages
of
our
way
of
the
path
campaign,
and
we
typically
today
get
all
that
information
out
through
social
media.
G
We'll
do
periodic
bursts
of
informing
the
community,
but
I
think
that
there's
more
that
we
can
do
and
be
more
intensive,
particularly
if
we're
going
to
be
changing
any
ordinances
to
allow
these
vehicles.
We
have
to
go
full
court
press
to
really
get
the
word
out
there
around
these
devices
and
what
these
ordinances
are,
whether
it
be
the
speed
limit,
15
miles
per
hour
or
using
audible
signal
when
passing
on
the
left
yielding
to
slower
moving
moving
vehicles.
G
These
are
all,
I
think,
the
messaging
that
we
would
have
to
really
put
out
there
in
order
to
get
the
message
across
and
then
having
the
signs
in
place
and
the
markings
in
place
in
the
field.
There
would
be
a
cost
to
that.
We
have
to
look
at
that.
However,
I
think
having
them
in
the
field
having
them
on
the
multi-use
path
and
so
you're
hearing
it
and
you're
seeing
it.
I
think
that
would
help
instill
a
culture
of
safety
in
time.
R
Thank
you
ek.
Would
you
mind
if
I
add
in
just
a
little
bit
absolutely
transportation
and
mobility
in
in
reference
sam
to
your
question,
about
how
we
would
handle
this,
especially
on
sidewalks
versus
multi-use?
Pass,
because
I
think
dk
did
a
pretty
good
job
of
how
we
handle
that
on
multi-use
pass?
Today,
we've
got
quite
a
bit
of
speed
limit
signing
on
the
path
system.
R
I
imagine
we
would
probably
need
to
treat
our
sidewalks
much
the
way
we
do
our
residential
street
system
and
we
would
need
to
identify
those
locations
where
we
have
an
issue
with
people
bicycling
too
fast
and
post
speed
limits
on
those
sidewalks
much
as
we
do
with
the
residential
streets
today,
we
obviously
would
not
be
able
to
post
speed
limits
on
all
sidewalks
in
the
city.
B
Thank
you
sam
next,
we
have
mark
rachel
and
mary.
K
Yeah,
I
really
only
have
one
question
at
the
moment:
the
survey
that
generated
360
responses
are
you
considering
that
a
statistically
valid
survey.
K
Because
it
you
know,
I
note
that
it
represents
about
three
tenths
of
one
percent
of
people
living
in
boulder.
So
it
struck
me
as
sort
of
a
a
fl,
a
thin
read
on
which
to
make
judgments
as
to
the
receptivity
of
the
community
to
various
alternatives.
K
G
I
don't
have
anything
to
add
to
it.
I
agree
that
is,
it
is
a
questionnaire.
It's
not
statistically
valid
at
this
point,
but
it
is
additional
outreach
that
we've
done.
You
know
in
addition
to
the
stakeholders,
you
know
it's
not
the
complete
picture
in
terms
of
the
statistically
valid
survey,
but
it
does
help
us
understand
what
the
concerns
are
from
an
implementation
standpoint.
You.
K
To
do
yes,
sir,
prior
to
our
inaction
of
of
specific
changes,.
G
O
Well,
it
feels
like
sort
of
specific
questions
here
adam,
but
I'm
going
to
put
it
under
the
general
questions
category
first
on
the
dismount
zones,
which
it's
awesome
I
think
to
have
them
much
better
simplified.
So
that
seems
like
a
really
good
direction,
but
I
noticed
like
in
the
downtown
zone,
there's
no
bike
paths
and
there's
no
multi-use
trail
there,
and
so
we're
asking
people
to
dismount
and
not
be
able
to
ride
their
bikes
safely,
really
in
a
lot
of
downtown.
O
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
was
like
following
that
map
right
and
then
understand.
If
there's
any
argument
to
doing
something
different
than
a
full
dismount
zone
like
could
people
have
to
ride?
You
know
very
slowly
there,
like
some.
My
bike,
for
example,
is
an
e-bike.
It's
really
heavy
and
cumbersome,
and
if
I
dismount
it,
it's
unwieldy,
like
it's
much
easier
for
me
to
be
on
it,
it's
safer
to
be
on
a
sidewalk
like
how
did
we
land
on
on
on
the
dismount,
where
there
are
no
bike
lanes
and
and
paths.
G
It's
really
because
of
the
high
pedestrian
volume
area
and
then
the
interactions,
the
potential
conflicts
with
pedestrians,
people
in
wheelchairs
and
and
whatnot.
We
do
recognize
that
some
of
the
streets
in
the
downtown
don't
currently
have
a
a
low
stress
option.
I
think
that's
something
we
need
to
continue
working
on,
but
we
do
feel
that
it's
important
to
ask
cyclists
to
dismount.
G
Ask
anybody
on
that's
on
a
device
to
dismount,
while
they're
in
this
in
the
downtown
area.
There's
you
know
if
you're,
if
you're
accessing
downtown
from
the
from
the
north
or
south,
there
are
many
ways
to
get
there
safely
and
effectively,
but
I
will
agree
that,
if
you're
traveling,
east
and
west,
then
it's
a
bit
more
difficult.
