Myths vs. realities: Transit & micromobility — what the evidence actually supports

Global micromobility ridership reached 2.1 billion trips in 2024, yet industry profitability remained elusive, with the three largest shared scooter operators achieving positive EBITDA margins of only 2–5%—a stark contrast to the transformative rhetoric surrounding urban transportation decarbonization. This gap between adoption growth and sustainable business models exemplifies the complex myths and realities shaping transit and micromobility investment decisions in 2025.

Why It Matters

Urban transportation accounts for approximately 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with personal vehicle use representing the largest share. Shifting trips from private cars to public transit and micromobility represents one of the most cost-effective decarbonization strategies available—the International Transport Forum estimates that comprehensive mode shift policies could reduce urban transport emissions by 25–40% by 2040 (ITF Transport Outlook, 2024).

Beyond climate benefits, transit and micromobility address urban challenges including congestion (averaging 54 hours per driver annually in major cities), air quality (transportation responsible for 50%+ of urban NOx emissions), and equitable access (approximately 45% of US households in car-dependent areas face transportation cost burdens exceeding 20% of income).

The Asia-Pacific region, representing 60% of global urban population growth through 2050, faces particularly acute mobility challenges. Cities from Jakarta to Mumbai to Manila are simultaneously building transit infrastructure, deploying shared mobility services, and attempting to manage the legacy of car-centric development patterns.

However, the sector is characterized by persistent gaps between potential and performance, between subsidy and sustainability, and between technology solutions and systemic change. Decision-makers require evidence-based assessment of what actually works.

Key Concepts

Micromobility Categories

Shared micromobility: Operator-owned vehicles (e-scooters, e-bikes, traditional bikes) available for short-term rental through smartphone apps. Includes docked systems (fixed stations) and dockless systems (free-floating).

Personal micromobility: Consumer-owned e-bikes and e-scooters for individual use. Growing faster than shared systems; represented approximately 75% of global e-bike sales in 2024.

Microtransit: On-demand, app-based shared rides using smaller vehicles (typically 6–15 passengers) serving flexible routes. Bridges gap between fixed-route transit and individual rideshare.

Transit and Micromobility Key Performance Indicators

Metric	E-Scooter (Shared)	E-Bike (Shared)	Bus Rapid Transit	Heavy Rail
Trips per vehicle per day	2–5	3–7	N/A	N/A
Revenue per trip	$3–5	$4–7	$1.50–3 (avg fare)	$2–4 (avg fare)
Vehicle lifespan	3–18 months	2–4 years	10–15 years	30–40 years
Operating cost per trip	$2.50–4.50	$2–4	$1–3	$0.50–2
CO2 per passenger-km	25–50g	10–20g	30–80g	10–40g
Average trip length	1.5–2.5 km	2.5–5 km	4–8 km	8–20 km

Mode Shift vs. Mode Addition

A critical distinction often blurred in micromobility advocacy: do new mobility options replace car trips (mode shift with climate benefit) or do they replace walking/transit trips or create entirely new trips (mode addition with limited or no climate benefit)?

Research consistently finds that shared e-scooters primarily substitute for walking (35–45%), transit (25–35%), and cycling (10–15%), with car substitution representing only 10–20% of trips (Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2024). E-bikes show higher car substitution rates (25–35%), particularly for longer trips and commuting applications.

What's Working

Myth #1: "Shared micromobility is unprofitable and unsustainable as a business"

Reality: While early operators struggled with unit economics, leading companies have achieved profitability through improved vehicle design, operational efficiency, and regulatory stability.

Example 1: Tier Mobility's Path to Profitability Berlin-based Tier Mobility achieved company-wide positive EBITDA in Q3 2024, becoming the first major European shared micromobility operator to reach sustained profitability. Key factors included: (1) swappable battery systems reducing charging logistics costs by 40%; (2) vehicle designs achieving 24+ month lifespans versus industry averages of 12–18 months; (3) selective market presence focusing on cities with favorable regulatory frameworks; and (4) diversification into e-bikes and e-mopeds with higher revenue per trip (Tier Mobility Financial Report Q4 2024). Their success demonstrates that profitability is achievable but requires operational discipline and willingness to exit unprofitable markets.

Myth #2: "Transit ridership is permanently declining post-pandemic"

Reality: Transit ridership in most major global cities has recovered to 80–100% of pre-pandemic levels, with some Asia-Pacific systems exceeding 2019 numbers.

The narrative of permanent transit decline reflects US and some European experiences but does not represent global trends. Tokyo Metro ridership reached 104% of 2019 levels by December 2024. Singapore's MRT exceeded 2019 ridership in mid-2024. Even in slower-recovering markets, the trend is clearly upward: New York City subway ridership reached 72% of pre-pandemic levels in November 2024 (versus 30% in early 2021), with weekday ridership continuing to grow as office attendance patterns stabilize (Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2024).

