DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Reduction Measures Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Reduction Measures Report Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memorandum November 2020 Prepared for: Lake County Division of Transportation Prepared by: AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 aecom.com In association with: Metro Strategies, Inc. Joseph P. Schwieterman Analytics, Inc. AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study ii Table of contents 1 SOV Reduction Study Background ...............................................................1 1.1 SOV Reduction Measures Overview ........................................................................................ 2 2 Categories of Measures ..................................................................................3 3 SOV Reduction Measure Sources .................................................................4 3.1 Peer Agency Interviews ............................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Literature/Web Search .............................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Local SOV Reduction Examples............................................................................................... 8 3.4 Emerging Mobilities .................................................................................................................. 8 3.4.1 Automated Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 9 3.4.2 Connected Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 9 3.4.3 Transportation Network Companies and Shared Mobility .............................................. 10 3.4.4 Mobility as a Service ..................................................................................................... 10 3.4.5 Microtransit ................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.6 Resource pricing .......................................................................................................... 11 3.5 Electric-Assist Mobility ........................................................................................................... 12 4 SOV Reduction Measures .............................................................................14 4.1 Commute Options Programming ........................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 Marketing / Outreach .................................................................................................... 14 4.1.2 Subsidies and Incentives .............................................................................................. 15 4.1.3 Alternative Work Arrangements .................................................................................... 16 4.1.4 Worksite Amenities ....................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Rideshare ................................................................................................................................ 18 4.3 Transit ..................................................................................................................................... 19 4.4 Pedestrian, Bicycle, Scooter .................................................................................................. 20 4.5 Non-commute/Non-employer Based Strategies .................................................................... 21 4.6 Technology.............................................................................................................................. 22 4.7 Parking .................................................................................................................................... 23 4.8 Roadway .................................................................................................................................. 24 4.9 Land Use and Policy ............................................................................................................... 25 5 Evaluation of Measures ................................................................................27 5.1 Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Factors ............................................................................ 27 6 SOV Reduction Measures Comparative Performance ...............................34 AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study iii Figures Figure 1-1. Lake County and Region........................................................................................................ 1 Tables Table 1-1. Lake County Drive Alone Work Travel over Time .................................................................... 1 Table 3-1. Peer Interview Agencies.......................................................................................................... 4 Table 5-1. Goals, Objectives, Evaluation Factors and Scoring ................................................................ 29 Table 5-2. Evaluation Matrix of SOV Measures ...................................................................................... 30 Table 6-1. SOV Reduction Measures by Rating ..................................................................................... 35 Appendices A Lake County SOV Reduction Peer Review B SOV Reduction Document Log C Local SOV Reduction Examples D Emerging Mobilities E Electric-Assist Mobility AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study iv Abbreviations / Acronyms ACS American Community Survey AV Automated Vehicles AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy CTPP Census Transportation Planning Products CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning CTA Chicago Transit Administration CTR Commuter Trip Reduction CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program CWW Compressed Work Week CV Connected Vehicles DSRC Dedicated Short-Range Communications Ebike Electric Assisted Bicycles Escooter Electric Assisted Scooters EV Electric Vehicle ETR Employee Trip Reduction FTA Federal Transit Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration GTFS General Transit Feed Specification HOT High Occupancy Toll Lanes HOV High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ISTHA Illinois State Toll Highway Authority IBTTA International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation ITS Intelligent Transportation System LCDOT Lake County Division of Transportation LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MaaS Mobility as a Service NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administartion NTD FTA's National Transit Database PAYD Pay as You Drive Insurance RTA Regional Transportation