O
O
It
would
be
great
if
you
could,
if
we
had
a
little
bit
of
maneuverability
in
my
mind,
so
just
wondered
if
that
was
thought
through
or
maybe,
if
I
guess
to
hutch,
if
that's
still
our
tab
contact
here,
if,
if
tab
talked
through
that
issue
at
all.
L
What
what
we
provided
us
as
feedback
is
that
we
were,
we
were
not
so
much
worried
about
dismount
or
not,
although
we
didn't
have
any
real
sense
of
you
know
once
you
start
to
get
complicated
on
these
things,
there's
times
of
day,
when
there's
no
one
around
and
why
we
we
talked
about
that
a
little
bit,
but
the
main
thing
we
talked
about
is
how
do
people
know
that
they're
in
this
zone,
the
boundaries
are
sort
of
these
convoluted
zigzags
and
we
we
were
concerned
about
just
knowing
and
getting
messages
out,
and
maybe
the
shape
could
be
simpler
or
or
what
is
it
and
therefore,
how
exactly
do
you
think
about
those
boundaries
that
was
our
main
additional
dimension?
O
Okay
thanks,
I
guess
my
like
well
I'll
save
it
for
comments,
so
my
my
other
question
is:
can
you
give
the
background
on
how
we
arrived
at
15
miles
an
hour
for
our
multi-use
paths,
and
I'm
sure
this
is
not
gonna
like
be
super
popular
for
me
to
verbalize,
but
the
you
know
we're
talking
about.
E-Bikes
are
becoming
much
more
popular
and
they're
all
set
at
either
national
or
international
standard
of
20
miles
an
hour.
O
Should
our
multi-use
path
match
what
that
standard
is,
and
I
assume
that
that
standard
of
20
miles
an
hour
for
these
bikes
was
set
with
safety
in
mind,
so
just
wondering
how
we
got
at
15
miles
an
hour
and
have
we
thought
about
whether,
in
light
of
this
surge
of
e-bike
use
that
we
are
predicting
where
everybody's
bike's
going
to
show
up
going
20
miles
an
hour
and
a
lot
of
you
know
they
don't
all
even
have
ways
that
you
can
read
what
speed
you're
going
like
is.
O
R
So,
unfortunately,
I
can't
tell
you
where
the
origin
of
the
15
mile
an
hour
speed
limit
on
the
multi-use
pass
system
comes
from
that
that
predates
me.
It's
been
in
the
the
old
revised
code
for
quite
some
time.
I
can
tell
you
that
we
have
not
talked
about
increasing
it.
R
I'd
I'd
point
out
that
the
ability
for
an
e-bike
to
go
20
miles
an
hour
period
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
we
want
them
to
go
20
miles
an
hour
on
the
path
system
that
has
a
lot
of
pedestrians
on
it,
probably
best
if
they're
going
faster,
that
they're
doing
that
in
the
road,
and
so
we
certainly
get
a
fair
number
of
complaints
from
the
public
who
walk
on
the
multi-use
path
system
about
bikes,
traveling
too
fast.
G
And
rachel
I'll
add
to
that
too,
and
you
know,
regardless
of
the
speed,
whether
it
be
15
or
20,
it
is
important,
I
think,
to
implement
some
bicycle
slow
zones.
This
is
another
idea:
we've
had
through
the
wave
path,
so
let's
say
you're
traveling
up
the
boulder
creek
path
and
you
get
to
the
civic
center
park.
This
is
obviously
an
area
that
has
a
lot
more
people
walking
and
people
biking
and
people
scootering
and
and
whatnot,
and
so
this
might
be
a
good
location.
G
You
know
to
mark
these
zones
as
bicycle:
slow
zones
or
device
slow
zones.
We
don't
don't
know
the
exact
terminology
we
would
use,
but
but
to
really
be
a
little
bit
more
strategic,
more
surgical
at
pinpointing
these
locations
within
the
city,
where
we
really
want
you
to
to
be
cautious.
You
know,
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
people
using
these
zones
and
we
want
you
to
slow
down.
O
Yeah
that
makes
sense
and-
and
I
think
to
some
degree,
it's
kind
of
like
with
traffic,
where
you
have
natural
calming
if
there
are
obstacles
right
and
the
streets
narrower
and
certainly
if,
if
there
are
a
lot
of
people
and
using
the
path
you
slow
down
pretty
naturally,
so
it
makes
sense
that
you
want
to
specify
those
areas
as
well.
I
would
ask
hutch
did
tab
at
all
look
at
the
at
the
speed
of
e-bikes
and
these
and
the
mismatch
to
the
trails.
L
We
didn't
discuss
it
explicitly.
I
I
think
in
general.
L
The
issue
we
have
with
speed
is
you
know
it
isn't
like
a
break
comes
on
on
any
bike
e
or
not.
When
you
hit
20
either
you
can
go
faster
than
20
on
those
things,
I've
personally
done
it
many
times
on
the
hill
or
whatever
so
toss.
It's
a
more
general
speed
limit
question,
as
opposed
to
a
specific
e-bike
question.
But
beyond
that,
to
my
knowledge
and
I'm
pretty
new
to
tab,
we
haven't
haven't
talked
about
it.
B
M
Well,
I
guess
I
could
fit
my
questions
under
some
of
these,
but
I'm
going
to
just
task
of
it
as
a
general
question.
So
my
first
question
is
about
the
general
improvement
district
boundaries
and,
if
I
recall
correctly
from
reading
the
memo,
your
staff
is
proposing
that
we
use
the
boundaries
for.
