Spring 2019 New Mobility in Gresham: Gresham Recommendations and Guidelines

Agraj Dangal • Sarah Reiter • Delaney Wood • Benjamin Clark

Public Management PPPM 633

Spring 2019 Gresham

New Mobility in Gresham: Recommendations and Guidelines

Agraj Dangal • Sarah Reiter • Delaney Wood Report Authors • School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management

Benjamin Clark Associate Professor • School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the City of Gresham and School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management for making this project possible. We would also like to thank the following city of Gresham staff for their assistance and contributions that were instrumental to the completion of this report.

Katherine Kelly, Planning and Implementation Manager Carly Rice, Assistant Planner

The authors would like to acknowledge the partial support from the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC; grant number 1249), a U.S. DOT University Transportation Center, and the National Science Foundation (NSF; Grant number BCS-123456).

This report represents original student work and recommendations prepared by students in the University of Oregon’s Sustainable City Year Program for the City of Gresham. Text and images contained in this report may not be used without permission from the University of Oregon. Contents

4 About SCI 4 About SCYP 5 About Gresham, Oregon 6 Course Participants

7 Executive Summary 8 Introduction 9 Background 10 Methodology 11 Literature Review 14 Case Studies 17 Recommendations 19 References Winter 2019 Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

About SCI

The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) 2. Our Urbanism Next Center, which is an applied think tank focusing on focuses on how autonomous vehicles, sustainability and cities through applied e-commerce, and the sharing economy research, teaching, and community will impact the form and function of partnerships. We work across cities. disciplines that match the complexity of cities to address sustainability In all cases, we share our expertise challenges, from regional planning to and experiences with scholars, building design and from enhancing policymakers, community leaders, and engagement of diverse communities project partners. We further extend to understanding the impacts on our impact via an annual Expert-in- municipal budgets from disruptive Residence Program, SCI-China visiting technologies and many issues in scholars program, study abroad course between. on redesigning cities for people on SCI focuses on sustainability-based bicycle, and through our co-leadership research and teaching opportunities of the Educational Partnerships for through two primary efforts: Innovation in Communities Network (EPIC-N), which is transferring SCYP 1. Our Sustainable City Year Program to universities and communities (SCYP), a massively scaled university- across the globe. Our work connects community partnership program that student passion, faculty experience, matches the resources of the University and community needs to produce with one Oregon community each innovative, tangible solutions for the year to help advance that community’s creation of a sustainable society. sustainability goals; and

About SCYP

The Sustainable City Year Program learning courses to provide students (SCYP) is a year-long partnership with real-world projects to investigate. between SCI and a partner in Oregon, Students bring energy, enthusiasm, in which students and faculty in courses and innovative approaches to difficult, from across the university collaborate persistent problems. SCYP’s primary with a public entity on sustainability value derives from collaborations and livability projects. SCYP faculty resulting in on-the-ground impact and students work in collaboration with and expanded conversations for a staff from the partner agency through community ready to transition to a a variety of studio projects and service- more sustainable and livable future.

4 Section

About Urbanism Next

The Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon focuses on understanding the impacts new mobility, autonomous vehicles, e-commerce and the sharing economy are having and will continue to have on city form, design, and development. The Center does not focus on the emerging technologies themselves, but instead on the multi-level impacts — how these innovations are affecting things like land use, urban design, building design, transportation, and real estate and the implications these impacts have on equity, health and safety, the economy, and the environment. Urbanism Next brings together experts from a wide range of disciplines including planning, design, development, business, and law and works with the public, private, and academic sectors to help create positive outcomes from the impending changes and challenges confronting our cities.

5 Winter 2019 About Gresham, OregonContracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

About Gresham, Oregon With over 110,000 people, Gresham is the fourth largest city in Oregon. Portland, the largest city in the state, borders it to the west. Gresham is ideal for families and businesses wanting to start something new and grow.

Gresham is near the Columbia Gorge commercial, and retail mix; Historic National Scenic Area and Mount Downtown which offers a walkable Hood, the highest point in Oregon. It blend of shops, restaurants, and has a wide variety of neighborhoods service businesses; and Rockwood, including: the Civic Center, known for one of the youngest and most diverse its active transportation network, rapid neighborhoods in Oregon. transit connections, and residential,

6 Section

Course Participants

AGRAJ DANGAL, Master of Pubic Administration SARAH REITER, Master of Pubic Administration DELANEY WOOD, Master of Pubic Administration

7 Winter 2019 Executive Summary Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide an approach for the City of Gresham to evaluate data requirements prior to entering into contracts with emerging technology vendors.

