Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180507 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5:00 PM I. Options for Data Collection for the Mobility Lab II. Mobility Lab 2019 Update (Lab CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 07, 2018 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA Options for Data Collection for the Mobility Lab Mobility Lab 2019 Update (Lab Budget for 2018) P1 Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Karen Harrington, Director of Quality THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: May 4, 2018 MEETING DATE: May 7, 2018 RE: Data Options for the Mobility Lab REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Direction regarding which option to follow for data support, collection and analysis related to the Mobility Lab. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Aspen Mobility Lab has been discussed with the City Council in previous work sessions and the Council appropriated $470,300 in 2017 to support the work of the Lab (including an appropriation to use the Air Sage data acquired in the Upper Valley Mobility Study effort). BACKGROUND: The Mobility Lab Steering Committee formed a Data Group to focus attention on the data- related needs for the Lab. The Data Group includes Karen Harrington (Lead, Quality Office), Phillip Supino (Co-lead, Planning), Trish Aragon (Engineering), John Krueger (Transportation), Chris Menges (Environmental Health and Sustainability), Mitch Osur (Parking), Ben Sachdeva (Parks), and Paul Schultz (Information Technology). During the first quarter of 2018, the Data Group released three RFPs: 1. Data Support (for data related project management assistance and survey development) 2. Data Collection (for collection of field data on mode use and patterns) 3. Database and Data Management Services (for data aggregation and advanced data analysis) Collectively, these RFPs are intended to provide the City with the information it needs to understand not only mode shifts per se, but their impact on the community and their potential to be a part of the long-term mobility landscape here. P2 I. Page 2 DISCUSSION: It is essential that the data we collect and analyze reflect the goals and objectives of the Lab. Without this alignment between our intentions and the information we receive, we risk collecting unnecessary information (thereby increasing our costs) and as importantly, we could end up without the specific information we need to answer important questions about Lab impact and future mobility policy. As the City has explored potential mobility options, partnerships and community preferences, the specifics of the Mobility Lab goals and objectives have remained fluid in response to those findings. In general, the goals have evolved to become more tangible and focused since the Data RFPs were originally released. Further, the associated budget for the project has shifted, along with a higher level of anticipated City (vs partner) funding for the initiative. These factors contribute to a need to step back, clarify the data options, and assess which make the most sense for the City to pursue. After obtaining guidance from Council, the Data Group will ask the finalist proposers to adjust their scopes in response and then to submit their best and final offers. Current Mobility Lab Goals The current goals of the Lab will be discussed in detail in a separate presentation. However, the basics are also included here because they are foundational to discussing data needs. In many ways, the Lab seeks to test mobility options that will meet or exceed the unique needs of a mountain community – maintaining local character and ambience - while accommodating the growing needs of employees, residents and visitors who want to connect with the community. More tangibly, the lab seeks to decrease automobile traffic and parking demand in town by: Increasing commuter use of the Brush Creek Intercept Lot and the Buttermilk Parking Lot Increasing the proportion of commuters who carpool Increasing “last mile” bike commuters by providing bikes and bike services at Buttermilk Increasing overall use of bikes as an alternative to vehicles in town Increasing use of ride sharing services/transit on demand by those living/visiting in or very near Aspen Associated Data Goals The goal of the Data Group is to provide the information needed to do the following: · Understand whether the Lab goals were achieved; that is, to provide data on the magnitude and type of mode shifts that occurred, why, and how satisfied participants were · Understand the costs and benefits of the mobility options employed · Understand the impact of the mode shifts on the community o Non-participant and business community satisfaction o Economic, environmental and safety impacts o Parking changes · Understand the likelihood for long-term, community-accepted behavior change · Set the stage for data-based mobility policymaking (helping us to know what to do next, why and how) P3 I. Page 3 Options for Achieving the Data Goals The table below outlines options for achieving the data goals and providing understanding of the success of the Lab. Of note, not all options achieve all goals: this is important for decision- makers to realize. The Green Package lacks information on in-town impacts of the mode shifts, while