In recent years, cycle sharing has become a familiar part of urban life, offering a flexible, sustainable alternative to cars and public transport. It’s a model that has shown immense potential, alongside its fair share of challenges and controversy.

But as we take a closer look, a key question emerges: who really benefits from today’s cycle sharing systems? Are they serving our communities, or simply another battlefield for venture-backed startups to chase market dominance?

💼 The Rise of the Uber-Style Operators

In the UK and Europe, the cycle sharing market is dominated by a handful of major players: Lime, Voi, TIER, and Dott. Each has raised substantial funding to scale their fleets and secure urban market share.

• Lime has raised a staggering $1.5 billion over ten funding rounds.
• Voi has secured $544 million across 14 rounds.
• TIER and Dott, now operating under the Dott brand, have raised $660 million and €210 million respectively.

At first, the outlook for micromobility sharing seemed almost too good to fail. As Dan Mano noted back in 2018, the unit economics were compelling: a basic Xiaomi scooter could recoup its cost in just 30 days. Investors were sold on the vision, and startups raised hundreds of millions to seize the opportunity.

Still, optimism persists. Improved hardware, longer-lasting e-bikes, and increasingly automated fleet operations are beginning to reduce costs. As Gad Allon explains in a 2025 analysis, while the promise of micromobility was overstated early on, a more sustainable business model is now emerging.

Although most operators are still unprofitable today, the market’s long-term potential remains enormous. Micromobility sharing is valued at over $160 billion, with projections suggesting it could reach $340 billion by 2030. For many companies, profitability at scale feels not just possible—but inevitable.

Their strategy is no secret: they are following the Uber playbook—raise big, scale fast, dominate markets, and wait for the numbers to work. It worked for ride-hailing. The question now is whether it can work for bikes and scooters.

⚙️ Does the Model Work? Yes—But at What Cost?

From a business standpoint, it works. Lime became the first micromobility operator to achieve profitability, reporting $686 million in net revenue in 2024 (up 32% YoY), with an adjusted EBITDA of over $140 million—a margin of more than 20%.

Their efficiency is impressive. Other operators have taken notice. The new consensus in the industry is clear: to become profitable, you must ruthlessly focus on operational performance and deploy fleets where usage—and revenue—are highest.

But let’s pause and ask: what does “efficiency” actually mean in this context?

• Focus only on high-profit cities. Lime has made London its top market.
• Exit unprofitable cities that don’t meet financial targets.
• Maximise utilisation by relocating vehicles to central, affluent areas.
• Invest in more expensive, longer-lasting hardware—especially larger e-bike fleets that appeal to higher-income users.

From a purely commercial view, it makes sense. But from a community perspective, it raises real concerns.

💰 The Hidden Costs to Society

So, is this model genuinely good for the public?

• In London, a typical 10-minute short Lime ride costs £3.70 — a price point well out of reach for many commuters.
• And yet, everyone pays the social cost: pavements blocked, public spaces cluttered, and roads obstructed by poorly parked bikes.
• These companies serve high-income, high-density areas—not the neighbourhoods that truly need more affordable transport options.

I see this firsthand in my own community. Lime bikes frequently block pavements, but they’re rarely found outside city centres — especially in areas with limited public transport, where people would benefit most from a low-cost, flexible option.

Cycle sharing was meant to make cycling easy and accessible for everyone. But when services only cover central postcodes and a 10-minute ride costs over £4, we have to ask: who is it really for?

Operators say they’re improving access—but how accessible is it, really, if it’s too expensive for everyday use and mostly serves affluent neighbourhoods and central areas?

🎯 Efficiency vs Equity

Let’s be honest, after raising hundreds of millions (or billions), investors expect strong returns. It’s no surprise that companies like Lime are focused on profitability above public benefit. They’re now preparing for IPO, and there’s no sign that their priorities will shift.

Other startups are now following the same playbook. With pressure to deliver long-awaited returns, they are increasingly replicating Lime’s model: centralised control, performance-based allocation, and strategic withdrawal from low-margin cities.

This is a system built for financial efficiency, not social equity.

• High utilisation often means geographic exclusion.
• Private profit is being prioritised over public accessibility.
• Public space is being commercialised—without public say.

It may make sense for shareholders, but we must ask: is this the future of urban transport we want?

🌱 A New Perspective: Community-First Cycle Sharing

Let’s be clear—we believe in cycle sharing. It’s a vital part of a sustainable, active travel future. But the current top-down, profit-driven model—led by ambitious startups chasing investor returns—is not the only way.

When accessibility becomes secondary to margins, we all lose. Ask most Londoners what they think of Lime, and many will say the same thing: “It’s convenient—but it gets in the way.”

That’s a clear signal. Convenience for some should not create inconvenience for everyone else.

At Mosa, we believe there’s a better way.

• A cycle sharing system that is affordable, inclusive, and locally responsive.
• A model that puts community needs before investor KPIs.
• A service inspired by shared ownership models like the Library of Things—where value is created and retained by the people it serves.

💬 Let’s Start the Conversation

What do you think?

Is the current cycle sharing model delivering on its promise of accessible mobility? Or is it time we rethink how we design and deploy these systems?

We’ll be sharing more reflections in upcoming posts—from the dockless dilemma to the untapped potential of long-tail usage. Let’s build something better, together.