Four subgroups of new mobility contract to be developed. Furthermore, vendors were identified and evaluated if TNCs were to be in place, internal based on case studies and previous controls and oversight committees data requirements: e-scooters, bike- are both highly recommended due share programs, transportation network to the reluctance of TNCs to release companies (TNCs), and autonomous passenger datasets and a lack of vehicles. It is recommended that the current regulation. City move forward with e-scooters, Gresham should consider treating bike-share programs, and autonomous autonomous vehicles the same as vehicles with robust data procurement TNCs with extra precautions in place strategies and policies. regarding passenger and pedestrian E-scooters and bike-share programs safety. Because autonomous vehicles have the potential to be extremely are an emerging technology, we successful in the city of Gresham recommend specific regulations be if the City models potential data put into place related to liabilities and procurement standards after the City of insurance. Furthermore, if the City of Portland’s e-scooter program and the Gresham were to move forward with City of Seattle’s bike-share program. autonomous vehicle contracts, it is The collection of rider datasets and encouraged to include passenger and performance measures may be used application programming interface (API) as descriptive metrics as well as data as a requirement for all private relational to external criteria, such as stakeholders involved. maintenance records and fleet tracking. Public managers strive to maintain These measures are critical to ensuring accountability to their constituents operationalization and viability of the even though programs are contracted programs. out, therefore contracts and We recommend not contracting with communication with companies should TNCs until company behavior is more be clearly outlined. All contracts, prior transparent and conducive to a public/ to beginning a pilot program, should private partnership with shared data have clear objectives as to how they are and community-focused objectives. contributing to the City’s overarching The City of Gresham does not currently transportation goals regarding have provisions for TNCs or taxis within sustainability, safety, and public/private the city, meaning drastic changes partnerships. would need to occur in order for a

8 Section

Introduction Since the early 2000s, emerging technology vendors have been altering the technology and transportation industries in both the public and private sectors (Sperling 2018). At the forefront of new mobility services are four major subsectors: e-scooters, bike-shares, ride hailing services, and autonomous vehicles.

Companies in these subsectors the Gresham city code. This was done have been contracting with cities with background research on new and municipalities in the emerging mobility companies, a literature review landscape of new mobility with no set of public management and public/ requirements in data procurement, data private transportation contracting, case management, and privacy restrictions. studies evaluating specific cities and Working alongside the City of Gresham, their new mobility results and contracts, we have reviewed types of data that and recommendations for the City of could be required for any new mobility Gresham regarding all four subsectors company wishing to work with the City of new mobility companies. in the future and how these may affect

9 Winter 2019 Background Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

Background At the intersection of transportation, sustainability, and public health live new mobility programs for local governments. Public mobility programs have existed for over 50 years, typically as buses and rail lines in major cities. Today, however, they are taking the shape of bikes, scooters, shared vehicles, and self-driving cars.

There has been notable growth of such private contracts run between 10 programs since 2007 across the United and 20 years and are often renewed, States (Figure 1). There are four distinct sometimes despite cost savings that and central modes of new mobility may be gained from conversion. programs which can be classified as Moreover, it has been shown that (1) scooter companies (Lime, Ride), once a public agency privatizes (2) bike-shares (PeaceHealth Rides, transportation, it is highly reluctant to Biketown), (3) ride-share programs (Lyft, move services back in-house due to Uber), and (4) autonomous vehicles. the ostensibly high barriers of reentry, Cities may incorporate these mobility such as transaction costs, leasing new options into their transportation vehicles, and hiring new employees. planning to capitalize on potential The City of Gresham Transportation benefits such as decreasing traffic System Plan outlines specific goals congestion, reducing oil dependency and objectives for the City to achieve and curbing emissions, and supporting through new policy by 2035. The public and community health goals. primary goal is to develop a “multi- Cities can develop policies to address modal transportation system that market forces and the growing need for enables people walking, biking, taking first- and last-mile transportation. transit and driving to feel equally safe Local governments contracting out and comfortable.” Providing options public transportation is not new: in the that promote accessibility and safety 1950s and 1960s, private companies for all residents are paramount to the provided the majority of bus and City. Promoting collaboration in the other forms of public transit for the form of public/private partnerships and government. In theory, the contracting the contracting of public services to out of public transportation today, increase efficiency is aligned with the specifically for new mobility programs, City’s Transportation Financing Plan provides cost savings in the form of with a specific focus on sustainable fewer labor restrictions and lower labor expenditures and investments that costs, as well as producing competition consider future maintenance costs, that forces contractors to behave more resident safety, and community needs. efficiently in order to enhance cost Therefore, Gresham’s needs are aligned savings. In specific high-density areas, with the introduction of scooter-share, such as the urban core, the level of bike-share, and ride-share programs in efficiency in transit has been shown the region. to be even more heightened. Typical