neither the Green nor the Blue Package integrate the information from the multiplicity of data sources associated with this initiative. Without integrating the data sources, our ability to fully understand the information and analyze it over the longer term for continued mobility planning will be constrained. DATA PACKAGES* Green Blue Black Double Black Estimated Cost Range (2018-19) GREEN: GAUGE MAJOR DIRECT LAB GOALS $100,000- 150,000 Basic Mode Shift (Levels of Use from mobility service providers, counts over Castle Creek, from separate data sources) Participant, Business and Resident Survey Data (from separate data streams) Sales Tax Impact Data City Air Quality and Noise Data Police Accident Data BLUE: GAUGE COMMUNITY IMPACTS Additional $100,000- 150,000 Enhanced Mode Counts, Speeds, and miles travelled using primarily traditional data collection methods; detailed origin/destination information (9 locations); from separate data streams BLACK : GUIDE FUTURE MOBILITY PLANNING Additional $75,000-125,000 Integrated Database for Enhanced Analysis and Future Modeling Aggregated data from mobility service providers Aggregated data from mode counts vendor Aggregated city and survey data DOUBLE BLACK: PROVIDE ADVANCED DETAILS THROUGH ENHANCED TECHOLOGY Additional $600,000 or higher Enhanced Mode Counts and Speeds, high-tech data collection (9 locations) More accurate counts of bikes, pedestrians Better vehicle differentiation Better intersection impact/near-miss data * Includes baseline data collection in 2018. This is unlikely, and therefore prices are higher than anticipated. Also assumes no partner funding or in-kind donations. P4 I. Page 4 In addition to selecting a less expensive data package, data costs can be decreased several ways: 1. Take out or reduce 2018 baseline data collection, relying instead on data from 2017. This is already planned: the Data Group is suggesting that we forego 2018 field and survey data collection, to reduce data collection and project management costs. Further, the Data Group recognizes that the work on the Castle Creek Bridge, along with time constraints, mean that it would be difficult to capture meaningful, valid baseline data this year. 2. Reduce the number of data collection points in the Blue Package. The exact number of field data collection points could potentially be negotiated from 9 to a lower number as the team works with a selected vendor. However, the team cautions against dropping this number too low as it could result in reducing our ability to have a detailed understanding of where and how mode shifts, and the impacts of those shifts, occurred. 3. Completely strip out the field and survey data collection, and rely only on participation and satisfaction information provided by mobility service providers. The Data Group is concerned that this will not provide the level of detail or comprehensiveness needed to understand the impact of the Lab on the community, however. Estimated 2018 Costs The Data Group has provided an estimate of 2018 costs to the Steering Committee for the Spring 2018 Supplemental. It assumes the following: · No baseline field or survey data collection in 2018 (except for developing a set of questions for the City’s Annual Citizen Survey) · The City foregoes the Black Package, with its integrated database · The City foregoes the Double Black Package, which uses advanced technology · The City elects to pursue the Blue Package, with the basics in the Green Package plus field data collection at 9 points in the City Under this scenario, the estimated costs for 2018 are approximately $65,000. The funding would be used to hire a consultant from among those already interviewed, to actively manage the data components of the Lab in 2018 and 2019. It would assure that all planning and preparation needed for 2019 occurs. This includes but is not limited to: 1. Developing an overall data project management plan, and leading project management 2. Developing a specific data collection and analysis plan 3. Collaborating with the selected mobility service providers to understand the specifics of their data streams, how they are produced, and how they might be manually assembled for useful reporting during the 2019 Lab 4. Assuring the field data collection services and equipment are secured and ready for 2019 P5 I. Page 5 5. Developing the survey and other qualitative data collection tools and approaches to use in 2019 Should the City elect to move forward with a central, integrated database, the cost for 2018 is anticipated to increase from $65,000 to $120,000. The reason for this increase is because the build or customization of the database, and all tasks associated with that, will need to begin in 2018 to be confident it will be ready before the Lab starts in 2019. Because of the planning and setup time required for this component, it is important for a final decision on this piece to be made now. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Council is directed to the memo for this same work session on the full Lab costs to understand the relative impact of this portion of the Lab, within the context of the overall project budget for FY 2018. With respect to the data portion of the Lab, $65,000 is needed in 2018 under the assumption that no 2018 data collection occurs and no central database will be a part of the project. $120,000 is needed in 2018 if the choice is to include a central database. Over the 2-year term of the Lab, the overall costs will depend on Council’s decision on which data package to select and/or which additional cost savings measures to adopt. After guidance from the Council regarding the scope of the data collection, staff will return to proposers to request best and final offers. At this time, without the reductions in cost anticipated as a part of best and final offers, the total two-year costs are estimated as follows: Green Package only: $100,000-150,000 Blue Package additional marginal cost: $100,000-150,000 Black Package additional marginal cost: $ 75,000-125,000 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Aspen Mobility Lab positively impacts numerous measures from City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard including: Air Quality (PM levels, ozone levels); Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Castle Creek Bridge Counts; Acres of Trails; Mass Transit Use; Walkability and Bike-ability Rating; Health and Well Being; and Community Connections. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has brought options for Council consideration, regard data collection and analysis for the Lab. Staff recommends that, at minimum, the Council select the Blue Package, which provides an opportunity for understanding Lab impacts at a fine scale throughout the City. Further, staff recommends that Council strongly consider the Black Package if the intention is to use the Lab data for future mobility planning and decision-making. PROPOSED MOTION: None. Information only. P6 I. Page 6 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P7 I. Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager Candace Olson, Mobility Lab Project Manager Mitch Osur, Director of Parking and Downtown Services John Kruger, Director of Transportation Pete Rice, Civil Engineer II Karen Harrington, Director of Quality Mitzi Rapkin, Community Relations Specialist DATE OF MEMO: May 4, 2018 MEETING DATE: May 7, 2018 RE: Supplemental Budget Request for Mobility Lab Efforts in 2018 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Direction regarding the Supplemental Budget Request in the amount of $369,500 for the work of the Mobility Lab in 2018, being done in preparation for the implementation of the Mobility Lab in the Summer of 2019. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: SHIFT: The Aspen Mobility Lab has been discussed with the City Council in previous worksessions and the Council appropriated $470,300 in 2017 to support the work of the Lab (including an appropriation to use the Air Sage data acquired in the Upper Valley Mobility Study effort and efforts to further the Ped/Bike Master Plan). BACKGROUND: History of the Lab Effort This past summer, Mayor Skadron introduced the idea that the City of Aspen should conduct a large-scale, bold experiment that would increase mobility options while decreasing the reliance on the personal automobile in the Aspen community. The community experiences traffic congestion during many parts of the day at the entrance to Aspen. The Aspen community is left with a few options to improve the mobility experience. You can live with this, work on the supply side of the P8 II. Page 2 equation (more capacity to move cars through the entrance and park those cars), or the demand side (reduce the volume of cars trying to get through the entrance), or both. The choice seems to be to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into increasing capacity at the entrance for automobiles and transit (use of the Marolt Open Space) or reduce the number of vehicles – many of them single occupied – that are used as mobility solutions by commuters, visitors and locals. The Aspen City Council has expressed their lack of support for a high dollar investment in pavement and parking lots, hearing from numerous experts that those investments would likely not yield the desired results, but rather to focus first on the demand side of the mobility question. In work on the Mobility Lab, City of Aspen staff have partnered with consultants and regional groups to create a concept for the Aspen Mobility Lab that will deliver transportation options that are competitive with the ease and speed of personal vehicles to members of the Aspen community, changing the way people move within the boundary of the Intercept Lot to east of Aspen. The Lab will be a community-wide initiative to increase the availability of convenient mobility options, environmental sustainability, safety and quality of life in the upper Roaring Fork Valley without a focus on adding lanes or parking spaces. Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Working under the auspices of the Aspen Institute, thirty members of the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility met from June 2016 through August 2017. Its goal was to create a values-based vision for transportation and mobility in the upper Roaring Fork Valley for the year 2035 that would address traffic congestion as well as the mobility needs of our residents, commuters and visitors. When the Community Forum Task Force began its work in June 2016, many members expected that it would focus on one or more large-scale, capital intensive transportation solutions. Instead, what emerged is a balanced “integrated mobility system” of programmatic solutions that could be phased in over time. To address the challenge of induced traffic, this integrated system employs a balance of both carrots and sticks. Its complementary measures could be implemented as budgets permit over short, mid, and long-term time frames. Recommendation of the Task Force: The Task Force recommended that work begin immediately to plan an Integrated Mobility System that includes the five elements (see below). The individual components of this system are interdependent. Some measures specifically reduce traffic congestion; others increase mobility for the public. Some are capital and cost intensive, while others would contribute revenue, making the system more affordable. (For social equity, the Forum recommends that 100% of any revenues raised be reinvested to reduce the cost of transit and alternative mobility measures – or make them free – for those who use them.) These five elements lend themselves to experimentation, they are flexible, and they are reversible: The Integrated Mobility System: • Ride Sharing (Short-term) • Ride Hailing (Short-term) P9 II. Page 3 • Congestion Reduction Measures (Short & Mid-term), which include dynamic road pricing and dynamic parking pricing • HOV-Lane Enforcement (Short & Mid-term) • Phased BRT Enhancement (Short, Mid & Long-term) that may not necessarily cross Marolt Open Space DISCUSSION: Traffic and congestion both at the Entrance to Aspen and in the core has long been a topic of community discussion. Our community has had decades of conversations, votes, re-votes and angst about the entrance and what to do about it. The city council has indicated, as the Aspen Institute’s Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility did, that they are not interested in pursuing expensive capital-intensive solutions (i.e. another bridge and alternatives to add paved lanes across existing open space) that will reduce transit times by only a minute or two. This Mobility Lab is meant to test those non-capital-intensive alternatives to see if congestion can be reduced by offering a variety of mobility options to those who might avail themselves of those options. This is not meant to be a solution for everyone, but to provide some alternatives for some people – and in so doing to free up lane space and parking spaces for others who cannot avail themselves of those alternatives. The chart below details the number of cars crossing the Castle Creek Bridge on an average daily basis: P10 II. Page 4 The Red line is the community goal, which corresponds to the 1993 counts which we do not want to exceed. By any measure, not exceeding that number for 25 years is an impressive outcome. Further inquiry into the data reveals two things: 1. There is a fairly steady flow of traffic both inbound and outbound most of the day in our busy seasons of Summer and Winter – we lack the typical commuter flow patterns of 70- 80% traffic flowing in one direction in the morning and reversing itself in the afternoon. 2. The point of congestion is reached at around 800 vehicles per hour. For inbound traffic this begins early in the morning and continues until nearly 6:00 PM. For outbound traffic this begins around 11:00 AM and continues until nearly 6:30 PM. 58 38 22 10 28 103 413 860 979 1,053 1,063 1,043 1,042 1,002 965990920 858 713 554 422 339 238 128147 81 57 15 23 87 196 373 567 680 742 825 942 950 982 959938924 839 632 548 521468 306 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMJULY 2017 AVERAGE HOURLY TRAFFIC COUNTS Inbound Outbound S-Curves Capacity P11 II. Page 5 The following table shows what kind of traffic numbers would need to be reduced in order to get hourly traffic below the capacity line of 800 vehicles per hour where congestion begins to back things up. We hope the Lab might be successful at reducing traffic in the AM/PM commute periods by some 800 vehicles (500-600 parking at Brush Creek and 200 from additional carpooling). It might not stop congestion, but we believe it will be very noticeable to the remainder of the commute vehicles. What is the Lab Supposed to Accomplish? The Lab will draw on lessons from select pilot programs in over 25 cities worldwide, and will be our most advanced community-wide pilot program executed to date, providing a demonstration ground for the concepts that were put forward by the Community Forum on Transportation. The lessons learned from the Lab will be used to craft solutions that successfully meet or exceed the unique needs of our mountain community as the council sees them – i.e. maintaining local character (no big capital investment in pavement) and ambiance while accommodating the growing numbers of employees and visitors who want to connect with this community. The City of Aspen will seek out unique ways to share insights with others, starting with design and implementation, and concluding with a Summit to provide all interested parties an opportunity to connect and recap the Lab. Most importantly, the City of Aspen and regional partners will learn P12 II. Page 6 what modes are accepted and used by the community to inform responsible future investments and planning. We will not introduce some of the “sticks” that have been discussed – namely (a) congestion road pricing (a toll of some