M
For
the
general
improvement
districts
in
downtown
in
boulder
junction
and
on
the
hill,
and
I'm
wondering
if
those
are
the
same
boundaries
that
are
used
for
other
ordinances,
that
we
have
specifically
regarding
ordinances
on
smoking
and
on
parking,
is
it
are
our?
If,
if
this
is
passed
as
proposed,
would
the
resultant
ordinance
be
the
same
boundaries
as
applied
to
smoking
and
parking.
G
That's
a
really
great
question
mary:
does
this
with
this
proposed
ordinance
change,
be
consistent
with
other
types
of
regulations
within
these
these
specific
districts.
I
don't
have
the
answer
to
that
tonight
in
it,
but
I'd
love
to
follow
up
and
and
see
if
there
is
a
correlation
for
other
ordinances
or
regulations
that
are
pertinent
to
the
general
improvement
districts.
M
Okay,
great
thank
you
and
then
my
other
question
has
to
do
with
yielding
hierarchies.
I
think
that
you've
made
a
lot
of
references
to
human
powered
or
electric
powered
yielding
to
pedestrians,
but
is
there
any
kind
of
thinking
around
say
an
electric
powered
skateboard
yields
to
a
human-powered
skateboard?
You
know
a
hierarchy
of
who
yields
to
whom?
G
But
it's
an
interesting
concept
that
I
could
further
explore
in
terms
of
how
we
educate
our
users.
I
don't
know
if
there
would
be
much
of
a
split
a
lot
of
times.
You
can't
you
can
tell,
and
you
can't
tell
the
difference
between
an
e-skateboard
and
a
regular
skateboard.
So
it's
hard
to
discern,
but
but
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
the
varying
levels
of
capability
that
these
devices
have
and
then
there's
their
hierarchy
in
terms
of
of
yielding
to
one
another.
M
Yeah-
and
you
know
I
recall
that
on,
I
think
it
was
leave
no
trace
had
a
really
nice
yield
sign.
That
clearly
said
who
yields
to
whom
and
when
so
that's
kind
of
along
the
lines
that
I
was
asking
this
question
from,
but
okay.
Well,
thank
you!
That's
all.
I.
G
B
Thank
you
mary,
so
my
suggestion
here
is:
we
go
one
question
at
a
time
here
since
they're
all
distinct
and
oh
and
we'll
start
with
question.
One
obviously
get
your
questions
out
first
and
finish
with
your
concerns
or
thoughts
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
person.
So
everyone
gets
one
shot
if
there's
any
follow-up
after
that,
I'll
ask
for
a
final
follow-up,
but
one
at
a
time
get
everything
out
there
and
then
follow
up
as
necessary.
D
I'm
gonna
break
the
rule
that
you
just
laid
down
and
just
give
you
my
overall
comments,
because
I
don't
think
they
vary
between
sidewalks
and
multi-use
pass.
I
don't
have
any
questions.
I
can
just
offer
a
comment
or
observation.
If
that's
okay,
adam
or
do
you
want.
D
You
know
in
the
in
the
world
of
boating,
there
are
rights
of
way,
rules
that
are
very
specific,
where,
for
example,
powered
boats
have
to
yield
to
sailboats
and
and
and
sizes
of
votes,
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
I
think
that
as
we
develop
these
rules,
I
mean
listen,
there's
not
going
to
be
any
easy
answer
here,
because
we
want
to
increase
mobility
options
and
we
we
want
everyone
to
be
safe,
and
some
of
these
modes
that
are
only
allowed
to
be
on
streets
are
probably
not
safe
on
streets
because
they're,
interacting
with
cars,
but
when
we
put
them
on
sidewalks
or
build
a
used
path,
they're,
not
interacting
with
pedestrians,
and
so
rather
than
being
the
victim,
they
may
be
the
perpetrator
and-
and
so
I
don't
have
any
any
magic
answers
to
what
should
happen.
D
But
I
do
agree
with
mary
that
we
as
we
develop
these
rules.
There
should
be
a
hierarchy,
not
unlike
the
rules
of
boating,
and
I
look
at
it
as
four
tiers
number
one
pedestrians.
Pedestrians
should
always
be
protected,
have
the
right
of
way
and
whatever
that
means
and
rules
you
guys
figure
out,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
that
pedestrians,
which
are
our
most
vulnerable
people
out
there
and
it's
the
most
vulnerable
mode
of
transportation,
always
have
priority,
always
have
the
right
of
way
and
are
always
always
the
greatest
protected.
D
The
second
and
the
four-part
hierarchy,
I
think,
are
human-powered
devices
like
pedal
bikes.
You
know
hutch
made
a
good
point
that
bikes
can
go
fast,
but
there
is
a
greater
degree
of
control
if
you're
pedaling
at
your
bike
and
because
you're
you're
controlling
you
only
go
forward.
If
you
actually
make
it
go
forward
with
your
with
your
body,
and
so
I
think
on
the
hierarchy,
human
power
devices
of
all
types
would
have
the
second
priority.
D
The
third
priority
would
be
power
devices
with
where
the
control
is
well
established,
and
I-
and
I
guess
I
put
e-bikes
in
this-
this
category
e-bikes
have
been
around
for
a
while.
Most
people
know
how
to
operate
them.