10 Methodology

Our team sought information from the at the City of Gresham, we reviewed following data sources: Gresham’s TSP. The TSP is a blueprint for biking, walking, driving, and • A literature review of existing policies transit through 2035. Additionally, in other cities to gain a sense of what we reviewed a 2018 report to the is useful and achievable to make legislature that the Oregon Department informed recommendations based on of Transportation AV task force best practices; approved and Sidewalk Toronto’s Data Governance Working Group’s meeting • A review of case studies in cities minutes. We reviewed policies and that have incorporated policies for regulations in cities that have adopted new mobility vehicles to learn what data management tools for new makes the process successful or mobility vehicles including Chicago, unsuccessful; and Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Austin, and Seattle. • The City of Gresham Transportation System Plan (TSP) RATIONALE FOR METHODOLOGY To fully address the scope of our The review of existing policies was research problem, our team decided conducted via a systematic search of that conducting thorough reviews comparable cities’ websites. Part of this of existing policies and cases across review involved data from other cities cities were the most logical and useful that focused on the existing public methods. Examining the history and transportation and either current or current state of data management future forms of new mobility including policies for new mobility vehicles is key e-scooters, bike-share, ride-share, to understanding why these policies and autonomous vehicles. Case exist, what their intended purpose is, studies were found via a search of and how they currently meet or do not literature that examined municipal data meet their intended goals. From there, management contracts for regulating we assessed specific aspects that may new mobility services. be implemented to initiate and improve Following an interview with Planning data contract management in City of and Implementation Manager Katherine Gresham. Kelly and Assistant Planner Carly Rice

11 Winter 2019 Literature Review Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

Literature Review The current literature surrounding public mobility programs is threefold, including texts on the subjects of public/ private transportation contracting, meta-analyses of data requirements for ride-share bicycles and scooters, and reviews of the optimization of ride-share car programs, such as Lyft and Uber, relative to transportation science and public management of programs.

Together, all sources analyzed include because they are rarely revisited in the considerations for data requirements future. Moreover, it is also important in relation to the incorporation of to understand the consequence of the new mobility programs into a public most common system of contracting contract with the City of Gresham. out public transportation in local The first and primary text analyzed U.S. governments, known as the in regard to public transportation and “Scandanavian model” or “London contracting details the benefits and model” (Van de Velde, 1999, p.154). setbacks that come with contracting In this model, the transport authority out public transportation programs creates transit and social policy in local municipalities. Leland and goals as a planning framework and Smirnova recommend that public then contracts out the realization agencies, managers, and local of all planned services with support governments as a whole should of the arranged framework (Van de carefully consider the path dependency Velde, 1999). Van de Velde details the exhibited by local governments before London model as keeping the central entering into contracts with private planning at arms-length, thereby giving entities (Leland & Smirnova, 2014). operational risk to the operators and The path dependency emerges due to not to the authority. conversion and transaction costs that Another core point in the literature the government incurs if they are not of public service outsourcing is to give satisfied with the contract and wish greater attention to the differences to change services. Seventy-seven between consumers and citizens, as percent of local government transit argued by Hefetz and Warner. With agencies reviewed by Leland and public services and infrastructure Smirnova in 2014 indicated that they systems, such as transportarion, that would not change their involvement in tend to have high externalities, citizen contracting within the next 10 years, engagement and dialogue are sought even in the face of greater cost-saving out by municipal entities. This is in alternatives such as moving services in- contrast to market delivery systems, house again (Leland & Smirnova, 2014). which are more homogenous and The empirical evidence found by grouped separately by preference Leland and Smirnova suggests that (Hefetz & Warner, 2011). public agencies must decide carefully Data requirements for contracted before entering into these contracts projects vary depending on the

