Flagstaff advances multi-vendor micromobility permit model over single-vendor RFP approach

Flagstaff BAC Backs Multi-Vendor Micromobility Model; Recommends Permit Process Over Restrictive RFP, Eyes Infrastructure Gaps as Bigger Priority

Flagstaff's Bicycle Advisory Committee unanimously leaned toward a "free-market" permit model for dockless scooters and bike-share on March 28, rejecting a single-vendor RFP approach and endorsing vendor competition—but only after endorsing a slew of conditions and infrastructure changes that underline the committee's view that micromobility is a symptom of, not a solution to, deeper urban design failures.

The two-hour session revealed a staff-facilitated consensus that four vendors waiting in the wings (Veo, Spin, Bird, and Populace—the last unfamiliar even to presenters) should be permitted to operate under a revised code framework, contingent on data-sharing, equity pricing, geofencing compliance, and most critically, proof that the city upgrades its downtown bike lanes and sidewalk capacity. The mood was one of cautious embrace tempered by institutional self-awareness: micromobility won't work in a city that still forbids scooters on sidewalks while lacking downtown protected lanes.

Key Speeches

"I am not anti-scooter but I am pro-bicycle and I would like I do not want to see a program come here that offers 100% scooters. I think 70/30 is about as much as I would be comfortable with... I really love the bicycles and you talk about the physical activity component of it. I would love to see regular bicycles be a part of the program." — Stella Weaver, BAC member

"I think a lot of the risks can be avoided and I would like in the presentation if the city and Metro Plan agree: a lot of them can be avoided if like we stop prioritizing cars, especially like the high injury... if we were to slow down speeds, like you know add better bike infrastructure. That's the biggest way we can reduce that risk and like parking, especially in downtown, willing to remove car parking spots and add like special zones." — Stella Weaver, BAC member

"I do feel like [scooter] public opinion about scooters and who is most likely to use scooters... that's going to be tough. I think in terms of planning for implementation I feel like you might have some good PR... to promote not only explain why these are helpful but also to suggest that they're actually for multiple uses and that current residents who are not NAU students could use them too." — Kevin Rubedor, BAC member

"I realize in from Mobility Share is not going to solve that but you know I in my opinion that's the bigger issue especially if you're a person with some sort of physical disability... I would like to see um a program where maybe the Guidance Center and the shelter or whoever is in contact with are most needy have the ability to get them an ebike for the day or you know for sure without the need for a bank account." — Jen Hanks, BAC member

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Kim Austin (Metro Plan) and Jamie LaRon (sustainability office) presented 30-page feasibility study covering 421 North American peer cities, risk mitigation strategies, and three implementation pathways. Presentation drew on Pure Cities research, prior Flagstaff Spin pilot (2018, ~3,000 trips in six months), and failed gotcha Bike Share contract (2019, never deployed).

• Staff recommendation: Metro Plan and Mountain Line recommend proceeding with intentional exploration of vendor-permitting model (Option C), with emphasis on geofencing, liability insurance, data collection, equity access, and infrastructure improvements to downtown bike lanes and sidewalks. Flagstaff code currently permits vendors to apply but has no permit process in place, effectively prohibiting entry.

• Public comment: Three online participants (identified as Chris, Sam, and Paul) offered remarks on incentive structures for proper scooter parking, multi-vendor technology coordination, and personal experience with scooter use in DC and European cities. Martin Rudd (BAC member, online) requested future discussion of federal funding dispersal across planned pedestrian-bike projects.

• Council discussion: BAC polling showed overwhelming preference for Option C (multiple vendors, permit-based) over Option B (RFP single vendor) or Option A (code prohibition). Daniel Crain (present), Kevin Hayes, and Jen Hanks voiced early support. Stella Weaver and Kevin Rubedor raised the deepest concerns: infrastructure gaps (downtown lacks protected bike lanes; scooters prohibited on sidewalks despite absence of safe roadway alternatives), equity access (unbanked populations excluded without phone/bank account), winter management (snow removal, device retrieval, seasonal shut-downs), and public perception (association with NAU students inviting community resistance). Consensus emerged that micromobility will highlight—not create—pre-existing infrastructure failures.

• Vote: No formal vote taken. Informal hand/verbal polling: Option C received unanimous or near-unanimous support. No dissent registered.

Opposition

Not formally registered. No speakers opposed the micromobility pathway. Discussion focused on conditions and concerns rather than rejection of the concept.

Support

• Number of speakers: BAC members constituted primary advocates; online public commenters (Chris, Sam, Paul, Martin Rudd) offered supportive asides. No organized pro-scooter constituency present.

