The Future of Shared Micromobility (According to the Movers and Shakers)
Part 3 of Cityfi’s Take on the State of Shared Micromobility
By Evan Costagliola and Sarah Saltz
Welcome to the final installment on Cityfi’s take on shared micromobility’s inflection point: how we view the past, present, and future of the industry. In Part 1, we explored themes from history to bring us to our current crossroads moment. In Part 2, we discussed the five most vital near-term actions for public and private sector actors that can lead to a bold shift in favor of ubiquitous shared micromobility adoption (or an anemic market response if the status quo persists).
In this final piece, we look to both the very near and very distant future. Not from our voice, but from government, company, and investment leaders in the shared micromobility space. While we largely agree with their visionary ideas and perspectives, we wanted you to hear our call to action from Part 2 from the proverbial horse’s mouth.
We are thrilled to amplify three leading voices in the shared micromobility space:
Shari Shapiro, global head of policy at Lime, provides the perspective of the world’s largest shared micromobility operator. While the narrative of record trips and bookings in 2023 dominate the headlines, the company’s focus on fleet expansion and operational excellence give them a nuanced view on how difficult it is to run a shared micromobility business, but also the industry’s bright future.
Cees de Witte, a Zurich-based angel investor, board advisor, and mobility insider for companies across the micromobility value chain, paints a picture of the future of micromobility and why the customer will continue to win as the micromobility industry expands and the cities that manage mobility systems continue to mature.
Russ Brooks, the mobility mastermind behind the City of Minneapolis’ shared mobility and mobility hub initiatives, offers his take on what’s next for municipal and transit-integrated shared micromobility. With the closure of NiceRide MN in the Twin Cities, Russ’ team is strategizing about what public and private shared micromobility will look like in Minneapolis over the next 10 years, including partnering with Oonee bike parking and charging systems to build the ecosystem needed to support shared and private micromobility over time.
After our discussion with Russ, Shari, and Cees, we are resolute in our conviction that shared micromobility will grow alongside a broad mix of public mobility solutions that meet the wide array of mobility needs for local communities. As with anything still in its infancy, it will mature over time (and shared micromobility is absolutely in its infancy). Recent news about municipal investment in high end, secure micromobility parking hubs in Minneapolis and New York City, as well as continued growth in community-controlled shared micromobility systems, are already steps forward. Shared micromobility’s staying power is inevitable.
Note: These interviews have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Cityfi: What is in store for shared micromobility in the next few years?
Shari Shapiro (SS): For the next year or two, you’re going to see a trend towards bigger fleets. We have just seen utilization go up really significantly. For example in New York, London, and Chicago, you’ve seen really dramatic increases in the utilization of bikes and scooters. So, we are seeing increased fleet sizes to meet growing demand, which is creating a virtuous cycle. People are more comfortable knowing that they’re going to be able to find a ride, so they take them more when there are more vehicles on the road. It’s safer and so forth and so you can see that happening. On the management side of the equation, you’re going to start to see more mandatory parking, especially within dense urban and high traffic areas: train stations, museums, popular restaurants, things of that nature.
From my perspective, those are both really terrific trends. They’re really terrific obviously on the utilization and fleet size pieces, but also having designated places to put vehicles and having them become this comfortable part of the urban environment is very important from a longevity and community comfort standpoint.
Russ Brooks (RB): We are at an interesting point in Minneapolis where NiceRide ceased operations last year and we’ve had a few private operators (Lime, Spin, and Veo). However, we are also starting working groups with regional partners around bringing docked or hybrid bike share back at a regional scale. We are starting those conversations around a fundamental question: What does the future of shared mobility really look like from a micromobility perspective?
We want to think holistically from the beginning around how we design a system that meets the needs of the people who need that system the most. One of the things that we’ve been talking about is what kind of bridge is needed between short and long-term system design. In the short-term, we work with private operators to meet our needs in the community partly because we have our mode-shift campaign, which includes a goal of 60% of trips are non-automobile trips by 2030. It’s a pretty ambitious goal, I think I would say. These partnerships with the private operators really help us meet that need in the short-term.
Cees de Witte (CdW): The mobility companies that are still thriving are those that have matured. They realized that to be able to succeed, there are several ingredients. First, you have to know what your consumer wants. Secondly, your product has to be reliable, you must be financially disciplined, and you have to think of shared micromobility offerings as commercial products, not consumer products.
It sounds ironic that you have to think of these vehicles as commercial products. But because of the wear and tear of these products (because they are shared, not owned), they really need to be taken care of. These are asset-heavy operations, which need to manage the potentially negative impact on unit economics. Companies are starting to operate as if they are designing, purchasing, and maintaining airplanes or boats, from an efficiency and precision servicing standpoint.
Cityfi: What is the long-term future of shared micromobility in cities?