12 jurisdiction and the program. A meta- data also proved to be valuable for the analysis of ride-share programs City of Portland’s 2018 e-scooter pilot including bicycles and scooters program: when the data points were conducted by Fawcett et al. estimated mapped out and most used routes were that ride-share programs have indicated, the City required a greater increased about 700% worldwide from number of scooters and stations 2004 to 2014 and are still growing in available in those areas (Orr et al., popularity. This led them to question 2019). and assess the effectiveness of local Ride-hailing programs involving laws, requirements, and regulations motor vehicles, such as Uber and to control risk and social impacts of Lyft, are also gaining popularity and programs in densely populated areas disrupting the transportation sector. (Fawcett et al., 2018). Fawcett et al. Data not released from these two major also analyzed origins of ride-sharing stakeholders in the industry include programs in relation to consumer vehicle miles traveled (VMT), passenger protections, such as new safeguards miles traveled (PMT), travel times, mode to protect financial and GPS tracking replacement, VMT increase, parking, information of clients. Because of the transportation equity, and travel need to collect consumer information, behavior (Henao, 2017). Additionally, technological advances in ride- data on the number of cars per fleet sharing programs have today become are invaluable to cities due to the ubiquitous in order for these programs reduction of cars on the transportation to remain successful and profitable. The network, with car-sharing removing an data required by municipalities such as aggregate of nine to 23 vehicles from Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and the road per shared-use vehicle (Henao, Boston are collected to improve the 2017). This is important information safety of bike-share users, pedestrians, for the planning and transportation and motorists. The pilot programs departments and may necessitate a in these cities all mandated that the requirement in a public-private contract companies provide the respective if a local government chooses to transportation authority with access to contract out ride-sharing programs. usage, maintenance, and rider survey Major companies collect information data (Fawcett et al., 2018). on socioeconomic demographics and The City of Lyon’s bike-share program insights into travel behavior of users (Vélo’v), which began operation in collected into “passenger datasets” 2005 and is known as the pioneer that are only released to drivers and smart bike-share program, collected employees of these organizations data on the duration and speed of (Henao, 2017). With access to the riders’ travel as well as the coordinates data, the City of Gresham can attempt of their locations, providing valuable to best optimize the overarching information about most-used docking transportation goals laid out in the stations and popular routes. Moreover, TSP. The TSP first and foremost aims this method of data collection is to foster a “multi-modal transportation particularly valuable for the City to system that enables people walking, create competitive advantages for ride- biking, taking transit and driving to sharing programs, compared to taking feel equally safe and comfortable” a motor vehicle (Fishman et al., 2013). (City of Gresham, 2018). The private The use of company-collected route contractors’ goals are typically to

13 Winter 2019 Literature Review Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

minimize system-wide VMT, minimize such new, dynamic programs have system-wide travel time, and maximize the potential to provide huge societal participants (Agatz et al., 2012). and environmental benefits when Because ride-sharing programs implemented correctly (Agatz et al., have emerged so recently, literature 2012). on pilot programs is limited. However,

14 Section

Case Studies

PORTLAND, OREGON E-SCOOTER and compliance warnings regarding PILOT PROGRAM insufficient data and fleet compliance. The City of Portland permitted Bird Rides, Inc., Lime, and Skip Transport, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON FREE Inc. to begin a pilot program lasting FLOATING BIKE SHARE PROGRAM from July 23, 2018 until November In July 2017, Seattle introduced 20, 2018. The framework for the the first free-floating bike-share pilot program allowed the City to marketplace in the U.S., which has set requirements, put consumer allowed the City to develop and craft protections in place, and create a an ongoing regulatory structure of comprehensive set of data sharing data requirements and elements requirements that the participating related to permit requirements for companies must comply with in bike-share vendors. During the pilot order to contract with the City. The program, three companies were participating companies agreed to the granted permission to participate: Lime set of comprehensive data sharing (green bikes), Ofo (yellow bikes), and requirements, such as the primary Spin (orange bikes). Permits for each dataset of APIs. This included device vendor were non-transferable and availability, trips (start, end, and route lasted up to one year before renewal. data), collisions, complaints, and The vendors were required to indemnify enumerated values that are referenced the City, maintain insurance, take out in the API specifications (PBOT, a surety bond on the City’s behalf, 2019). The City also made specific and reimburse the City for all incurred requirements for the percentage of costs related to noncompliance with fleet available each day in each quarter any and all requirements. Moreover, of the city. For example, at least 100 vendors were required to provide the scooters or 20% of the fleet were to be City with monthly updates related to deployed in East Portland. Compliance structured program goals. In Seattle’s with this requirement was computed case, these included (1) parking and based on the API specifications. From fleet management, (2) rider education, August 15 through the end of the pilot, and (3) equity. Vendors were required each company was permitted to have to submit real-time data to the City on 683 scooters available for rent each deployments, removals, and available day, for a total of 2,043 permitted devices, as well as weekly updates scooters. The City of Portland also of trip data, parking reports, and assessed e-scooters based on their maintenance logs. The vendors were alignment with Portland’s 2035 also required by the City to notify all Transportation System Plan (TSP), which riders of the data they reported and outlines specific goals for creating collected. Seattle also reserved the a multimodal, safe, and equitable right to perform random compliance transportation system through the audits to enforce vendor compliance, reduction of motor vehicle use, fatality especially looking for improper prevention, and expansion of access parking practices and clusters of bikes to underserved Portlanders. In keeping creating obstruction hazards. Similarly with the TSP, the City issued penalties to Portland’s fleet requirements, at

