Micromobility World, a virtual conference for people in and around micromobility, was held a couple of weeks ago. I’m going to talk about the three talks I found most interesting.
First, a quick note of appreciation for Micromobility Industries, who made this happen. Being able to listen and learn from different people across micromobility is hugely valuable to me and hearing different perspectives will benefit a lot of ongoing work. Their next event is in Amsterdam in June.
More parking, please
Travis VanderZanden and Horace Dediu are the right people for a micromobility keynote, but their conversation left me wanting more.
One thing is clear: Travis wants cities to invest in parking infrastructure. This is different to lots of generic pleas for ‘infrastructure’, but a focus on parking makes sense. Compared to bike lanes, the absence of clear places to park impacts Bird directly, as cities hold operators responsible for how riders park vehicles and issue fines and penalties, whereas unbuilt bike lanes might reduce rider demand, but it’s hard to untangle that from other causes.
Travis sees Bird’s (and competitors’) role as making compelling products that more people then use, creating demand that justifies cities subsequent investment in infrastructure. That’s reasonable, but I’d have liked to hear more discussion of a more active role for shared operators in establishing infrastructure, as Spin did in Salt Lake City and Pittsburgh.
Both panelists agreed that we haven’t yet had the iPhone moment for micromobility, the defining vehicle that changes how people think about micromobility and is an inflection point for broader adoption. If it’s not today’s scooter, how does Bird think about new kinds of vehicles? Travis acknowledged that innovation there is important and clarified that Bird will continue to target the bike lane, rather than launch a car.
Bird launched bikes recently and I’d have liked to hear more about that decision. Why now? Why use off-the-shelf bikes (from Okai) when they’ve publicly touted their own scooter hardware?
What happened to the Bird Cruiser, a lightweight e-moped that launched softly in Los Angeles in 2019? What did Bird learn from that process? Lime has launched full-size mopeds in both Europe and the US, but is seemingly retreating from those markets. How does Bird think about that form factor?
They talked about the IPO, but we didn’t learn much about the difference it has made. Travis mentioned easier access to capital, but how would he spend that money? Would he invest in hardware or software tech acquisitions, or look to consolidate the shared market further by acquiring smaller operators?
While a thorny topic, it would also have been interesting to learn how a public stock price and reporting quarterly results, watched eagerly by employees and the industry alike, have changed what Travis focusses on and how he runs the business differently. As with most of the discussion, it’d have been great to hear just a little more.
Batteries are the product
Gogoro manufactures vehicles and operates shared fleets, but CEO Horace Luke is clear that their real product is batteries, and the network of cabinets around cities that charge them.
Selling vehicles is a means to get people using the battery network, and Gogoro allows competing manufacturers like Aeon and Yamaha to use Gogoro batteries in their vehicles for that reason. The shared service is another way to get people riding vehicles with Gogoro batteries and familiar with the convenience of charging cabinets and swapping batteries.
Gogoro’s ongoing offering to a customer is based on usage, not simply providing a vehicle. People buy and own vehicles outright, then subscribe to the battery network on a monthly basis. This is similar to VanMoof and Cowboy charging for theft and maintenance cover on a monthly or yearly basis, but those feel more like insurance; optional protection against the worst things that happen. Your bike might not break down or get stolen today, but you will definitely need to charge (or swap) the battery.
It makes me wonder what subscription micromobility services in the West could do to design subscriptions around regular usage, rather than just providing a vehicle. Swapping batteries or moving vehicles on request feel equivalent, as does renting attachments (child seats, cargo bags, trailers).
Growing the battery network is central to Gogoro’s success, particularly to the point where it becomes the de facto standard in a city, because this makes new things possible. Luke mentioned that seven of every 10 battery swaps performed on Gogoro shared vehicles are done by riders, and each charging cabinet will serve 500 other customers in the 3-4 days before someone comes back to swap their next battery. This may well be the beginning of major change to both city infrastructure and shared micromobility operations if it scales across different cities and cultures.
It leaves me feeling unsettled precisely because it’s a really good idea. A common standard for batteries is clearly better for consumers. They’ll quickly learn where and how to swap them and quickly appreciate the convenience and the end to range anxiety that charging cabinets everywhere provide. Luke even talked about the “second lives” of batteries and how, ten years on, they might be powering other infrastructure like parking meters - again, this sounds great!
Should a private company have a monopoly on a core piece of future infrastructure, though? Luke said that 25% of eligible e-mopeds sold in Taipei were compatible with Gogoro batteries and called it a de facto standard (which sounds accurate). One private company owning infrastructure that is increasingly depended on feels like a precarious position for cities and citizens and I hope there are other ways to implement the practical benefits of this vision.
Single operators and subsidies
Caroline Samponaro’s (of Lyft) interview was the most interesting of the conference. As an industry veteran, she’s thought deeply, is secure in her position, and was the most opinionated and interesting person I listened to that day.
They began by discussing something similar to the Gogoro CEO: Lyft’s upcoming launch of charging stations for their bike-sharing service in Chicago. The distinction between battery charging cabinets and vehicle charging stations feels like splitting hairs at this stage, but my concern remains: why is installing infrastructure specific to one mobility company (if it is!) a good use of public space?
The conversation moved to public subsidies for micromobility and unlike some shared operators, Samponaro is a big fan, with the specific purpose of providing equally good service in less dense and poorer areas of the city. This is how existing buses and trains operate (Samponaro said that shared micromobility “should aspire to be like public transit”), and I agree that shared operators won’t invest in this otherwise.
They moved onto governance structure, noting Spin’s recent downsizing. Samponaro sees this as breaking the original promise of dockless operators, that cities would get new mobility options for free, without having to do any work or cede any space in the cities (I’m paraphrasing).
Samponaro notes that cities adopt a staffing model for dockless micromobility focussed on enforcement, as opposed to the partnership focus Lyft sees when operating services like Citi Bike in New York. It’s unclear to me whether this is a dockless problem or a many-operators problem, and that a partnership mindset is more natural when a city commits to working with a single operator. (Ben Bear of Spin has talked about their partnership with Pittsburgh, where Spin is the sole operator, involving optional charging station infrastructure and a “Universal Basic Mobility” pilot programme.)
Samponaro is enthusiastic about single operator permits, saying that Citi Bike wouldn’t exist had there been more competition, and that single operators are a better fit for subsidies from the city. I agree with the latter, but there was no discussion of the other side of the coin: whether competition from more operators can lead to a better or cheaper service for riders and even cities.
There were several more talks during the day and you can find the recordings on the Micromobility Industries YouTube channel.