SS: When I was helping Lime respond to the first Paris RFP, I did a fictional write-up of what it would be like if a person used micromobility at every possible opportunity. You get up in the morning. You grab a scooter or bike to work or school and you do your thing over your lunch hour, you grab a scooter or a bike to run some errands or meet a friend for lunch. Then you go do your afternoon activity on your way home. You grab a cargo bike or something with a little carrying capacity and you run a few errands. There are comfortable places easily accessible to park your vehicle. You eventually make your way home, and then go out again for dinner and then take a shared vehicle home.
That’s kind of the trajectory that I see in the future. You’re using shared micromobility for nearly every trip. But you’re not necessarily using the same vehicle in the same way for every trip, and I think that’s really critical. You need a diversity of vehicles to accommodate the different kinds of trips you’re having. So another trend — and I think you’re already starting to see bits and pieces of it — is accommodating different kinds of trips with slightly different vehicle form factors, so that you can expand the demographic of people who use shared micromobility. Seated scooters are a form factor that people are really enjoying in our test markets, throttle e-bikes are very popular, and then there’s some cargo bikes that are coming on. So, there will be many more vehicle types in the future.
RB: In the medium to long-term, we’re really thinking about shared micromobility in a couple of ways: what is the operator’s standpoint and how do we bring a docked system back? We’re struggling with the idea of how the private sector can help us meet our goals. We want to provide a micromobility system in areas where it is not necessarily going to be profitable for some time as we grow that rider base and get residents out of their cars. People living in those neighborhoods understand that they need a convenient, reliable system, and we know that’s going to take time — which can be a difficult proposition for a private company.
What that means is moving from a private system to one that’s generally publicly subsidized. As the local government, we need to better understand what it will take to move to do this at a regional scale. We don’t feel nervous about the ability to raise capital funds to build a new system or to maintain that system at the 10-year mark. We’re trying to plan 20 years out for a new, financially sustainable system, even though we feel confident that we can put together a funding package for the initial installation.
Also, how do we shift bike share into the public transit mindset culturally and institutionally? What we’re concerned about is where the operating dollars come from in that interim 10-year period and how we begin to shift bike share specifically into the conversation around public transit more centrally. Cities need to invest in bike share as an essential part of how our communities function. Funding solutions need to support that kind of system in the same way that we do for traditional public transit and automobiles.
Then the other piece of the equation is our network of branded mobility hubs and how we begin to more functionally connect shared micromobility, electric car sharing and our other shared mobility options both physically and digitally. We’ll have 60 mobility hubs around Minneapolis by the end of this year. We see that as a growing arc for us. I’m a firm believer that the City should make it easy for you to go from one part of town to the other. But, I can’t have you walk a quarter-mile between modes in the middle of your journey. It’s got to be more like 30 feet to get you to the next mode to keep going on your journey … or to start your journey. The more friction the less likely you are to do it via shared micromobility.
CdW: Here’s my thesis. If you look at the younger generation, say from 15 to about 40 years old, they are struggling to afford the ownership model, whether it’s a car, bike, or other modality. But, they want all the mobility solutions. That’s where mobility services–not just shared micromobility services–come into play. Consumers will have more access to vehicles, whether it is through sharing, leasing, or any of the other subscription models. But it will be vehicle agnostic: anything on two wheels, three wheels, e-bikes, scooters, cargo bikes, and any other vehicles that support urban lifestyles.
The other part of my thesis is that, whether people like it or not, shared micromobility will not take the place of cars. It might for some people. But for the vast majority of people in cities, shared micromobility is adjacent or in addition to car ownership. This is a provocative theme, but this is why I think the automotive industry will continue to have a role in offering these services. They are still concerned about the long-term outlook of car sales.
The [automotive industry] also has deep pockets. They can finance and service all these vehicles. And they also could gain a stronghold on the complexity of a functioning micromobility value chain: from software, battery technology, motor technology, and even retail real estate. As the automotive industry reckons with mechanics needing to do less work on cars, they will have to give them more work. So the future is a mobility hub, or center, where people can go in and out, access vehicle options, and meet their subscription models. They can pick and choose every single day the vehicle of their liking. Shared mobility is evolving.
Cityfi: What do you see as the role of the public sector and the private sector in a successful shared micromobility future?
RB: I’m really interested in the shift of shared micromobility into the transit paradigm — particularly the cultural shift on how we view these services and whether we truly invest in them as a necessary part of the transportation picture or puzzle. In places like New York and Washington DC, the narrative shifted to public transit. I think some of the private sector’s role [in recent years] has actually regressed that conversation. The idea that cities don’t need to worry about funding shared micromobility. I think that’s actually the most harmful thing was the idea of VC-funded systems that people feel like isn’t [local government’s] responsibility and we don’t have to deal with financing it. We need to change the conversation around the fact that shared micromobility systems are really necessary in our communities. We do need to invest in them because they are for the public good and will help us meet our goals.