15 Winter 2019 Case Studies Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

least 70% of a vendor’s deployed fleet voluntarily share certain proprietary was required to be in good working and sensitive commercial data. Uber condition and available to rent at any agreed to share the pick-up and time, and less than 10% could have drop-off location of each Uber trip maintenance-related issues. The City and data regarding date, time, and also required an application fee of duration of trips that originate and/or $50 per device per vendor in order to end in the city. The City is allowed to facilitate the structured program goals. aggregate and use the data for reports, presentations, plans, press releases, TRANSPORTATION NETWORK and other publications or City work COMPANIES products. As congestion increases, many Seattle has a similar reporting system municipalities are looking to regulate for TNCs. They focus on four areas of transportation network companies TNC regulation: (1) licensing of TNCs, (TNC) in order to collect data for (2) acceptable routes and excludable future transportation planning. Taxis areas of operation, (3) controlling rates are historically heavily regulated, per ride, city taxes paid by user, and fee but TNCs have operated in many collection, and (4) standards for driver jurisdictions without any regulatory hires and safety equipment (O’Connor- structure” (O’Connor-Kriss et al., 2017). Kriss et al., 2017). The most common TNCs, Lyft and Although these regulations went into Uber, are collecting massive amounts effect in 2014, we were not able to see of transportation data in every city in how the data were collected because which they operate. However, TNCs are the TNCs immediately sued the City hesitant to share user data with local under the Public Records Act, arguing governments. Where governments see that the City would be publishing user data as a tool for restructuring information that would be detrimental their transportation, TNCs see this as to the companies and their customers. breech of customer privacy. The lengthy lawsuit ended with the Many cities have implemented a Washington State supreme court ruling per-ride tax that charges riders a fee 5-4 in the City’s favor. The supreme at the start of their journey in the city court ruled that under the “Public of origin. Chicago was one of the first Records Act government documents cities to implement this tax and has containing trade secrets to be withheld collected enough data to create their ‘only if disclosure would clearly not own report on how TNC’s are affecting be in the public interest and would transportation in their city (Freund, substantially and irreparably damage a 2019). Chicago’s data are collected person or a vital government interest’” through a three-part reporting (Gutman, 2018.) Seattle is now able to requirement that collects a per-ride see how many Uber and Lyft drivers tax, TNC driver registration details, are operating in the city and put the and manual monthly reports required collected data into a report, although by TNCs operating in the city. This it is not yet available to the public. “In requirement was set up through city 2016, Uber and Lyft were forced to ordinance and took several years of reveal that they had 9,200 drivers in negotiating (Freund, 2019). the city. Today [in 2018], Uber alone has In July 12, 2015, the City of Boston 14,000 drivers in Seattle, according to and Uber made an agreement to the Supreme Court” (Gutman, 2018).

