Paris, Pilots, and Public Subsidy
April 18, 2023
I’ve been thinking about what the two biggest news stories in bike and scooter sharing means for the future of the industry and how cities in general should approach introducing new e-mobility pilot programs:
#1 Paris had their citizens decide in a yes/no referendum to overwhelmingly stop shared e-scooters from being a part of the transportation mix anymore.
#2 Lyft, the largest owner/operator of bike sharing in the US, has been pulling out of markets and is in some financial trouble.
In the case of Paris, a yes/no vote is a simplification of the issue at hand and is equivalent to how many complex policy issues become generalized into an either/or option only. What if instead, Paris had done a better job to shared usage data, crash data, and other relevant stats that inform the citizenry, and ultimately put the type of operation, type of regulation, and where they can operate, to a vote, versus a yes/no vote on whether to allow shared e-scooters?
Paris is a bit of an anomaly with its size and density, because the owned and leased e-scooter business model will quickly fill this void, but cities will look at Paris as an example, and shouldn’t make the same mistake of simplifying the issue to a yes/no vote.
Running pilots are key to developing successful long-term mobility solutions that replace SOV car trips, reduce emissions, and improve a community’s vitality. Experimentation with various business models and public-private partnerships is crucial, and not every community should take the same approach.
In the case of Lyft, how are U.S. cities supposed to select shared micromobility operators to partner with when they’ve witnessed ride hailing companies acquire smaller companies, then only to drop their business units or markets in a matter of a couple years?
After piloting and experimenting with new mobility options, public input can be helpful in deciding what type of partnership and business model makes the most sense for your community. In some cases, a turnkey program makes the most sense; in other cases, a locally owned and operated program is better; and in others, software only, or hardware + software is better. Even though it’s been tried over and over again, a one size fits all approach doesn’t work well in the long-run. If local governments make no adjustments with public input and put no regulations in place after a short pilot period, it results in typically short-term programs.
Besides providing and continuing to provide public subsidy for active and sustainable mobility programs, aligning these three stakeholder interests is often the most difficult part of launching and sustaining a successful e-mobility program in your community:
Citizens/Consumers/Users
Cities/Public Sector
Companies/Private Sector
As the weather warms up and people are choosing more active modes to move around, it’s important to consider how to bring a pilot program to reality, from an independent, external perspective. At SMC, we advise mobility startups, and work with cities and the real estate industry to help them actualize their sustainable mobility goals. Let us know if you’d like to schedule an introductory discussion with us.