We have to figure out what that looks like because we need to stop thinking about single vehicle types or mobility choices. There are vehicle typologies that are the private sector’s responsibility to advance but that are definitely desired by the public sector — whether it’s cargo bikes or adaptive cycles that have yet to scale in the US in any substantial way. I think the private sector is better positioned to provide some of those solutions, so we need to figure out what public-private partnerships look like to do that.
It can be a challenge to subsidize private industry and understand what is the right balance between public good and private investment. We have hybrid models in the Twin Cities. Our car share operator is a nonprofit, and, in this model, the City of Saint Paul owns and leases the vehicles and the nonprofit provides service and manages the operations on a day-to-day basis. That has proven to be a pretty successful model, at least on the car sharing side in Minnesota. And so we are starting to look at mobility leadership models like Montreal, New Orleans, and other places that are finding these new hybrid government structures that really put progress over profit.
SS: First and foremost, the public sector has a responsibility to create a built environment that facilitates micromobility. If local governments do nothing else, absolutely nothing else, but build a lot of protected bike lanes and designate parking spaces for micromobility that are within about 150 to 200 meters from one another, then they will have done a huge amount to move micromobility forward. The good news is that the infrastructure work is happening and that is a really great tailwind for Lime. The more you have projected bike infrastructure, the more people ride.
The next thing governments can do is to extend the planning, policy, and investment that they’re already providing for electric vehicles to electric micromobility. I am extremely excited about the Communities Taking Charge accelerator grant that was put out by the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. It’s a $4 million dollar grant opportunity that specifically includes and encourages projects that are oriented to accelerating small electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, and regulatory changes.
Lastly, there is a dollars and cents element that needs to be solved. There’s about to be a study out of San Diego State and Portland State that looks at all of the taxes and fees assessed on micromobility across 75 cities around the world. We found that in the majority of cities, they charge both sales tax and a special micromobility tax or fee. The multiple of what they’re charging compared to cars and ride sharing is something like 22x. This is not rational. If you’re going to provide subsidies for electric cars, then you need to do it for micromobility if you want to encourage bikes and scooters. Let’s subsidize the trips, and invest in the people supporting the industry (for example job training and workforce development), but let’s also take away the barriers like double taxation.
Cityfi: How does the investor and product landscape need to adjust to realize this bright future?
CdW: The future is one with many more mobility companies that have matured — not just micromobility companies. The companies that are still around will have realized a few things to be able to succeed. First, they will understand what the consumer wants and that no single product can meet all these wants and needs. Secondly, their product will be reliable and their operation will be financially disciplined. And then, in terms of the products themselves, these companies will figure out that they are not selling consumer products, but rather commercial products. They will master the science of wear-and-tear of these products, which is critical because these are asset-heavy companies, and asset-heavy companies have an incredibly negative impact on unit economics. So, they start to work like large commercial airplane or ship building companies that have unit economics down to a science.
Cityfi: What are the developments that you’re seeing in the shared micromobility space that really excite you that could have a much more prominent role moving forward? Any other final thoughts?
RB: We’ve gotten to a place where we recognize the need to right-size people’s journeys. That means different vehicle typologies. I don’t think a bike serves everybody and I certainly don’t think a scooter serves everybody. We need to figure out what are the other form factors that we really need to service everybody. Every use case from I need to go to a meeting to I need to take my kid to school to I have to take my mother to the doctor. Those are all use cases that probably require different vehicles. We need adaptive cargo vehicles, sit down bikes and scooters, and the yet-to-be-named “thing” that we haven’t seen yet.
A huge part of the conversation here in Minnesota is how do we keep serving people in winter? I was really excited to see Montreal start winter bike share operations this past year and I don’t know if you saw this, but they doubled their bike share ridership in the last four years. They’ve gone from 5.8 to 12 million rides per year.
We need to create new systems here to be able to actually serve people and to be fair — I don’t think that’s going to happen with certain form factors. We need to figure out which form factors are going to allow people to actually get rid of their car year round — not just for six months out of the year. I actually think that’s another big place where the private sector can play a huge role in helping us find solutions that are really going to serve these needs.
SS: We need to start thinking about shared micromobility as a public-private partnership, or like utilities like we do for cable and trash collection. This is modern government services that works with private parties to provide public services within a regulated framework. It happens all the time and there’s a whole range of ways to do it, but really the vision, as I see it, is for this kind of public-private partnership. The vision should be investing in the future of micromobility as a public service.
CdW: Again, I’m being provocative, but it’s not just about shared mobility anymore. What’s next will have a totally different name. We’ve talked about new mobility, e-mobility, and now mini-mobility. The names stick because we’re living in the marketing age and every so many years there is some new concept. I have no idea what the next label will be, but we will absolutely have more mobility. We’re in for a wild ride, and on every level it will be positive.