16 Section

Chicago was able to use this precedent The Portland Bureau of to gain the same types of information Transportation created administrative from TNCs. rules to govern autonomous vehicle in the city area. These guidelines AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES are designed to spur innovation and Fifty cities across the globe are testing guide this emerging transportation AVs, and several others are on their way. technology to serve community goals, Many cities and municipal bodies do achieve the City’s Vision Zero goal to not have legislation in place for those eliminate all traffic deaths and serious and are working to develop policies injuries by 2015, prioritize electric and to manage AVs as they come online. shared fleet options, and encourage Mayor Sam Licardo announced a Smart testing of new technologies. The City vision for San Jose in 2016. The regulation requires AV operators to City released a request for information maintain focus and have the ability pertaining to AVs that received 30 to take control of the vehicle at all submissions. The city is now planning times, only operate AVs within City- for data-sharing agreements. Chandler, designated areas, and comply with Arizona, has been ground zero for all applicable laws and requirements. autonomous vehicle testing. Waymo, AVs must obtain permits and licenses formerly known as the Google Self from the Bureau of Transportation, Driving Car Project, has been testing its and failure to comply with these rules autonomous vehicles in the area since is subject to an assessment of civil 2016. penalties by the director of the Bureau of Transportation.

17 Winter 2019 Recommendations Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

Recommendations

E-SCOOTERS AND BIKE SHARE emphasize the overarching goals of PROGRAMS sustainability, safety, and the promotion As evidenced through the case of multi-modal transportation systems. studies done on e-scooter and bike- share programs, it is apparent that TRANSPORTATION NETWORK some form of data collection, either COMPANIES through application programming The revised Gresham Code does interfaces (APIs) or contract and permit not currently have provisions for taxi requirements, would be beneficial to services or Transportation Network creating and maintaining a vibrant, Companies (TNCs). Most TNCs are safety-conscious new mobility also technically self-classified as program in the city of Gresham. It communications companies in order to is recommended that the City of gain a different kind of business license Gresham model their potential data in the cities where they operate. Based procurement standards after the City on these two facts, we recommend that of Portland for an e-scooter program the City of Gresham replicate Seattle’s and the City of Seattle for a bike-share four-part regulation system if they move program. These performance measures forward with contracting with TNCs: would be recorded in their natural, (1) definition of TNCs and licensing descriptive metric as well in in relation available to them; (2) definition of to an external criterion, such as the acceptable routes and excludable percentage of e-scooters or bikes areas of operation; (3) controlling rates that need maintenance (Hill & Lynn per ride, city taxes paid by user, and 2016). These measures are critical in fee collection; and (4) standards for operationalization because even though driver hires and the safety equipment the programs are privately contracted, standards (O’Connor-Kriss et al., 2017). public transportation managers This would allow Gresham to set up a will still have accountability to their series of internal controls that would constituents and must have all the define the scope of both TNC operation information possible to make informed and public oversight by the City. The and discretionary decisions (Hill & Lynn fees per ride for Portland, Seattle and 2016). Eugene are $0.50, $0.24 and $0.16, Monthly check-in meetings between respectively. We recommend Gresham City transportation coordinators and use the same fee per ride as Portland to company representatives could be held maximize revenue and create continuity in order to assess program success, in the region. If Gresham decides to safety risks or hazards, and placement move forward with the contract, we of fleets through the city. It is also also recommend that an oversight recommended that the City of Gresham committee be set up to monitor the use and any mobility company wishing of the revenue from these contracts to submit a contracting application and decide where it will be spent in to the City develop a set of concrete advance. goals and objectives for e-scooter and Please note that contracting with bike-share programs that is specifically TNCs will likely significantly decrease aligned with the City’s Transportation ridership on public transit. When System Plan. Ideally, these would deciding to contract with these

18 Section

companies, public managers may Modernize Regulations weigh revenue losses from not only The City of Gresham could influence transfer of funds through different the design of how AVs work by services but also the damage that an participating in the drafting the increased vehicle presence will create rules that govern AVs and involve on the streets. For these reasons, we stakeholders in that dialog as well. recommend that Gresham not allow TNCs to operate in their city. Encourage a Consistent Regulatory and Operational Environment AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES The city of Gresham is in close Autonomous vehicles operated by proximity to the city of Portland. transportation network companies are Complying with the rules that Portland required to follow guidelines that apply adopts maintains consistency among to TNCs. Additionally, there are other autonomous vehicle companies in the points to be considered in the contract: Portland Metro area.