• Main supporting points:

  1. Market competition drives innovation, pricing, and user experience—preferable to single-vendor RFP approach that failed with gotcha.
  2. Micromobility supports first/last-mile transit access, addressing underserved walkshed gaps shown on transit maps (brown zones north of hospital, east-west 66 corridor).
  3. Trip diary survey data (Metro Plan 2024) shows downtown core already achieves 46% walking trips, 28.5% vehicle trips, proving demand for non-car mobility; replicating that pattern city-wide requires micro-mobility infrastructure.
  4. Physical activity and climate benefits documented (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health evidence cited).
  5. Parking efficiency: dockless systems require minimal space per device.
  6. Vendor consolidation since pandemic has created cleaner, more stable operator base (fewer, larger firms).
  7. Multiple vendor setup creates natural checks on vendor viability; if one company fails, others remain (differs from single-vendor RFP risk).

• Most compelling arguments: Kevin Rubedor's observation that scooters are already present on campus and in general use in Flagstaff (observed four scooters, two bikes on Route 66 en route to meeting); therefore, creating a regulatory pathway makes sense rather than allowing de facto unmanaged presence. Stella Weaver's dual emphasis: micromobility is good and infrastructure work (lane removal, geofencing, sidewalk expansion) is non-negotiable regardless of vendor model chosen.

Project Details

• Case number: Not provided.
• Applicant / sponsor: Flagstaff city sustainability office, Metro Plan, City Engineering, Mountain Line (transit agency). Four vendors expressing interest: Veo, Spin, Bird, Populace.
• Attorney: None mentioned.
• Location: City-wide, with emphasis on downtown core (San Francisco St., Beaver St., historic district), transit corridors (Mountain Line stops), and first/last-mile access zones.
• APN: Not applicable (city-wide program).
• Current zoning / code: Flagstaff City Code permits vendors to obtain permit but no permit process exists, effectively prohibiting entry. Scooters prohibited on sidewalks; bikes legally allowed on sidewalks in some zones.
• Proposed change: Establish permit process for multiple vendors operating dockless scooters and ebikes. Potential code amendments to allow scooter sidewalk access in specific zones. Geofencing speed limits and parking zones to be defined by city and vendor contract.
• Devices / density: Peer city comparison: Grand Junction (similar size) operates ~375 active scooters at any time. Pure Cities (2023) reports dockless e-scooter systems comprise 70% of device mix in programs, vs. 30% bikes. Flagstaff preference noted for at least 30% regular or e-bikes, though market may dictate 70% scooters or higher.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: No formal vote. Informal polling on three options (A: prohibition; B: RFP single vendor; C: permit multiple vendors) showed strong consensus for Option C.
• Yes (C): Stella Weaver, Kevin Hayes, Jen Hanks, Kevin Rubedor, Daniel Crain, and four to five other BAC members (full names of all members present: Daniel Crain, Jen Hanks, Kevin Hayes, P. [surname not fully transcribed], Kevin Rubedor, Stella Weaver, and three online participants whose surnames were not captured).
• No: None recorded.
• Abstentions / absences: Two BAC members absent from opening roll call but noted as present later (one online only). Roll call transcription incomplete; full member roster not disclosed.

Outcome & Next Steps

The BAC will recommend to City Council (timeline TBD, likely late April or May) that Flagstaff proceed with Option C: a permit-based multi-vendor micromobility program. Prior to council recommendation, Metro Plan and City Sustainability will complete stakeholder outreach to Planning & Zoning Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and general public.

Planned outreach:

• Connect Flagstaff survey (mid-April target) on public interest and preferences.
• Engagement with Downtown Flagstaff business associations.
• Coordination with Mountain Line on transit integration.
• Data-sharing and vendor requirements clarification (ongoing vendor calls).

Conditions expected in any permit or contract:

• Liability insurance (minimum coverage TBD; staff to clarify with vendors).
• Data collection and sharing (trip data, rider demographics, device usage patterns) for city planning purposes.
• Geofencing compliance (speed limits in pedestrian zones, parking zones, restricted areas).
• Equity provisions: subsidized or free access programs for unbanked/low-income residents; distribution of devices near social services (Guidance Center, shelter, jail, hospital, transit centers).
• Vendor responsibility for winter weather management or seasonal shutdown authority for city.
• Minimum percentage of regular bikes in fleet (30% preferred, though market may resist).
• Code amendment addressing scooter sidewalk access in specific zones or corridors.

Infrastructure work (parallel or prerequisite):

• Downtown bike lane and sidewalk expansion to address geofencing conflicts (e.g., eliminate one parking lane on San Francisco or Beaver St. for protected bike lane).
• Huntington Avenue sidewalk construction (first phase of "First Mile Last Mile" project, summer 2025).
• Fanning Crossing at Fort Valley and Forest (high-priority, later phase).
• Asphalt trail repairs (8 miles, contractor engaged, procurement to Council within weeks, completion targeted summer 2025).

No continuation date specified; BAC meets next April 17 (per meeting notes).

Controversies & Context

Public perception and demographic stigma: Kevin Rubedor articulated frank concern that community resistance to scooter programs stems not from objective safety data but from perception of young users (especially NAU students) as reckless or "anti-social." He recommended proactive public relations emphasizing non-student user base and highlighting demographic diversity of riders. No council members present to confirm or deny this anecdotal claim, but Rubedor's framing suggests political sensitivity.