Authority SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SAE Society of Automotive Engineers TDM Transportation Demand Management TMA Transportation Management Association TMC Traffic Management Center TMI Transportation Management Initiative TMO Transportation Management Organization TNC Transportation Network Companies TOD Transit-Oriented Development US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study v SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memoradum 1 SOV REDUCTION STUDY BACKGROUND Lake County is one of five collar counties of Cook County that Figure 1-1. Lake County and Region make up the metropolitan area of Chicago. Lake County is north of Chicago along Lake Michigan and forms the northern boundary with Wisconsin. The County’s development patterns include rural communities, highly developed urban centers, and tourist destinations. Lake County’s transportation network is made up of roads, railways, bridges, bike paths, and other components. Transportation providers include the State of Illinois, Lake County, 52 municipalities, 15 township road districts, Illinois Tollway, Metra commuter rail, and Pace Suburban Bus. Figure 1-1 provides a general map of Lake County and the surrounding region. As is the case with most suburban areas of large metropolitan regions, Lake County’s dominant travel mode is the automobile. Since most miles traveled in the County are in a vehicle operated by a single person, or “single-occupancy vehicle” (SOV), the Lake County Division of Transportation (LCDOT) proposed this study to investigate potential ways to reduce SOV travel to reduce congestion and environmental impacts from vehicle emissions. The Census Bureau collects data on the means of travel to work, which provides perspective on the level of SOV travel in . Lake County. This was obtained through a sample of the decennial Censuses up to and including the 2000 Census, and thereafter has been collected as part of the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS combines journey to work data into 5-year periods to improve the confidence of the sampling. Data can be summarized by residence geography or employment geography. Table 1-1 summarizes the number Table 1-1. Lake County Drive Alone Work Travel over Time of workers who drive alone as the primary mode of transportation to Place of Residence Place of Work work between 1990 and 2016, Workers Workers % of all % of all subdivided by workers who reside Year who Drive who Drive Workers Workers in the County and workers Alone Alone employed in the County (note that 1990 200,994 74.4% 183,853 75.0% there is substantial overlap due to 2000 242,361 76.3% 254,995 78.2% the large share of workers who 2006-2010 260,540 76.7% 277,370 78.8% both reside and work in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Delivering Justice: Food Delivery Cyclists in New York City
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Delivering Justice: Food Delivery Cyclists in New York City Do J. Lee The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2794 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DELIVERING JUSTICE: FOOD DELIVERY CYCLISTS IN NEW YORK CITY by DO JUN LEE A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 ii © 2016 DO JUN LEE All Rights Reserved iii DELIVERING JUSTICE: FOOD DELIVERY CYCLISTS IN NEW YORK CITY by DO JUN LEE This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Psychology to satisfy the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Susan Saegert Date Chair of Examining Committee Richard Bodnar Date Executive Officer Michelle Fine Tarry Hum Adonia Lugo Melody Hoffmann Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv ABSTRACT Delivering Justice: Food Delivery Cyclists in New York City by Do Jun Lee Advisor: Dr. Susan Saegert In New York City (NYC), food delivery cyclists ride the streets all day and night long to provide convenient, affordable, hot food to New Yorkers. These working cyclists are often Latino or Asian male immigrants who are situated within intersectional and interlocking systems of global migration and capital flows, intense time pressures by restaurants and customers, precarious tip-based livelihoods, an e-bike ban and broken windows policing, and unsafe streets designed for drivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Bicycles Are Coming on Strong and Wisconsin Law Needs to Catch up with Celebrate Them
    MARATHON COUNTY FORESTRY/RECREATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Date and Time of Meeting: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 12:30pm Meeting Location: Conference Room #3, 212 River Drive, Wausau WI 54403 MEMBERS: Arnold Schlei (Chairman), Rick Seefeldt (Vice-Chairman), Jim Bove Marathon County Mission Statement: Marathon County Government serves people by leading, coordinating, and providing county, regional, and statewide initiatives. It directly or in cooperation with other public and private partners provides services and creates opportunities that make Marathon County and the surrounding area a preferred place to live, work, visit, and do business. Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department Mission Statement: Adaptively manage our park and forest lands for natural resource sustainability while providing healthy recreational opportunities and unique experiences making Marathon County the preferred place to live, work, and play. Agenda Items: 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comment Period – Not to Exceed 15 Minutes 3. Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2019 Committee Meeting 4. Educational Presentations/Outcome Monitoring Reports A. Article – Report Says Wisconsin Forestry on the Upswing B. Article – Wisconsin Tourism Industry Generates 21.6 Billion C. Article – May 2019 Paper and Forestry Products Month D. Articles – Electronic Assist Bikes 5. Operational Functions Required by Statute, Ordinance or Resolution: A. Discussion and Possible Action by Committee 1. Timber Sale Extension Requests a. Tigerton Lumber – Contract #642-15 b. Central Wisconsin Lumber – Contract #644-15 2. Discussion and Possible Action on Ordering a Second Appraisal for Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Funding on Property in the Town of Hewitt B. Discussion and Possible Action by Committee to Forward to the Environmental Resource Committee for its Consideration - None 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Micromobility and Related Motorized Devices for Personal Transport
