Shared e-bikes and e-scooters, known as “мікромобільність” (micromobility) devices, have sparked great interest in Australia. These transportation options, available for shared use, have been the subject of trials conducted by private operators such as Lime, Beam, and Neuron, in various cities and local municipalities.
Public perceptions of these programs vary widely, with some viewing them as passing trends or disruptive to the existing transport system. However, the reality is more nuanced. Shared scooters and bicycles are gradually becoming integrated into the urban transport networks of cities like Brisbane and Melbourne.
The question remains: do these micromobility systems exclusively benefit young, affluent tourists, or do they have a broader impact? Recent research carried out in cities across Australia, New Zealand, and the United States has uncovered a different perspective. The findings indicate that subsidized micromobility programs can offer significant advantages to vulnerable user groups.
One of the notable benefits is the affordability these programs provide to low-income users. Survey results from Lime Access customers reveal that these individuals are five times more likely to use shared scooters and bicycles for their daily travel compared to non-subsidized riders. They are also twice as likely to use these services for essential trips and to connect with public transportation. The ability to travel without a car is considered a significant advantage by half of the Lime Access customers, promoting a more sustainable transport system.
Moreover, individuals with disabilities also derive great value from these shared micromobility programs. The electric motors of e-scooters and e-bikes reduce fatigue and strain, making it easier for them to travel to essential destinations. These programs not only provide independence but also bridge the gap for those who cannot drive due to their physical disabilities.
To maximize the benefits of shared micromobility programs, governments play a vital role. It is crucial for governments to establish frameworks and incentives that support the expansion of these programs to reach more vulnerable groups. While there may be challenges in ensuring financial viability for operators, implementing equity requirements and reducing fees for low-income customers, as demonstrated in cities like Washington DC, can contribute to creating more equitable transport systems.
In conclusion, shared micromobility programs have the potential to provide substantial benefits to vulnerable user groups. By addressing affordability and accessibility barriers, governments can pave the way for a more inclusive and sustainable urban transport system.