sort for vehicles wanting to use the bridge to enter town) or (b) congestion parking pricing that would both increase greatly the cost of parking a vehicle and let that price adjust as demand for parking increases. Instead our effort will concentrate on the “carrot” efforts of providing incentives and alternative mobility options. The Lab will focus effort in four areas: 1. Commuters: a. use of the Brush Creek Intercept Lot – we want to greatly increase the use of the lot, thereby freeing up parking in town that is used by commuters and decrease the traffic trying to cross Castle Creek into town. b. commuter use of Car Pools – we would like to increase commuters who carpool, thereby reducing the number of vehicles used to transport commuters. c. use of the Buttermilk Parking Lot – we would like to increase the intercept rate for Snowmass Village commuters by getting more of them to park in the Buttermilk lot, and utilize the Buttermilk Parking Lot as a place where bikers could park their commuter vehicle and access a bike – bike share, e-bikes and regular pedal- powered bikes – to commute the rest of the way into town. 2. In/Near Town Mobility – in a sampling of license plates of automobiles parked in the downtown core, we discovered that over 60% of the cars were registered to owners with an “81611” zip code (see map below). With most of the addresses in this zip code being in or near to Aspen, this represents an opportunity to provide a mobility alternative for many of these trips into the core. If we can change behavior of some number of the people who drive and park their car by providing an alternative mobility option, it will reduce the number of cars looking to park P13 II. Page 7 in the core. This would leave more parking for those who have no mobility option and must drive and park their car when visiting the core. 3. Increase the use of bicycles as a mobility option – recognizing that a bicycle is not an option for everyone, we still want to try and get some number of people who are using their automobile to move around Aspen or to drive from nearby into Aspen to try a bicycle option. We believe that e-bikes will become an increasingly attractive option for people of all ages. We want to provide e-bike share and e-bike lease options, increase the storage capacity for bikes, and provide charging stations for e-bike users so they will feel this is a viable mobility option for their mobility needs when they have arrived in Aspen or want to move within and around town. We will not address in-town protected bikeways, focusing instead on increasing the opportunity to ride a bike for those who have this option. 4. Data Gathering/Analysis/Learning – to assess whether our efforts had any impact, we will want to gather a variety of information about the lab effort and understanding the impact of the lab on the community and people’s behavior. We obviously want use data – how many additional cars parked at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot or at Buttermilk, how many people used the specialty buses and where did they go, what were the traffic counts coming across the Castle Creek Bridge, how many additional people carpooled, how many people used the on-demand in-town mobility options and where did they go. We also want to know some satisfaction date – how did people rate their experience using the intercept lot, how did people rate their in-town mobility options, what was their perception of traffic/congestion across the Castle Creek Bridge, etc. How did these shifts in mode impact the views/satisfaction of the community as a whole (not just the participants), how did it impact congestion and traffic movement within town, how did it affect sales in the business community, and did we see shifts in environmental impacts (such as GHG, particulates, noise) and safety? We will want to analyze this data after we acquire it and derive learnings from it. What should we do going forward, given the results? What else should we try if people were not satisfied by the lab choices? We would intend to hold a review session and determine “next steps” in the Fall of 2019. How Does the Lab Propose to Do That? COMMUTERS Use of the Brush Creek Lot: we have a target of some 500 to 600 additional cars a day using the Brush Creek Intercept Lot. We know we have to induce behavioral change such that a commuter who is normally inclined to drive into Aspen (even when traffic backs up to the Airport) would instead take a left at Brush Creek, park their car in the intercept lot, make a mode change to a bus and ride that bus into Aspen. We know we need to grab the commuting public’s attention and maintain this shift in commuting habit. We propose several efforts to do that. P14 II. Page 8 1. Instead of driving to Aspen and paying to park, we propose to PAY PEOPLE TO PARK AT THE INTERCEPT LOT. Our current thinking is to start the Lab by paying each automobile some amount of money, say $5 per day in a “coin” or “miles” that are redeemable at any participating Aspen retail outlet and possibly with national merchants. We think this would get people’s attention and incent them to try a very different commuting option. It should also help drive sales in Aspen. As part of the lab, we want to experiment with different levels of incentive during the course of the summer – to test the price elasticity of demand around our incentive ideas. So, if we start with $5 per day in June, we could test the same concept at $2.50 per day in July, and perhaps $25 per 20 days of parking in August. We want to see if we can get people to change and keep the change at various levels of incentive. We also recognize that the mode shift penalty (the time it will take to make a turn at the light, park their car, get to a bus terminal location and ride into town) will only be overcome by a combination of time saved riding in the bus lane and by the monetary incentive. 