Most
people
don't
operate
them
drunk
and
while
they
can
go
faster
and
sometimes
they're
powered,
partially
or
exclusively
by
a
motor,
I
think
most
people
know
how
to
break
them
and
how
to
steer
them
and
then
the
lowest
priority.
D
I
think
and
it's
not
to
say
that
they
should
be
excluded
from
sidewalks
or
by
or
multiple
use
paths,
but
I'm
going
to
be
very,
very
skeptical
of
of
their
expanded
use
without
a
lot
of
great
protection
would
be
power
devices
with
poor
or
little
track
record
for
control
or
safety,
and
in
this
category,
of
course,
I
would
put
e-scooters
and
some
of
the
other
not
novel
devices,
and
I
think,
if
you
guys
develop
your
rules
along
those
lines:
pedestrians,
human-powered
power
devices
with
good
control
power
devices
with
bad
control
or
bad
safety
records.
D
I
think
that
will
will
help
you
pull
together,
rules
on
sidewalks
and
on
paths
and
on
streets
that
will
protect
the
most
vulnerable
folks,
while
still
allowing
other
modes
of
transportation
to
to
to
to
share
the
share
the
way,
as
you
say,
and
so
that's
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
very
general
guidance.
I'm
going
to
look
forward
to
community
engagement
and
then
whatever
you
bring
forward
in
january.
B
C
Yeah
thanks
adam
I'm
going
to
go
a
little
more
general
too.
If
you
don't
mind,
be
a
be
another
rule
breaker,
along
with
with
bob
yeah,
I
mean
this
is
exciting
to
see.
I
think
these
micro
mobility
options,
you
know,
really
expand
the
opportunities
to
to
get
away
from.
You
know
your
single
occupant
vehicle
trips,
so
I'm
really
glad
to
see
us
updating
our
regulations
and
also
particularly
to
to
replace
the
kind
of
patchwork
of
where
bicycles
can
ride
on
sidewalks
and
where
they
can't.
C
You
know,
which
has
been
very
confusing
in
the
past.
So
that's
really
great
to
see.
So,
thanks
for
taking
taking
this
on
bob,
I
appreciated
your
hierarchy
idea.
I
was
going
to
say
something
similar.
You
know
that
I
think
we
want
to
try
to
allow
more
devices
rather
than
fewer,
so
that
we
do
expand
those
opportunities
for
different
types
of
of
transportation,
but
we
really
need
to
be
careful.
C
You
know
about
the
safety
of
them
at
the
same
time,
so
I
know
you're
thinking
about
that
carefully,
and
I
just
urge
you
to
keep
thinking
about
that
carefully
from
a
safety
perspective,
because
I
think
I
think
this
is
not
a
one-size-fits-all
kind
of
situation.
You
know
that
you,
you,
don't
you
don't
have
the
same
regulation
for
a
human-peddled
bicycle
as
you
do,
for
a
electric
unicycle
for
example.
C
So
I
look
forward
to
seeing
what
you
come
up
with
on
that
side.
The
one
other
piece
of
feedback
I
wanted
to
offer
was
that
I'm
not
100
sure
that
the
general
improvement
district
boundaries
are
the
ways
the
exact
boundaries
to
use
for
the
dismount
zones.
I'm
going
to
absolutely
support.
You
know
dismount
zones
in
the
core
of
our
downtown
area,
where
the
pedestrian
traffic
is
the
highest,
but
you
know,
as
community
cycles
pointed
out
in
their
email.
You
know
we
don't
have
a
good
low
stress
bicycle
network
all
through
the
downtown.
C
So
is
there
a
way
of
reconciling
those
two
things
somewhat
so
that?
Yes,
you
you
have
to
dismount.
You
know,
of
course,
on
the
mall
and
in
other
of
the
most
highest
pedestrian
areas,
but
you
know:
could
we
maybe
not
have
the
exact
boundaries
as
the
improvement
district
and
maybe
give
people
some
more
opportunities
for
a
safe
way
to
to
ride
in
the
downtown
where
the
pedestrian
volumes
aren't?
Quite
as
high
and
I'll
say
the
same
thing
about
boulder
junction?
C
You
know
that
I
was
a
little
unclear
why
that
improvement
district
was
included
in
the
dismount
zones
because
it
right
now
it
doesn't
have
that
high
level
of
pedestrian
traffic,
and
it
doesn't
feel
necessarily
that
different
to
me
than
other
commercial
areas,
so
and
and
and
the
bounds
of
it
are
a
little
arbitrary.
So
that
would
be
one
that
I
just
asked
you
to
go.
C
C
If
no
other
place
in
east
boulder
has
one
do
we
need
one
here
and
and
if
so
exactly
where,
so
I
think
that's
it
just
on
the
dismount
zones,
but
obviously,
in
all
of
those
considerations,
it's
a
matter
of
balancing
safety
concerns
right,
so
we
need
to
protect
the
pedestrians,
but
also,
how
can
we
find
the
the
safe
ways
of
getting
people
on
these
devices
through
these
areas?
B
Thanks
aaron
next
we
have
sam,
then
mary,
rachel
and
miraby.
I
Thanks
adam
I'm
going
to
give
my
comments
on
all
of
these,
I'm
going
to
be
a
rule
breaker
as
well,
and
then
I'm
going
to
have
to
bow
out
for
the
evening
for
personal
reasons,
but
I
do
want
to
commend
staff
for
bringing
this
forward.