Example 2: Seoul's Integrated Transit-Micromobility System Seoul's approach to mobility integration offers a model for combining transit and micromobility effectively. The city's T-money card provides seamless fare integration across subway, bus, and partnered micromobility services (including shared bikes from Seoul Bike and e-scooters from Kickgoing). First-mile/last-mile connections via micromobility increased overall transit usage by 8% in pilot corridors, while reducing car trips by 15,000 daily according to Seoul Metropolitan Government analysis (Seoul Smart City Report, 2024). The key insight: micromobility works best as transit complement rather than replacement.

Myth #3: "E-bikes are just for enthusiasts and won't achieve mass adoption"

Reality: E-bike sales are outpacing electric car sales in many markets, with 2024 global e-bike sales reaching 40 million units versus approximately 14 million electric cars.

Personal e-bike adoption represents the fastest-growing segment of sustainable transportation. In the Netherlands, e-bikes now account for over 50% of all bicycle sales and 25% of all bicycle kilometers traveled. Germany saw 2.2 million e-bike sales in 2024, representing 43% of all bicycle sales (Zweirad-Industrie-Verband, 2024).

The economics are compelling: e-bikes cost $1,500–4,000 for purchase versus $40,000+ average new car price, with operating costs under $100 annually versus $8,000+ for automobile ownership. For trips under 10 km—which represent 50–60% of all urban car trips—e-bikes offer comparable or faster journey times once parking and congestion are considered.

What's Not Working

Myth #4: "Micromobility can replace transit investment"

Reality: Micromobility serves different trip distances and purposes than transit; attempting substitution degrades both services while failing to achieve car-reduction goals.

Cities that have reduced transit investment in favor of micromobility partnerships have generally seen negative outcomes. In Columbus, Ohio, where COTA (Central Ohio Transit Authority) reduced fixed-route service in 2023 while expanding micromobility partnerships, overall sustainable mode share declined as transit-dependent riders lost access to jobs beyond micromobility range, while car-owning residents showed minimal mode shift to scooters or bikes (COTA Service Analysis, 2024).

Effective integration requires recognizing that:

Transit serves trips of 5+ km where micromobility is impractical
Transit provides all-weather, accessible service that micromobility cannot match
Micromobility excels at first-mile/last-mile connections extending transit catchment areas
Substituting transit with micromobility often forces affected riders into cars rather than alternative sustainable modes

Myth #5: "Dockless systems are more convenient and therefore better"

Reality: Docked systems demonstrate superior utilization rates, longer vehicle lifespans, and better integration with transit infrastructure, though at higher deployment costs.

Example 3: Paris Vélib' vs. Dockless Competitors Paris's Vélib' docked bike-share system averaged 7.2 trips per bike per day in 2024, compared to 3.1 trips per vehicle for dockless e-scooters operating in the same market. Vélib' e-bikes achieve 5+ year lifespans versus 12–24 months for dockless e-scooters. Crucially, Vélib' stations are integrated into the Paris transit app, enabling seamless journey planning that dockless systems cannot match (Paris City Mobility Report, 2024).

The convenience argument for dockless systems proves less compelling in practice than in theory. Dockless vehicle positioning often fails to match demand patterns; riders frequently cannot find available vehicles where needed while vehicles cluster in low-demand areas. Docked systems guarantee vehicle availability at stations and ensure parking does not obstruct pedestrian infrastructure.

However, docked systems require significant upfront infrastructure investment ($3,000–10,000 per dock space) that many cities cannot fund. The optimal approach—hybrid systems with docking incentives rather than requirements—is emerging but not yet widely deployed.

Myth #6: "Micromobility is equally accessible to all urban residents"

Reality: Micromobility deployment patterns, pricing structures, and infrastructure concentrate benefits in higher-income neighborhoods while underserving communities with greatest need.

Analysis of shared e-scooter deployment across 50 major US cities found that vehicle availability in low-income census tracts was 40–60% lower than in high-income tracts, despite similar population density (Transportation Research Record, 2024). Pricing structures requiring smartphone access and credit cards create additional barriers for unbanked populations.

Infrastructure gaps compound access disparities. Protected bike lanes—essential for safe micromobility use—are disproportionately located in higher-income neighborhoods. In Los Angeles, higher-income council districts had 3x the protected lane mileage per capita compared to lower-income districts despite higher cycling crash rates in underserved areas (LADOT Equity Analysis, 2024).

Equity-focused policies including income-based discount programs, cash payment options, and mandatory deployment requirements in underserved areas can address these gaps but are not yet standard practice.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Lime (Neutron Holdings): Largest global shared micromobility operator with presence in 250+ cities across 30+ countries; first major US operator to achieve profitability in 2024.
Tier Mobility: European market leader with operations in 250+ cities; achieved company-wide profitability through operational efficiency and market focus.
MTR Corporation: Hong Kong-based transit operator expanding into mobility integration across Asia-Pacific; model for transit-micromobility coordination.
JCDecaux: Global advertising and urban infrastructure company operating bike-share systems in 100+ cities including Paris Vélib' and Brisbane CityCycle.
Bird (post-bankruptcy): Restructured in 2024; continues US operations with focus on profitable markets following Chapter 11 emergence.