Prioritize Safety Data Requirement AVs are an emerging technology The City of Gresham is encouraged to that may present serious concerns include the following data requirements regarding safety standards. The City in contracts with AV companies. of Gresham safety guidelines could include the following: • Provide data on each completed AV trip and fleet availability • Rider’s insurance and a liability insurance • Provide updated data at certain time frequency such as hourly data • Requirement of demonstrated test results showing safety in simulated • The provider-facing API implemented environments by AVs as service provider will generate data to be shared with the Remain Technologically Neutral City The City should adopt flexible, technology-neutral policies that • Reduce parking durations for AVs encourage innovation and competition, to disincentivize occupying street resulting in efficient and effective parking means of transportation. As public managers discover and implement • Support City efforts to install innovative forms of action to make charging points to encourage electric changes, remaining technologically fleet neutral encourages innovation and adaptation to changing technologies. • Agree to allow the City to aggregate and interpret data

19 Winter 2019 References Contracting with New Mobility in Gresham, Oregon

References

Agatz, N., Erera, A., Savelsbergh, M., & Larsen, Janet (2013, April 25). Bike Sharing Wang, Z. (2012, December 1). Optimization Programs Hit the Streets in Over 500 Cities for Dynamic Ride-Sharing: A Review. Worldwide. Earth Policy Institute of Rutgers European Journal for Operational Research, University. 223(2), 295-303. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille, & Caruso, City of Chicago Transportation Department. Geoffrey (2015, May 23). Estimating Bike- Transportation Network Providers Vehicles. Share Trips Using Station Level Data. Journal Retrieved from: https://data.cityofchicago. of Transportation Research. Vol. 78, 260-279. org/Transportation/Transportation-Network- Providers-Vehicle/bc6b-sq4u O’Connor-Kriss, S., Segal, M., & Evanson, K. (2017, Apr). Sharing the Road with Uber and Dill, Jennifer, MacArthur, John, & Orr, Briana Lyft. Presentation from 2017 Spring WSAMA (2019, February 1). The Portland E-Scooter Conference, Semiahmoo Resort, Blaine, Experience. Transportation Research and Washington. Education Center Friday Seminar Series. 163. Portland Bureau of Transportation (2019). Fawcett, Cole Ruajcag, Barboza, Destin, 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report. Portland Gasvoda, Hudson, & Bernier, Michael Bureau of Transportation. David (2018, December). Analyzing Rideshare Bicycles and Scooters. Worcester Seattle Department of Transportation (2018, Polytechnic Institute Digital WPI. November 16). Free-Floating Bike Share Program: Permit Requirements for the 2018- Fishman, Elliott, Narelle, Hayworth, & 2019 Permit Cycle. Seattle Department of Washington, Simon (2013, February 9). Transportation.Version 2.1. Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature. Transport Reviews. Vol. 33, No. 2, 148–165. Shaheen, Susan (2012, June 1). Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Freund, S. (2019, Apr) Chicago First City to Operator and User Understanding, MTI Publish Data on Ride-Hailing Trips, Drivers, Report 11-19. Mineta Transportation Institute and Vehicles. Retrieved from: https:// Publications. chicago.curbed.com/2019/4/15/18311340/ uber-lyft-chicago-data-fares-drivers. Sperling, Daniel (2018, July 12). New Mobility Companies for a New Future. Forbes Gutman, D. (2018, May) Uber and Lyft May Transportation. have to Disclose Seattle Data They Claim Secret, Supreme Court Rules. The Seattle Van de Velde, D.M. (1999, July). Times. Organisational Forms and Entrepreneurship in Public Transport: Classifying Henao, Alejandro (2017, 13 May). Impacts Organisational Forms. Transport Policy. Vol. of Ridesourcing—Lyft and Uber—On 6, Issue 3, 147-157. Transportation Including VMT, Mode Replacement, Parking, and Travel Behavior. Wolfgang, Kersten, Blecker, Thorston, & University of Colorado. Ringle, Christian (2015, August). Innovations and Strategies for Logistics and Supply Hill, Carolyn J. & Laurence, Lynn E. (2016). Chains. Proceedings of the Hamburg Public Management: Thinking and Acting International Conference of Logistics (HICL). in Three Dimensions. Sage Publications Inc. Vol. 20. Edition 2.

Hwang, Keith, & Giuliano, Genevieve (1990, May 1). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. The University of California Transportation Center. No. 28.

20

SCI Directors and Staff

Marc Schlossberg SCI Co-Director, and Professor of Planning, Public Policy, and Management, University of Oregon Nico Larco SCI Co-Director, and Professor of Architecture, University of Oregon Megan Banks SCYP Manager, University of Oregon Sean Vermilya Report Coordinator Katie Fields SCYP Graduate Employee Jonathan Yamakami Graphic Designer