It
is
a
huge
improvement,
so
the
dismount
zones
we
can
quibble
about
exactly
where
the
boundaries
are,
but
I
think,
starting
with
the
improvement
district
boundaries
is
a
great
place
to
start.
I
The
map
is
far
more
comprehensible
than
what's
currently
in
place,
and
I
will
say
that,
given
the
more
limited
areas,
the
improvement
districts,
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
easier
to
sign
that
it's
a
dismount
zone
wherever
the
actual
boundaries
are.
One
of
the
problems
is,
you
know
in
the
current
situation,
there's
no
way
to
sign
all
the
commercial
districts
across
the
city,
and
this
will
enable,
I
think,
a
much
more
clear
understanding
of
people
where
they
can
be
and
not
be.
I
I
think
human
powered
devices
on
sidewalks
is
fine.
I
agree
with
mary
and
baba
that
hierarchy.
I
will
put
out
there.
The
national
trail
system,
you've
got
horseback,
you've
got
hikers
and
you've
often
got
bicyclists
and
there's
a
hierarchy
there,
and
so
lots
of
lots
of
different
travel
modalities
have
hierarchies
and
a
lot
of
times.
It
has
to
do
with
speed,
and
so
I'm
quite
happy
with
human-powered
devices
on
sidewalks.
I'm
a
lot
more
unclear
on
the
electric
power
devices
on
sidewalks.
I
I
think
they
should
be
on
multi-use
paths
as
long
as
they're
obeying
the
speed
limit,
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
huge
mistake
to
change
the
speed
limit
any
higher
than
15,
because
that
speed
differential
is
already
enough
to
scare
many
pedestrians
who
will
complain
as
dk
said
about
that,
and
you
know
many
bicyclists
to
their,
not
credit,
don't
let
you
know
when
they're
passing
on
the
left,
and
so
I
think
that's
another
way
of
the
past
thing
that
if
we
do
on
multi-use
pads
have
a
lot
more
electric
powered
devices.
I
We
need
to
get
people
clear
that
when
they're
approaching,
particularly
on
these
electric
devices,
which
are
very
quiet,
that
they
need
to
give
pedestrians
particularly
some
kind
of
indication
that
they're
overtaking
them
and
so
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
the
dismount
zone
change,
I
really
think
we
want
to
be
careful
about
these
electric
powered
vehicles
on
sidewalks.
So
the
way
I
think
about
it
is
if
there
is
a
bike
lane.
I
So
I
I
feel
like
to
number
one:
yes
on
all
human
powered
on
sidewalks
I'd
be
much
more
careful
about
the
electric
powered
devices
on
sidewalks,
but
I
think
multi-use
pads
is
great
and
I
think
you'll
get
that
figured
out
and
then
I
think
I
have
very
little
concern
as
many
of
the
people
who
responded
to
the
surveys
about
having
these
electric
powered
and
human-powered
vehicles
on
residential
streets.
I
I
think
that's
a
no-brainer
that
typically
particularly
with
20
mile
an
hour
speed
limits,
they're
not
going
to
be
slowing
people
down
very
much
generally,
and
then
you
know
in
the
bike
lane
on
other
streets.
I
think
that's
perfectly
legit
and
I
think
you
know
it
is
important
that
all
types
of
skateboards
and
these
one
wheels
have
a
place
to
be
because
you
know
skateboards
whether
electric
or
human
powered
are
perfectly
legit
way
to
get
around
town,
and
so
I'm
glad
that
we
will
allow
them
in
bike
lanes.
I
B
Thank
you
sam
and
have
a
good
evening.
Next,
we
have
mary,
rachel
and
nearby.
M
Thank
you
adam,
so
I
will
agree
with
sam
in
terms
of
the
answer
to
the
questions
and
the
biggest
concern
is
to
have
electric
powered
devices
on
sidewalks,
and
then
you
know
with
respect
to
raising
the
speed
limit
and
multi-use
paths.
M
I
think
that
the
the
speed
differential
between
walking
and
somebody
going
20
miles
per
hour
is
just
too
much.
I
it's
too
much
at
15
miles
per
hour.
It's
too
much
at
going
pedal,
powered
bike,
speed
on
a
multi-use
path
and
then
having
a
neat
bike,
go
by
you
at
15
miles
per
hour.
So
I
think
that
it's
about
the
speed
differentials
and
the
safety
that
is
associated
with
those
differentials.
M
By
that
logic,
I
would
question
why
we
went
to
20
as
plenty
because
cars
can
go
well,
as
we
know
pretty
fast,
but
I
wanted
to
just
talk
about
the
the
boundaries
on
the
general
improvement
districts.
M
I
think
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
people
who
understand
general
improvement,
district
boundaries
and
people
who
are
business
owners
in
those
districts
to
understand
that
that
it's
the
same,
if
it
is
the
same
with
smoking,
if
it
is
the
same
with
parking
that
the
the
rules
that
apply
to
bicycles
be
the
same
just
to
kind
of
keep
it
all
tidy.
M
M
So
so
I
think
that
the
signage
wouldn't
necessarily
be
all
over
the
cages,
for
example,
but
it
would
be
in
those
areas
that
are
just
very
high
pedestrian
and,
of
course,
people
are
going
to
not
dismount
and
dismount
zones,
and
people
are
going
to
ride
in
within
the
the
general
improvement
districts.