2. So in addition to the “coin” incentive, we would increase the frequency of buses into Aspen, and experiment with smaller, specialty buses that would travel straight to locations other than the Rubey Park Terminal – smaller buses that go up the Maroon Creek Road to the ARC, Highlands, and possibly the school campus; smaller buses that travel up Castle Creek Road to AVH, MAA and the County campus; smaller buses that would go to other nodes that people would sign up to travel directly to (such as the Institute or other locations that have sufficient demand to justify the use of small buses/large vans such as pictured below). Delivering people directly to their destination would greatly decrease the transfer penalty in the mode shift by no longer requiring everyone to go to Rubey Park, then change buses to another location or hop on a bikeshare and pedal to their final destination. P15 II. Page 9 3. We also recognize that the “amenity” package at the intercept lot needs sprucing up. We would propose to put tents at the waiting areas for bus pick up and the introduction of a coffee/food cart(s). We might use one of the above vans as a circulating collector for people parked further away from the bus pick up areas if enough vehicles use the intercept lot and have to park further away from the bus transfer points. Commuter use of Car Pools: we want to add a car-pooling app and increase carpooling incentives to try and increase carpooling such that an additional 200 cars per day are no longer being used for commuting and trying to enter the City. Use of the Buttermilk Parking Lot: we see two opportunities to increase the use of the Buttermilk lot and decrease vehicles travelling through the roundabout: 1. Intercept commuters traveling from Snowmass Village to town by use of a monetary incentive such as the one described for the Brush Creek Intercept Lot; and 2. Create a bike commuting hub at Buttermilk. This would add bikeshare, e-bike share and lease programs for commuters who would park and shift to a bike for their final ride to town. We would add bike lockers for overnight storage. We would solicit bike shops to set up pop-up repair stores. We would have demonstrations for e-bikes and offer programs for people to “rent” an e-bike with an option to purchase at the end of their summer experiment. This will require us to do some work marking and making safe the trail into town, but the work this summer on the Castle Creek Bridge will greatly aid this initiative. IN TOWN DRIVING In/Near Town Mobility: for those whose trip into/around town originates nearby, we want to provide some mobility options that will compete with their desire to get into their own vehicle, drive and park at their destination. We are not trying to preclude this as an option, but to offer a choice – if we are successful at moving 200 of the vehicle trips/parking from the daily use of the 600 core parking spots, we think we can free up parking for those who lack an option and make the core less congested. “The Ride”: we issued an RFP seeking additional mobility options for on-demand transit services within defined zones of the city. This service is intended to offer a competitive choice to those residents who are using their personal vehicle for trips of just a few miles. If we can increase their use of transit services by offering an app-based service that would pick them up from their doorstep and deliver them to their destination for a price that is no greater than their cost of parking their vehicle, we think we can both reduce congestion and reduce the demand for available parking spaces in the core. The elements of this service would include the following excerpts from the RFP: • The City’s target Level of Service (LOS) for on-demand service provides customer pick- up times of no more than 10 minutes post-request and in-vehicle times of less than 10 minutes. P16 II. Page 10 • Services will be offered door-to-door or very nearby within the service area outlined during the hours of 7:00am-12:00am daily. • The City is not interested in any model that includes the expectation of a gratuity either in cash or via app. No tips will be solicited for service provided, either on an app or with the provision of an on-board tip jar. No materials related to the service (app, business cards, decals) will refer to acceptance of gratuity in any manner. • The Contractor will offer a smartphone app (compatible with the last 3 major versions for both iOS and Android) as the primary tool to request service. Priority scoring will be provided to proposals that also provide a call-center option for those without access to smartphones. This proposed service area is illustrated below Vehicle types being sought are not like the Downtowner’s gem cars – rather they would be vans such as the types illustrated below: P17 II. Page 11 P18 II. Page 12 INCREASED USE OF BICYCLES Since we have determined NOT to pursue any additional bicycle infrastructure outlined in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan as part of the Mobility Lab effort, our sole focus will be to increase the use of bicycles as a mobility option for those for whom a bicycle makes sense. As indicated earlier in the memo, we believe the use of e-bikes offers a viable option for some people who have been using a vehicle to get around town. We will explore options to get more e-bikes into use by people in town – from bike-sharing, to discounted purchase plans, to lease-to-own options. We will also increase the bike parking facilities in town for all bikes and make accommodations for e- bike charging stations in the core, at bike-share facilities and at the Buttermilk Intercept Lot where we hope to establish a hub for those commuters who might park their vehicle there and use a bike to complete the rest of their trip into town. That concept includes bike parking facilities, bike lockers and the cooperation of some bike vendors who would set up a tune-up/repair pop-up shop at the lot. DATA GATHERING/DATA ANALYSIS Data is a critical part of Lab, and will allow the City to understand the effectiveness of efforts and inform future investments. City of Aspen staff have formed a ‘Data Team’ that is responsible for creating and planning the approach to data efforts. We believe we need:  Data that tells us whether the lab was successful:  Resources required were reasonable  Programs were cost-effective  Participation levels reached targets  Satisfaction levels across stakeholder segments  Impacts on traffic levels, noise, safety, air pollution, economic activity  Likelihood of long-term behavior change  Data that informs decision-making for the future  What should we do now and why? The Data Team has issued RFPs in three areas: (1) Data Support, (2) Data Collection, and (3) Database and Data Management. The Team will be coming to Council in this same worksession to get direction regarding how much investment the Council wants to make in the Data effort and what you want your data investment to allow you to see/analyze/use for decision making. That discussion will inform the final numbers for the Supplemental Budget Request. The number you see in this memo is the recommended cost option. The team has been reviewing the various RFPs for the data collection/analysis efforts involved in the Lab and will be better informed as this interviewing unfolds to finalize budget projections and scope of the data effort. Where are We Now? We have issued RFPs for in-town transit on demand providers and specialty bus services from the intercept lots and are evaluating those proposals. We have issued RFPs for data gathering and analysis and are evaluating those proposals. We have discussed with RFTA the possible need for P19 II. Page 13 additional bus service at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot. We have fund raising consultants under agreements to do work on our behalf and have held meetings with both potential donors and potential in-kind donors. We have not signed any agreements for services yet and will not until the council has determined whether to proceed with the Lab and at what cost to the city. Fund Raising: the following outlines what has been done and what lies ahead in the fund-raising area: August 2017 - January 2018: Initial Brainstorming on Cost, Funding Approaches  The city envisioned Mayor Skadron raising $1.3mm from Bloomberg and other foundations to defray $1.3mm of the cost of a Lab in 2018.  Early feedback from foundations indicated that the small population served, the level of wealth and lack of diversity in Aspen would make it a hard sell within their charters.  The city turned to car companies as a possible source of funding that might value the brand and affluence of Aspen and the discrete "geo-fencing" that Aspen's small scale allows.  The city manager engaged a consultant with close ties to the automotive companies to work with the project management team.  The Mayor and project management team met with twelve car, data and telecom companies between October 15-December 15 to assess their appetite for funding the Lab in 2019.  These meetings revealed a clear pattern:  The mobility research arms in these companies are not adequately funded to write big checks, though some can contribute meaningful in-kind technologies to solve clearly stated problems Aspen seeks to solve.  Most of the programs Aspen needs to test are not cutting-edge enough to attract capital or free services.  Most of the in-kind being offered is "shiny objects" rather than the specific programs Aspen needs to test, with some exceptions.  Some in-kind services and products will be from newer companies.  The city will have to balance the risk inherent in working with these companies against the cost of paying full cost at established companies. February 2018 - April 2018: Suspended fund-raising effort to refine Lab and fund-raising  Moved the Lab to summer of 2019.  Focus on a few clear objectives.  Differentiate between programs the city of Aspen will have to pay for and those that will attract in-kind donations.  