Shared mobility in Greater Minnesota | Resources | Shared Mobility Public-Private Partnership Guide
7: Navigating challenges
Municipalities can face a range of challenges when initiating and implementing shared-mobility partnerships with private companies. This section of the guide addresses some of the more common challenges and how to navigate them.
Working with private shared-mobility companies
One of the most frequently cites challenges is working with companies that are not responsive or are otherwise uncooperative once they are contracted or licensed by a city. Some cities struggle to ensure that companies address issues like poor scooter or bike placement, or misuse. Others report frequently needing to remind the shared-mobility company about the requirements outlined in regulatory frameworks and contracts. These types of interactions can create frustration for city employees.
Particular challenges have arisen for cities with a stated goal to have shared scooters, bikes, or vehicles distributed in their community with social impact in mind. Some cities look to shared mobility as a new transit option for residents who do not own a car or have limited access to public transit, especially in historically underserved neighborhoods. Private companies, however, may not necessarily share the city’s values, and may instead prioritize service models that encourage high use of their service. In these circumstances, some cities have found themselves having to fight with shared-mobility companies to locate devices or vehicles in under-resourced neighborhoods.
Addressing the challenge of nonresponsive or uncooperative companies is made easier when regulatory or contracting documents clearly lay out responsibilities for all parties. Cities in Minnesota that reported they do not have problems with uncooperative companies or have resolved their challenges with partners noted that their regulations or contracts made it easy to handle difficult situations. One city also recommended maintaining and analyzing system-usage data independently from the private company to be able to anticipate or understand issues without having to rely on the contractor for information.
Planning across municipal boundaries
In large metropolitan areas or regional centers, municipal boundaries can pose challenges to shared-mobility solutions. For example, Twin Cities area municipalities have noted this problem, and have tried to coordinate solutions across city boundaries in certain areas. Staff from cities that have attempted to coordinate multi-city shared-mobility solutions note that these partnerships require extensive administrative work, as each city or agency will likely have different approval requirements and processes.
Lack of interest from shared-mobility providers
Some municipalities, especially suburban and rural communities, have faced challenges finding interested private shared-mobility companies to partner with. Shared-mobility service models often depend on a certain number or density of potential users in a service area, which makes non-urban communities less attractive to service providers.
For example, one suburban community in Minnesota reported only receiving responses from one company when it released a request for proposals for car sharing. A rural Minnesota community had concerns when it considered switching service providers; with limited resources to support a program, staff worried that no service providers would be interested in entering their market.
Communities that represent smaller markets, or where previously there has not been interest from shared-mobility providers, may wish to explore operational subsidies under the DBFOM model or investment in system ownership with an operational partner using the long-term lease agreement model. (see Section 5 of this guide on business models) Depending on the service, federal grants and public transit dollars may be available to help provide funding for these subsidies. Examples of local funding include general fund, improvement district funds, private vehicle parking fees, and the new Minnesota delivery tax on retail deliveries, which goes into effect on July 1, 2024. (see Section 5 of this guide for more information on funding).
Community resistance and building public support
One of the more common challenges to implementing shared-mobility solutions is community pushback. Municipalities of all types and sizes in Minnesota have reported dealing with resident complaints after initiating a new shared-mobility service. Complaints often take the form of calls or emails about shared-mobility users (especially scooter users) riding too fast or on the sidewalk, as well as scooters or bikes parked in the wrong place or blocking sidewalks.
Often these complaints come from a small minority of residents and do not accurately reflect the community’s overall opinion of shared mobility. However, it can be difficult to solicit feedback from those residents who support or use the system, and are therefore likely to view the service more favorably. Periodic surveys of users can help to fill in the picture of how shared mobility is used and why users value the service.
Cities and shared-mobility experts have offered some guidance for how to introduce a new shared-mobility service to manage the potential backlash. To start, cities should recognize that shared-mobility services often represent a new technology and use of city space for residents. This means that there will be some enthusiastic supporters and early adopters. However, as with any new technology or innovation, there will also be people resistant to change.
Experts suggest that addressing community concerns is best done through small focus groups or one-on-one interviews with a range of community members. The nature of these conversations often surfaces important concerns or nuanced perspectives on shared mobility, and avoids situations where a generic community survey becomes a barometer for a community’s interest in change.
Additionally, cities that have successfully implemented shared-mobility programs noted that starting with a pilot program can help introduce residents to the new technology in a low-stakes, less-threatening way. Pilot programs allow a city to adapt to feedback (potentially in real time) and build a long-term model that meets the needs and addresses the concerns of its residents.