M
But
most
people,
I
think,
tend
to
use
some
level
of
common
sense,
and
it's
only
in
terms
of
enforcement,
or
should
an
accident
happen
that
these
solid
rules
and
these
ordinances
come
into
play.
So
so
that's
that
on
on
the
the
boundaries
and
then
yeah,
I
would
agree
with
bob
on
the
hierarchy
and
who
yields
to
whom
and
that's
all.
I
have.
B
Thank
you,
mary,
rachel,
nearby
and
mark.
O
Thanks
adam,
I
agree
with
most
of
what's
been
said.
Obviously
I
I
would
prefer
that
we
have
the
data
on
15
versus
20
miles
an
hour
and
not
go
with
our
guts.
So
much
on
that,
so
I
I
think
that
that
is
worth
looking
at.
I
I
think,
overall,
this
is
moving
in
an
awesome
direction.
You
know
our
goal
is
to
get
people
out
of
cars,
and
this
is
going
to
help
facilitate
that.
So
I
think
it's
awesome.
O
Like
I
said
I
I
like
the
way
that
we
have
have
shrunk
the
the
footprint
for
the
dismount
zones.
I
still
think
maybe
we're
we're
not
like
thinking
throughout
all
the
way.
You
know
in
terms
of
like
right,
right
of
ways
and
yielding
you
know
you
obviously
can
have
a
somewhere
in
one
of
those
districts
where
it's
going
to
be
dismount
that
sometimes
it's
really
light
traffic.
O
You
know
it's
later
at
night
or
whatever
and
nobody's
there
and
you're
also
going
to
have
the
inverse
outside
of
those
districts
where
it's
really
heavy
traffic
on
sidewalks
sometimes,
and
I
think
that
the
goal
is
that
you
need
to
slow
the
bikes
down
when
you
are
dealing
with
pedestrian.
You
know
heavy
pedestrian
traffic
wherever
you
are
so
I
guess
I
just
wonder
like
is.
O
It
is
what
we
need
really
these
dismount
zones
that
are,
you,
know,
super
rigid,
or
do
we
really
need
education
and
focus
on
the
yielding
and
and
slowing
down,
and
in
some
areas
like
we've
said
you're
almost
always
going
to
have
to
slow
down
and
signage
would
be
great
there.
O
But
I
guess
I'm
I'm
I'm
glad
that
there
are
going
to
be
fewer
and
easier
to
understand
dismount
zones,
but
I
I
might
prefer
to
see
us
focus
more
on
education
and
always
writing
in
keeping
with
whatever
the
the
pedestrian
circumstances
are
thanks.
Q
So
I
also
agree
with
most
of
what's
been
said,
so
first
I'll
go
off
of
bob's
hierarchy.
I
think
that
makes
perfect
sense.
Q
I
do
have
one
question
I
may
have
missed
it,
but
I
guess,
with
with
the
implementation
of
everything
that
we're
doing,
is
there
going
to
be
a
chance,
then,
in
whatever
six
months
or
a
year
after
the
implementation
for
the
community
to
let
us
know
how
this
is
working,
because
I
kind
of
understand
where
rachel's
coming
from
with
the
education
and
the
dismount
zones,
and
not
being
so
strict.
Q
However,
and
my
concern
comes
to
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
like-
oh,
I
can
you
know
weasel
my
way
through
the
few
people
that
are
there
and
the
next
thing.
You
know
you,
you
have
crashes
and
so
then
the
education's
not
working,
because
the
few
are
ruining
it,
which
you
know
the
five
percent
always
kill
you.
Q
You
know
that's
always
going
to
be
concerning
it'd,
be
nice
to
have
the
feedback
as
to
what's
working,
because
I'd
prefer
to
have
the
dismount
zones
not
be
as
strict
as
rachel's
saying,
but
then,
if
it
doesn't
work,
you
know
it'd
be
good
to
know
on
that.
So
I
think
having
a
really
good,
more
inclusive
community
feedback
after
this
has
been
implemented.
Is
what
I'd
like
to
see.
Q
K
Okay,
I
also
feel
that
bob
has
has
properly
articulated
the
distinctions
and
the
hierarchy
we
ought
to
be
following.
I
have
a
grave
concern
about
putting
electric
powered
vehicles
on
sidewalks.
Generally,
I
think
product
protection
of
pedestrians
has
to
be
our
first
and
highest
value,
especially
since
some
of
those
pedestrians
are
going
to
be
children
or
for
the
elderly
or
other
people
who
are
not
quite
as
nimble
in
terms
of
getting
out
of
the
way
of
someone
who's
careening
down
the
sidewalk
with
an
electric
powered
apparatus.
K
K
P
Yeah,
yes,
I
heard
everything
that
everyone
was
saying,
I'm
just
not
sure
exactly
where
I
stand
on
a
lot
of
these
questions
I
have
had
since
the
pandemic,
and
I
have
been
doing
a
lot
of
walking
on
the
bike
path
and
I've
done.
P
I
think
it's
like
six
miles
and
I've
done
it
every
day
for
the
past
five
months
and
I
really
enjoyed
it
and
I
have
seen
a
few
of
those
electric
bikes
and
it's
pretty
scary
and
I
was
startled
so
I'm
not
so
sure
if
I
agree
with
the
idea
of
putting
electric
bikes
on
the
bike
path
and
again
when
you
think
about
it,
when
you're
walking
on
the
bike
path,
it's
very
narrow,
it's
very
narrow.