    INFO BRIEF The basics of micromobility and related motorized devices for personal transport www.pedbikeinfo.org 1 Introduction With a surge of new personal transportation weight categories. Cities or other jurisdictions devices coming to market, some integrated into can define the weight and width limitations for shared ride systems (such as bikeshare programs), different types of roadway facilities. there is a need to establish a common vocabulary for these options, and provide basic information This info brief specifically focuses on micromobility about how these devices are classified and devices used for personal transportation on regulated. This info brief provides an overview of paved roads, sidewalks, and paths, and does not powered forms of micromobility and compares cover devices used for vocational purposes and features of micromobility with a spectrum of other commercial goods/services delivery or for off- traditional and emerging forms of transportation. road or air-based travel. While pedestrians and It references and builds upon micromobility bicyclists—including those using nonmotorized definitions created by the Society of Automotive bikeshare bikes—might share similar Engineers (SAE), a standards-developing characteristics (such as small size and low travel organization and professional association. speed speed) as well as use the same facilities where micromobility devices are operated, they Powered micromobility devices, sometimes called are already well-defined by most regulatory, personal e-mobility devices, share
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Agenda
    CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 2450 E. Quincy Avenue City Hall Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvillage.com FAX 303-761-9386 Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission Agenda Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. This meeting is being held electronically with no in-person attendance at City Hall. To provide oral comments during Audience Participation: Please email Parks & Recreation Coordinator Emily Black by 5:00 p.m. on Nov. 12th at [email protected] with your full name and home address. You will receive an email with the electronic meeting information. To watch the meeting (no participation): 1) City website – City Council Videos, Agendas, Packets, Minutes 2) City YouTube channel – City of Cherry Hills Village YouTube 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Audience Participation Period (limit 5 minutes per speaker) 4. Consent Agenda th a. Approval of Minutes – September 10 , 2020 th b. Approval of Minutes – October 8 , 2020 5. Unfinished Business a. PTRC Projects and Priorities List 6. New Business a. E-Bikes and Motorized Vehicles on Trails 7. Reports a. Chair b. Commissioners c. Staff i. December meeting ii. High Line Canal signs iii. Alan Hutto Memorial Commons policy 8. Adjournment Notice: Agenda is subject to change. If you will need special assistance in order to attend any of the City’s public meetings, please notify the City of Cherry Hills Village at 303-789-2541, 72 hours in advance. Minutes of the Parks, Trails & Recreation Commission of the City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado Held on Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 5:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Bicycle and E-Bike Research, Policies & Management
    Literature Review Recreation Conflicts Focused on Emerging E-bike Technology December 19, 2019 Tina Nielsen Sadie Mae Palmatier Abraham Proffitt Acknowledgments E-bikes are still a nascent technology, and the research surrounding their use and acceptance within the recreation space is minimal. However, with the careful and constructive guidance of our consultants, the report outline morphed into chapters and, eventually, into a comprehensive document. We are deeply indebted to Mary Ann Bonnell, Morgan Lommele, and Stacey Schulte for guiding our thinking and research process and for supplementing our findings with resources and other support. We would like to express our deep appreciation to Lisa Goncalo, Tessa Greegor, Jennifer Alsmstead, and Rick Bachand for their careful and thoughtful reviews. Your gracious offer of time and knowledge was invaluable to our work. We also wish to acknowledge the help of Kacey French, John Stokes, Alex Dean, June Stoltman, and Steve Gibson for their consideration and continued interest in the process. Thanks are also due to colleagues at the Boulder County Parks & Open Space and Boulder County Transportation Departments, who offered their expertise at crucial moments in this process. We would like to offer our special thanks to Bevin Carithers, Pascale Fried, Al Hardy, Eric Lane, Tonya Luebbert, Michelle Marotti, Jeffrey Moline, Alex Phillips, and Marni Ratzel. None of this work would have been possible without the generous financial support from the City of Boulder, City of Fort Collins, and Larimer
    [Show full text]
  • People for Bikes
    Sarah Fitzgerald Recreation Program Manager Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Golf 404 N Havana Street Spokane, WA 99202 Dear Recreation Program Manager Sarah Fitzgerald, In response to your department’s recent solicitation of public input on electric bicycle management on natural surface trails, I am writing to encourage the definition of the three classes of electric bicycles within Section 6.14.030 of Spokane County Parks’ regulations, and allow Class 1 electric bicycle access on non-motorized and natural surface trails wherever bikes are allowed.1 We would like to offer our resources to you as you consider such changes to your current policy. PeopleForBikes is the national bicycling advocacy group that works for better policies and infrastructure for bike riding. We strive to make bike riding a safer and more inclusive activity for everyone, including our 40,000 individual supporters in Washington. We engage with land managers across the country to help develop electric bicycle policies that reflect the needs of their local communities. The results from your recent electric bicycle survey demonstrate local support for Class 1 electric bicycle access on natural surface trails.2 The adoption of this policy would be a fair and sensible decision, as Class 1 electric bicycles are similar to traditional bicycles and simply give riders – regardless of age, or physical, or cognitive ability – an extra boost when riding. The three-class system of electric bicycles has already been defined in 28 states’ motor vehicle codes (including Washington3) and six states’ park codes (Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming) due to the clarity it provides when regulating the use of electric bicycles.