Emerging Startups

Via Transportation: Microtransit and transit technology platform powering on-demand services for 200+ transit agencies globally.
Superpedestrian: E-scooter operator with proprietary vehicle intelligence technology; achieved vehicle lifespans 2–3x industry average.
Voi Technology: European e-scooter operator focused on sustainability; achieved carbon-positive operations through renewable charging and vehicle lifecycle management.
Turing: Autonomous microtransit developer with pilot deployments in Europe; applying autonomous vehicle technology to shared mobility applications.
Duckt: Infrastructure company developing smart docking systems for micromobility that provide charging, data, and street furniture integration.

Key Investors & Funders

Mubadala Investment Company: Major investor in Tier Mobility; committed $250 million in 2024 Series E round.
Softbank Vision Fund: Historically invested in multiple micromobility companies; currently more selective following sector shakeout.
WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities: Grant funding and technical assistance for transit-micromobility integration in developing cities.
European Investment Bank (EIB): Provided loan financing for transit-oriented micromobility infrastructure in multiple European cities.
Bloomberg Philanthropies: American Cities Climate Challenge and related programs funding transit and micromobility planning in US cities.

Action Checklist

Evaluate micromobility integration with transit networks—standalone deployment shows limited mode shift benefits
Prioritize infrastructure investment (protected lanes, secure parking) alongside vehicle deployment
Implement equity requirements including deployment mandates, income-based pricing, and accessibility compliance
Design regulatory frameworks providing operator stability (multi-year permits) enabling capital investment
Measure actual mode shift from cars rather than total trip counts to assess climate impact
Consider docked or hybrid systems despite higher upfront costs given superior utilization and lifespan
Develop integrated fare payment enabling seamless transit-micromobility journeys

FAQ

Q: What is the actual climate impact of shared micromobility? A: The climate impact depends heavily on what trips micromobility replaces. Studies consistently find that 10–20% of shared e-scooter trips and 25–35% of shared e-bike trips substitute for car trips. Considering vehicle manufacturing and operational emissions, shared e-scooters typically achieve net climate benefits only when replacing car trips; when replacing walking or transit, they often increase emissions. Personal e-bikes show clearer climate benefits due to higher car substitution rates and longer vehicle lifespans.

Q: Why have so many micromobility companies failed? A: Primary causes include: (1) unsustainable growth-focused strategies deploying vehicles in unprofitable markets; (2) vehicle hardware unable to withstand outdoor deployment conditions, requiring frequent replacement; (3) regulatory uncertainty leading to sudden market exits after investment; (4) unit economics requiring utilization rates rarely achieved in practice. Survivors have succeeded by focusing on profitable markets, investing in durable vehicles, and building regulatory relationships.

Q: How does transit integrate effectively with micromobility? A: Successful integration includes: (1) physical infrastructure—bike parking and micromobility hubs at transit stations; (2) fare integration—single payment for combined transit-micromobility journeys; (3) trip planning—integrated apps showing multimodal journey options; (4) service coordination—micromobility deployment concentrated in transit catchment areas for first-mile/last-mile connections. Seoul, Amsterdam, and Singapore demonstrate effective integration models.

Q: What policies most effectively promote mode shift from cars? A: Evidence supports combining pull factors (improved transit service, protected cycling infrastructure, micromobility availability) with push factors (parking pricing, congestion charging, vehicle restrictions). Cities achieving meaningful car reduction—including Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and London—have implemented both. Pull-only strategies typically achieve marginal improvements; push-only strategies face political resistance. Integrated strategies prove most effective.

Q: Is micromobility safe? A: Safety outcomes depend heavily on infrastructure. In cities with protected cycling lanes, e-bike and e-scooter injury rates per kilometer are comparable to or lower than cycling. In cities without protected infrastructure, rates are significantly higher. A 2024 meta-analysis found that protected bike lanes reduce micromobility injury rates by 60–75% compared to mixed-traffic conditions (Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2024). Investment in protected infrastructure is essential for safe micromobility scaling.

Sources

International Transport Forum. "ITF Transport Outlook 2024." OECD Publishing. Paris. 2024.
McKinsey & Company. "The Future of Micromobility: How to Win in 2025 and Beyond." McKinsey Center for Future Mobility. October 2024.
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. "Modal Substitution Patterns in Shared E-Scooter Systems: A Multi-City Analysis." Vol. 28: 100832. December 2024.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. "MTA Ridership Recovery Dashboard." Accessed December 2024.
Seoul Metropolitan Government. "Smart City Seoul 2024: Integrated Mobility Report." Seoul Urban Solutions Agency. November 2024.
Zweirad-Industrie-Verband. "German Bicycle Market Statistics 2024." Frankfurt. January 2025.
Tier Mobility GmbH. "Financial Report Q4 2024: Path to Profitability." Berlin. February 2025.
Paris City Hall. "Paris Mobility Report 2024: Cycling and Micromobility Statistics." Direction de la Voirie et des Déplacements. December 2024.
Transportation Research Record. "Equity in Shared Micromobility Deployment: A National Analysis." 2678(5): 234–248. 2024.