P
So
I'm
thinking
if
there
is
bicycle
and
then
there
is,
you
know
just
human-powered
bicycle
and
then
there
is
electric
vehicle
and
if
it
can
goes
really
fast,
we
I'm
just
thinking
I
mean
accident
can
happen
at
any
moment,
but
I'm
just
thinking
it's
so
narrow
and
then
you
have
a
a
speeding
vehicle
just
going
by
really
quickly.
So
I'm
not
so
sure
about
that.
I
like
the
idea
of
yielding
to
pedestrians,
and
I
have
to
say
when
I
first
started
walking
on
the
bike
path.
There
were
times
I
did.
P
I
wasn't
sure
where
I
was
walking
and
then
I'll
see
the
sign
that
says.
Oh,
you
need
to
be
on
this
side
of
the
road,
so
I
think
that's
very
important
to
have
these
signs.
That
say
you
need
to
yield
to
pedestrian
if
we're
going
to
allow
these
type
of
vehicles
and
as
far
as
the
sidewalk
I
mean,
I
guess,
since
that's
where
we're
heading.
Of
course
I
wouldn't
prefer
it
to
have
an
electric
vehicle
on
the
sidewalk,
but
then
again,
if
that's
where
we're
heading,
that's
where
we're
heading.
But
again
I
think
it's.
P
How
do
we
use
our
roads
in
our
streets
because
we
tend
to
prioritize
cars?
Maybe
you
know
having
more
access
to
bike
lanes.
I
would
prefer
all
these
vehicles
to
be
on
bike
lanes,
because
now
you
there's
like
almost
a
conflict
between
people
and
bicycles
and
electric
vehicles,
and
we
don't
want
these
conflicts.
So
I
think
it's
a
very,
very
difficult
discussion
to
have
when
we
know
we
don't
have
whether
it's
the
space
or
the
street
management,
because
I
think
that's
where
this
come.
P
That's
where
we
should
start
first
with
the
street
management,
then
talk
about
where
we're
gonna
put
these
things,
because
we
don't
have
the
proper
street
management.
All
we're
gonna
have
is
really
conflict,
and
I
think
mary,
by
mentioned,
you
know
knowing
having
the
data.
I
think
that's
gonna
be
important
to
know
whether
we're
doing
the
safe
thing
when
it
comes
to
our
community
members.
B
Thank
you
juni
and
for
second
go-arounds.
We
have
bob
and
rachel.
D
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
the
15
miles
an
hour
versus
20
miles
an
hour
and
if
you'll
indulge
me,
I
wanted
to
geek
out
a
little
bit
on
physics.
D
I
know
that's
a
real
dangerous
thing
with
traffic
engineers
on
the
line,
who
are
a
lot
smarter
than
me,
but
the
impact
by
being
hit
at
15
miles
an
hour
is
not
is
not
proportionate
to
being
hit
at
20
miles
an
hour,
in
other
words,
20
miles
an
hour
is
not
one-third
worse,
it's
actually
twice,
as
is
bad
because
of
the
way
velocity
and
kinetics
work.
Kinetic
energy
is
measured
as
a
square
of
velocities.
D
So
I
just
want
us
to
to
be
bear
in
mind
that
that
incremental
changes
in
speed
limits
have
a
more
than
linear
impact
or,
literally
speaking,
literary
linear
effect
when,
when
there's
an
impact
or
a
collision,
so
I
would
very
much
be
in
favor
of
keeping
things
at
15
miles
an
hour,
and
would
he
actually
even
welcome
a
discussion
of
lowering
things
below
15.
But
15
has
to
be
absolutely
the
max
because
of
the
because
of
the
way
physics
work.
O
Yep
two
things
I
like
mirabai's
idea
as
well
of
having
ongoing
engagement
and
feedback
about
this.
I
wanted
to
support
that
and
second,
you
know
we're
sort
of
I
feel
like
we're
quibbling
here
over
leftovers.
So
I
just
want
to
pan
out
a
bit
and
say
that
cars
get
all
the
space
and
what
would
be
best
is
if
we
were
creating
protected
bike
lanes
downtown
where
you
know
where
I'm
worried
about
having
to
dismount
my
bike.
O
So
I
can
go
on
the
sidewalk
safely
because
we
don't
have
bike
lanes,
let
alone
protected
ones
there.
So
I
think
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
we're
moving
in
a
good
direction,
but
it's
also
a
bummer
of
a
conversation,
because
it's
not
very
expansive
thinking
about
taking
some
of
the
space
really
away
from
cars
and
redirecting
it
so
that
we
don't
have
to
fight
about.
You
know
15
versus
20
miles
an
hour
for
the
e-bikes
who
might
come
into
contact
with
pedestrians,
but
creating
more
for
everyone
who's,
not
in
a
car.
B
Thank
you
rachel.
If
no
one
else
has
anything
I'll
weigh
in
real
quick.
I
do
agree.
This
is
sort
of
like
hey
fixing
with
a
band-aid
what
the
major
issues
are
in
transportation
in
the
city,
but
it's
definitely
a
step
that
needs
to
be
accomplished
regardless
these
rules
need
to
be
updated.