    [Show full text]
  • TO: Chairman Hornstein and the Transportation Finance & Policy
    TO: Chairman Hornstein and the Transportation Finance & Policy Committee FROM: Morgan Lommele, Director of State and Local Policy, PeopleForBikes DATE: February 9, 2021 SUBJECT: HF32 (Elkins) - Electric-assisted bicycle classification and regulation modified Dear Chairman Hornstein and the Transportation Finance & Policy Committee, On behalf of PeopleForBikes, I encourage passage of HF 32. PeopleForBikes is the national advocacy group and trade association that works for better policies and infrastructure for bike riding. Our coalition includes companies that manufacture or sell bicycles and related products, including electric bicycles; as well as 40,000 individual supporters in Minnesota. Electric bicycles are an emerging technology, and need clear rules to regulate their use and create stability in the marketplace. In states where modern day electric bicycles lack a specific vehicle classification, such as Minnesota, it is unclear how they are regulated, which creates significant confusion for consumers and retailers, and hinders the electric bicycle market. Electric bicycles are enjoyed by people from all walks of life. They make riding a bicycle for fun, commuting or transportation easier and faster and provide an affordable and competitive transportation option. Electric bicycles are also a dependable option for people limited by fitness, age, or disability; as well as for those who traditionally drive to work in the 5-20 mile range. Until recently, manufacturers were faced with inconsistent, outdated and unclear rules that governed where electric bicycle purchasers could use their product. In response to this, U.S. electric bicycle manufacturers came together to develop the three-class system six years ago, reflected in HF 32, to update regulations around critical issues like speed, wattage, and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • TO: Chair Craven and House Committee on Judiciary FROM: Alex
    TO: Chair Craven and House Committee on Judiciary FROM: Alex Logemann, Policy Counsel, PeopleForBikes Coalition DATE: March 24, 2021 SUBJECT: House Bill 5872 (Electric Bicycles) Dear Chair Craven and the Member of the House Committee on Judiciary: On behalf of the PeopleForBikes Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 5872, legislation that would define and regulate electric bicycles. The PeopleForBikes Coalition is the national advocacy group and trade association that works for better policies and infrastructure for bike riding. Our coalition includes nearly 300 companies and brands that manufacture, distribute, or sell bicycles and related products, including electric bicycles. Electric bicycles are a still emerging technology that need clear rules to regulate their use and create stability in the marketplace. As electric bicycle adoption continues to grow and these products mature, manufacturers, retailers, and bike riders need clear rules that define these products and state what rules apply to them when they are being used. Our goal at PeopleForBikes has been to harmonize terminology and regulation at all levels of government so electric bicycles have consistent rules throughout the United States. Before discussing the changes that this legislation would make to the law, I’d like to provide some general information about electric bicycles and who rides them. An electric bicycle is designed similarly to a traditional bicycle but has three additional components – a small motor that provides assistance to the bike rider, a battery to provide power to the motor, and electronics that enable the rider to control the system. Recent advances in electronic and battery technology have made electric bicycles more affordable and more enjoyable to ride.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Bikes and Scooters Snapshot of State Laws
    Electric Bikes and Scooters Snapshot of State Laws State legislators, including those in Montana, are examining state laws, analyzing the use of electronic bikes (e-bikes), and determining how best, if at all, to regulate their use on public streets and paths. According to the National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL), 33 states and the District of Columbia define e-bikes in law.1 Montana is included in that list. Montana law (61-8-102, MCA) defines e-bikes, or “electrically assisted bicycles” as a bicycle 61-8-602, MCA with two operational pedals with a motor attached propels the bicycle and a rider who weighs Traffic laws applicable to persons operating 170 pounds no faster than 20 miles an hour. Essentially, for the purposes of regulation and bicycles or mopeds. A person operating a bicycle or enforcement, an e-bike is treated as a bicycle. The state does not require license or moped is granted all of the rights and is subject to registration. And e-bikes may be ridden on roadways and bicycle paths. all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by chapter 7, chapter 9, and this chapter Federal law provides guidance in terms of the manufacturing and sale of e-bikes in the nation. except for special regulations in this part or the Amendments to the Consumer Product Safety Commission passed by Congress in 2002 provide provisions of chapter 7, chapter 9, and this chapter a definition of e-bikes as “A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an that by their nature cannot apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations of E-Bikes in North America
    NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITIES REPORT Regulations of E-Bikes in North America NITC-RR-564 August 2014 A University Transportation Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation REGULATIONS OF E-BIKES IN NORTH AMERICA A POLICY REVIEW Report NITC-RR-564 by John MacArthur Portland State University Nicholas Kobel Portland State University for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 August 2014 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. NITC-RR-564 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date August 2014 REGULATIONS OF E-BIKES IN NORTH AMERICA: A POLICY REVIEW 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John MacArthur, Portland State University Nicholas Kobel, Portland State University 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Portland State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 1825 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97201 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Throughout the world, the electric bicycle (e-bike) industry is growing very quickly. The North American market has been somewhat slow to adopt this technology, which is still considered to be in the “early adopter” phase (Rose & Dill, 2011; Rose, 2011), but in recent years, this has begun to change. But as e-bike numbers increase, so too will potential conflicts (actual or perceived) with other vehicles and non-motorized devices, bicycles and pedestrians, causing policy questions to arise.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Staff Analysis Bill #: Cs/Cs
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: CS/CS/HB 971 Electric Bicycles SPONSOR(S): State Affairs Committee, Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee, Grant, M. TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/SB 1148 REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee 12 Y, 0 N, As CS Roth Vickers 2) Transportation & Tourism Appropriations 12 Y, 0 N Hicks Davis Subcommittee 3) State Affairs Committee 21 Y, 0 N, As CS Roth Williamson SUMMARY ANALYSIS In Florida, a bicycle means every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. Thus, the term includes both traditional bicycles and motorized or electric bicycles (e-bikes). The bill removes e-bikes from the definition of the term “bicycle” and creates a new definition for e-bikes using a three-tiered classification system. Class 1 e-bikes are bicycles equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes are bicycles equipped with a throttle-assisted motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Report and Ordinance
    Regional Transportation Planning Staff Report Date: February 23, 2017 To: Summit County Council From: Bob Radke, SBSRD Trails & Open Space Manager Caroline Rodriguez, Regional Transportation Planning Director Re: County Ordinance Regulating Electric Assisted Bicycles (EAB) Background A new style of bicycle is starting to populate the trails in and around Summit County. They are called “Electric Assisted Bicycles” (EAB) and they have the ability to be propelled by an electric motor at speeds around 20 mph. They also have pedals and can be powered solely by human power. Or, a combination of the two can be used. All of the trails managed by Basin Recreation are deemed non-motorized. The State of Utah classifies EABs as non-motorized even though some of them can be propelled solely by an electric motor. The Utah State Code does allow local jurisdictions to regulate the use of electric bicycles. During 2014, Park City Municipal Corporation (PCMC) enlisted the help of Fehr & Pehrs to conduct a study of the regulation of EAB in similar communities. PCMC staff informed Snyderville Basin Recreation (SBSRD) staff of their intention to look into this matter and move to make a recommendation to the city council to regulate the use of EAB on city operated trails. Together, staff from each entity collaborated to establish suggested parameters for such regulations. SBSRD staff gathered local, public input during the board meeting on July 16, 2014 and through a survey circulated through social media channels where there were 286 respondents. Board members evaluated the surveys and the study provided by PCMC. The results of the survey indicates a trend in our community’s opinion towards the use of EAB on the public trails: approximately 60% feel it is appropriate to use EAB on paved transportation trails while over 90% feel they should be prohibited from use on single-track trails.
    [Show full text]