How cities like Stockholm and London can enhance e-scooter regulation 

London is seen as a growing market for e-scooter sharing, but for any city considering shared micromobility schemes, the right regulatory balance is crucial to creating successful markets for operators and safe conditions for city dwellers.

Of the three e-scooter operators awarded contracts by Transport for London (TfL) in July 2023, Dott has already withdrawn and Swedish firm Voi may not be far behind. In a June 2024 letter to the UK capital’s mayor, Sadiq Kahn, Voi’s CEO Fredrik Hjelm said London is its worst-performing e-scooter market in Europe. He said a “heavily regulated trial” period for e-scooters had left operators with official contracts struggling to compete with unregulated providers. "Micromobility is crucial to reduce dependency on cars and to increase sustainable and accessible forms of transport," according to Hjelm.

Indeed, e-scooters offer a sustainable way to connect people to public transit and replace short taxi rides. But overregulation could threaten the viability of this mode of urban transportation. That’s why operators in many European cities have been pushing for improved regulations to facilitate shared micromobility schemes. If regulators enforce strict rules, it could impede growth in the high-population areas that need shared micromobility initiatives the most.

The city of Stockholm in Sweden recently saw a similar backlash to London from operator Bolt who complained to the competition authority over the decision to reward some e-scooter providers with a higher number of vehicles based on historical usage, among other factors. E-scooter upstart Ryde Technology, for example, was offered a contract for only 200 vehicles after applying for 3,500. This is compared to the 4,500-vehicle quota awarded to two larger operators. This means new operators would need to make their service virtually free to attract riders, while also making considerable operational investments to qualify for a higher e-scooter quota in the future.

While such policies can render e-scooter markets unattractive to operators, regulating e-scooters is a good idea. For example, many users may not know how or want to park properly or ride safely. Authorities and operators can introduce measures to combat this, such as issuing parking tickets or requiring operators to meet certain vehicle standards to ensure safety.

The risk is, however, that if regulations are too restrictive, e-scooter providers may be reluctant to enter these markets. This would result in less competitive offerings for riders, or no micromobility options at all. Cities must try to strike a regulatory balance to create successful shared micromobility schemes.

A 2024 report by Movability identifies six ways cities can loosen regulations to attract e-scooter operators while still ensuring their regulations protect riders and other road users:

Since 2015, the city of Bergen in Norway has implemented a cap on vehicles in certain areas to solve congestion. In the outer areas of the city, where there is less traffic, e-scooter operators are free to compete on coverage in spite of limited profitability. The end result has been a better service and few parking issues.

Due to its success in Bergen, this regulation has been proposed in other cities, including the Norwegian capital, Oslo. Oslo previously imposed a total cap but a council member has proposed increasing it in the outer areas rather than removing it entirely.

Such caps should only be imposed in areas where there is an issue with vehicle congestion, however. If not, regulators are imposing an unnecessary solution that could hinder business.

Digital barriers, also known as geofencing, can dictate where e-scooter users can ride and park. For example, they can prevent riders from parking their scooters in a given area or enforce a reduced speed zone.

But cities should use digital regulation with caution as the technology can be inaccurate. For example, overcrowding of geofence zones in a small area or too many unnecessary regulations can make micromobility services unattractive. Parking bays and good bike infrastructure will have a much better effect than no-parking zones.

If a city has a mandatory parking scheme for e-scooters, it means users must park in a parking bay at the end of their ride.

In 2022, six e-scooter operators agreed that 40 parking bays per square kilometre is adequate coverage for "dense urban areas", with a minimum of three parking spots available for each e-scooter.

Parking tickets could help to encourage responsible e-scooter parking, as they have with cars in many cities for decades. It can lead to better parking without requiring other kinds of technology to enforce responsible riding behaviour.

On the other hand, Norway’s capital, Oslo, has a policy of non-mandatory or free-floating parking. This allows riders to park anywhere that’s suitable – they aren’t required to park in an e-scooter bay – but they are fined for poor parking.

A weakness of the tender system that many regulators use to award micromobility contracts to e-scooter providers is that it rewards operators who can write well about their parking and safety technology, even if they can’t deliver on their promises. The risk is that operators, fearing competition, may refrain from admitting the shortcomings of their offerings, affecting user experience.

Simplifying the tender process and reducing unnecessary regulatory complexity lowers the financial and administrative barriers for operators. This will encourage more operators to serve cities, increasing competition and availability and potentially lowering prices for users.

Some cities charge operators regulatory fees. These are designed to cover costs or to generate revenue for investment in infrastructure.

If these fees are too high, however, it can lead to increased ride costs or reduced services, which can limit accessibility and deter usage. This would be counter-productive to city goals for reducing emissions and boosting transportation options.

Cities don’t have to make the same regulation mistakes twice when it comes to the growing e-scooter market. Removing unnecessary shared micromobility regulations can increase usage.

If European cities are serious about investing in the benefits of shared micromobility – including reducing transport emissions – regulators must ensure their regimes work for e-scooter operators and their riders.