Get RFPs out and proposals in to help price the Lab  Identify the foundation for transit incentives and data collection around which to shape the transit options, local business engagement, and public outreach.  Engage a more senior transit consultant to help us find and engage the right outside partners, both for fee and in-kind. P20 II. Page 14 May 2018 -October 2018:  Present the 2018 Lab Planning budget for approval and an overview of the 2019 Lab for initial input from Council.  Hold a Greenhouse bringing together companies that might provide targeted in-kind donations.  Complete the integration of RFP proposals, in-kind partnerships, city funding and cash donations.  Select public outreach partner and approach, begin city staff lunch-and learns, conversations with influential groups in Aspen, and ultimately the public.  Finalize Lab with Council based on public input, partnerships and final plans. What is Ahead in the Summer and Fall of 2018? We have three major efforts planned for the Summer/Fall of 2018 to get ready for SHIFT 2019: 1. We want to take our conceptual proposals for the Lab out to the community to see what the reaction is, take their suggestions for “pricing” of the proposals, and see if there are other ideas we should incorporate into the Lab design. This would take up most of the summer months and involve a variety of outreach tools/techniques. We will also be finalizing our budget projections for all the Lab efforts. 2. Further develop the Lab concepts and individual components so we are sure we can make them work together – including the marketing plans to let commuters and in-town mobility users know of the options the Lab will provide them and how to sign up for those options where sign up is a requirement. 3. We are planning on holding a meeting of potential donors/in-kind donors early this summer and will continue our other fund-raising efforts. We need to know by mid-September what the City’s contribution would be to conduct a Lab worth conducing. Finally, in October – after we have concluded our outreach efforts, completed design of the Lab components, finalized the results of fund raising efforts – we will be back with the Council to give you those results and ask you to render the final “GO/NO GO” decision about SHIFT 2019. What are the Resource Needs to Get Ready for Lab 2019? The table below outlines the budget requirements in 2018 in order to get ready for the Lab to occur in the Summer of 2019: Project Management: this represents the cost of the project management assistance we have brought on to help organize all the various teams and track effort. Fundraising: this represents the cost of two consultants, travel and conference opportunities to discuss donor opportunities, the expense of the Greenhouse to be conducted for potential in-kind donors and sponsorship efforts. P21 II. Page 15 App Development: this is a place holder for development of an app or apps that would help us track data, create incentives for use of alternative mobility offerings and increased car-pooling and integrate our new mobility offerings with existing mobility offerings and infrastructure. Public Outreach: this is the consultant outlay for outreach during the summer to engage the community in reviewing our approach to the lab and to see if they have even better ideas we might test during the lab. Incentives: this is for the design and planning of possible incentive approaches for use during the lab. Engineering & Design: this is a placeholder for minor outsourced work Data Collection & Analysis: this represents the staff recommended approach to data collection for 2018 – funding of a project manager to work on data collection methods (from mobility P22 II. Page 16 providers, from app providers and intersection data collection efforts) and to oversee conversations with database providers that might be able to give us the data platform in which to aggregate all the data we will want to collect. Karen Harrington will walk you through the alternatives and the budget implications and this number can change during our discussion. Contingency: we want to be responsive to changes in approach and expenditures so this modest contingency is in the supplemental request. If we don’t need to spend it, we won’t. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Supplemental Budget request of $369,500 would be split between the General Fund and the Transportation Fund on a 30% General Fund/70% Transportation Fund basis. The Transportation Fund would provide $258,650 of the supplemental and the General Fund would provide $110,850 to fund the budget request. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Aspen Mobility Lab positively impacts numerous measures from City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard including: Air Quality (PM levels, ozone levels); Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Castle Creek Bridge Counts; Acres of Trails; Mass Transit Use; Walkability and Bike- ability Rating; Health and Well Being; and Community Connections. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Supplemental Budget Request and the workplan for the rest of the year. PROPOSED MOTION: The Spring Supplemental Budget requests will be coming to Council for First Reading at your regular meeting on April 30th. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P23 II.