B
I
I
think
dismount
zones
are
still
pretty
necessary
and
we
could
discuss
where
they're
very
necessary,
but
to
me
I
think,
in
a
lot
of
cases,
they're
sort
of
a
suggestion
and
not
a
something
that
really
is
well
enforced,
simply
because
I
can
see
people
blow
right
through
them,
there's
not
a
physical
barrier.
You
know,
there's
not
a
stanchion
or
anything
there.
That
really
indicates
hey.
You
have
to
get
off
your
bike,
it's
just
sort
of
written
on
the
ground
which
can
be
easily
ignored.
B
So
maybe
something
in
that
regard
to
the
really
really
high
density,
switching
from
a
a
bike
lane
to
a
high
density
traffic
area.
I
think
we
may
have
to
go
a
little
harder
on
the
dismount
zones,
but
I
agree
they
could
be
looked
at
zone
by
zone
to
see
what's
really
necessary
overall.
B
B
You
know
the
general
traffic
rules
might
be
a
really
helpful
thing
to
collaborate
with
cu
to
have
them.
Take.
You
know
a
10
question
primer
as
they
enter
school
so
that
they
know
the
rules
going
in.
So
we
can
avoid
a
whole
lot
of
the
con.
The
conversation
and
sort
of
negative
results
we
might
see.
B
Just
so
everybody
knows
the
rules
when
they
get
here,
and
you
know
not,
everybody
reads
the
street
signs
as
they
should,
but
if
you
have
to
pass
this
little
thing
going
into
in
the
cu,
we
know
for
sure
you
know
the
rules.
That
type
of
thing,
I
think,
is
always
a
good
way
to
collaborate
so
that
the
city
and
cu
are
on
the
same
page,
and
you
know,
students
and
community
members
are
really
good
at
knowing
the
rules
altogether.
B
B
Cool
seeing
none,
I
heard
a
lot
about
developing
a
hierarchy.
That
was
one
of
the
major
things.
The
general
improvement
district
boundaries
are
a
good
starting
place,
but
they
could
be
refined
beyond
that.
Several
people
thought
there
was
a
question
of
whether
or
not
we
should
look
at
the
speed
limit
data
to
see
where
the
safety
comes
into
effect.
There.
B
Let's
see,
there
was
a
lot
of
questions
about
dismount
zones,
whether
they
should
exist
at
all
or
if
we
could
just
narrow
their
scope
or
their
implementation,
and
there
were
some
that
said,
they
absolutely
need
to
be
there
still
and
to
some
degree
improved,
and
then
there
was
some
concern
about
electric
vehicles
on
sidewalks.
Specifically,
I
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
that
for
roadways
or
multi-use
paths
and
then
the
whole
general
question
of
hey
shouldn't.
B
G
You
yes
thank
you
adam
and
thank
you
very
much
city
council.
We
really
appreciate
your
input.
This
has
been
very
helpful
for
us
as
we
move
into
the
next
stage
to
look
at
these
ordinances
and
and
we'll
be
visiting
with
you
again
in
january.
B
Thank
you
so
much
dk
and
all
of
transportation
staff
who
helped
us
out
tonight
and
tab
and
everyone
who
contributed
these
are
great
presentations.
They
were
really
easy
to
to
answer
the
questions
you
asked
and
we
always
really
appreciate
that
when
things
are
teed
up
super
well,
so
this
was
awesome.
Thank
you
so
much
it
was
really
productive
and
efficient
with
that
being
said,
I
wanted
to
recognize
this
is
our
last
public
meeting
with
jane
in
our
presence.
B
So
unless
she
wants
to
come
testify
in
front
of
council,
which
I
don't
see
happening
anytime
soon,
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
again
jane
and
allow
a
little
space
for
anyone
who
wanted
to
say
any
more
goodbyes
in
our
public
in
our
public
open
comment
here
bob
I
have
you.
D
And
I
know
that
we
we
we
toasted
you
last
week
and
and
I
hope
that
after
covert
is
over,
we
can
have
a
a
big
party
to
toast
to
you
some
more.
But
I
just
want
to
observe
the
fact
that
in
your
12
years
here
at
roughly
50
council
meetings
per
year,
you've
you've
tolerated
600
sets
of
council
meetings
here
in
boulder,
and
I
know
that
you
were
city
manager
in
other
places
before
this,
and
I
appreciate
you
putting
up
with
us
for
leading
a
fantastic
staff.
E
C
Well,
I've
said
goodbye
a
couple
times
I
just
wanted
to
offer
up.
Do
you
remember
from
car
talk
and
they
would
say
today
we
watched
it.
Listen
to
this,
they
say
well,
you've
just
wasted
another
perfectly
good,
two
and
a
half
hours
of
your
life
at
a
city
council
meeting
and
but
never
again,
yeah
yeah
get
your
tuesday
evenings
back
so
enjoy.
I
I
Thank
you
jane
for
all
your
years
of
service,
sad
that
this
is
the
last
meeting
we'll
have
you
at,
but
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
around
town
looking
much
more
relaxed.
I
hope.
B
Anybody
else
like
to
weigh
in
perfect
well
jane
the
best
I
can
give.
You
is
24
extra
minutes
of
your
life
and
I'm
glad
we
could
provide
you
with
an
efficient
meeting
for
your
last
meeting.
So.