Infrastructure gaps as root cause, not symptom: Stella Weaver and others emphasized that scooter safety concerns (sidewalk conflicts, lack of protected lanes, liability injury risks) reflect pre-existing infrastructure deficits—lack of downtown bike lanes, insufficient sidewalk width, car-centric street design—rather than problems created by micromobility itself. This framing inverts typical objection logic: instead of "don't allow scooters because infrastructure is poor," the BAC argued "allow scooters and use them as pressure to fix infrastructure."

Equity and banking access: Multiple BAC members flagged that dockless scooter apps require smartphone and bank-account connectivity, excluding low-income and unbanked populations. Metro Plan and Sustainability pledged to negotiate vendor agreements for cash payment, subsidized access (analogous to Mountain Line's free pass distribution), and device placement at social service agencies—but specifics unresolved.

Winter weather and seasonal viability: Denver's system was cited as model; it can remotely shut down scooters if temperatures drop below ~20°F or after major snowfall. Flagstaff's winter concerns (snow removal, device retrieval from snowbanks, sidewalk congestion with winter gear) remain unresolved. No vendor has confirmed cold-weather strategy for Flagstaff.

Geofencing speed-limit conflicts: Stella Weaver raised a sophisticated objection: if geofencing restricts scooter speed to 10 mph in downtown (a common tactic to protect pedestrians), but scooters are prohibited on sidewalks and downtown lacks protected bike lanes, riders will be forced to travel at dangerously slow speeds in mixed traffic lanes with cars, defeating the point. This tension—between safety by restriction and safety by infrastructure—was noted but not resolved.

Company viability and 2019 gotcha precedent: City attempted single-vendor RFP contract with gotcha Bike Share in 2019; supply chain disruptions and company prioritization of other markets prevented deployment. This failure anchors BAC preference for Option C (multiple vendors, free-market competition) over Option B (RFP single vendor): less staff burden, lower city liability, and natural culling of non-viable operators.

Code compliance gap: One BAC member noted that if Flagstaff selects Option C (permit-based), the city's code enforcement office will need to be engaged but has not yet been part of feasibility discussions. Engineering expects to add staff; code enforcement's capacity and role remain unclear.

State preemption: No mention of Arizona state law limiting local scooter regulation (though such preemption exists in some states). No speaker raised this as constraint.

Duration

• This item (micromobility presentation and BAC discussion): Approximately 100–120 minutes (spanning from approximately 5:25 p.m. to 6:50+ p.m., with brief interjections on other business).
• Total meeting: Approximately 150–180 minutes (meeting called to order ~5:10 p.m., adjourned ~6:50+ p.m., with additional reports on crash data, trip diary survey, pedestrian signal recall, bike/ped projects, and capital budget items).

Other Notable Items

Trip Diary Survey (Metro Plan 2024): Flagstaff's trip-mode breakdown shows 57.5% vehicle, 4.3% transit, 7.9% bike, 26.4% walking. Downtown core shows 46% walking, only 28.5% vehicle trips. Walking trips have increased significantly over prior survey cycles (study conducted every six years since 2006). Discussion centered on how to replicate downtown walkability pattern city-wide without the same land-use density. Data to be supplemented with equity-lens analysis (poverty status, neighborhood breakdowns) at next BAC meeting.

Safe Streets for All (Butler Avenue Complete Streets, $9.6M federal grant): Capital Improvements moving to procurement phase for design and environmental services. Grant agreement and IGA (inter-governmental agreement) in place. Arizona SMART Award ($2.1–2.4M) secured for city match. Project scope: Milton Road to Sawmill. Status: front-end requirements substantially complete; design RFP to open within weeks.

Safe Routes to School Program: Design projects underway for multiple schools. Observational data shows 90% of parents drive kids to school; survey pending (expected ~92% result). Behavior-change programming in early stages; consultant team in bi-weekly meetings. No construction timeline yet.

First Mile Last Mile (Transit Access Project, 90% design complete): Three components—bikeways, sidewalks, crossings—designed to support Mountain Line access. Huntington Avenue sidewalk selected as first phase, summer 2025 construction. High foot traffic documented between Huntington corridor social service agencies (Food Bank, Shelter Services). Subsequent phases planned over two years; Fanning Crossing (Fort Valley and Forest) identified as highest priority for phase two.

Asphalt Trails Repair (8-mile system): Designer and contractor engaged. Procurement to Council within weeks. Full completion targeted summer 2025. Public messaging planned to minimize disruption; users will be asked to avoid active construction zones.

Pedestrian Signal Recall on ADOT Roadways: Ongoing effort. "Steve's location" appears fixed then regressed (reference unclear, possibly code name for intersection). Ponderosa Parkway showing recent improvement (pedestrian recall functioning 9/10 times). No timeline for broader ADOT coordination.