Rethinking Urban Mobility: How Cities Can Ditch Double Taxation and Embrace Sustainable Scooters and E-bikes

In a time when micromobility offers an ever-growing network of fast, fun, and environmentally friendly ways to move around towns and cities, it's crucial to recognize the potential it holds. However, alarm bells should ring when successive local and state authorities appear to be shooting themselves in the foot by creating a maze of regulatory fees, taxes and barriers that hinder rather than encourage their adoption. By reviewing these structural fees, we can unlock micro-mobility's tremendous potential, enabling greater urban accessibility, reducing CO2 emissions, and making our cities more equitable and fairer for everyone. What the current system does is not just taxing micromobility twice over, it's also creating an unfair situation. First, every trip pays sales tax to the states, which scooter and e-bike riders then pay. Second, many cities also charge operating fees to micromobility companies, which are again passed on to the consumer through the price of fares. This creates more expensive, less convenient options for riders than driving cars that pay relatively lax gas taxes and no operating fees at all. This double taxation sets off a domino effect of problems. Discouragement of residents from choosing greener forms of transportation can hamper a city’s attempt to solve issues such as traffic congestion and pollution. It can also result in discrimination against low-income riders who rely on these forms of transportation. Most importantly, these fees can undermine cities' goals to foster sustainable transport modes. Cities should adopt a new philosophy of micro-mobility fees. Waiving operating fees for micromobility companies would translate directly into lower fares for the riders; cutting sales tax on trips would end the double taxation of micromobility; and tiered fees with lower costs for short trips or low-income riders would expand accessibility and promote greater adoption. Cities should also look at alternative sources of revenue beyond scooter and e-bike users, such as congestion pricing: setting fees on cars entering areas with high traffic to incentivize drivers to shift to micro-mobility users or reallocating some of the revenue to keep the infrastructure in good condition, or partnering with local businesses to provide scooter/e-bike users with discounts or free rides when they pay at the company. Such approaches would serve as additional income for businesses by attracting scooter/e-bikers at lower costs and providing more sanitary means of transport around the city. Long-term ridership can help multiply the benefits of micromobility, too. Providing subscription passes at discounted monthly or yearly rates to frequent riders can incentivize regular usage and boost ridership numbers. Cities can also partner with micro-mobility companies to offer reward programs on usage with incentives such as bringing down ride fees for riders who reach vital milestones (e.g., completing several trips per month). Lastly, fees should be determined based on data. Cities should use usage data about the frequency of use, distance traveled, and characteristics of the users to test how different fee schedules affect rider behavior. They can then pilot innovative fee structures in specific areas to test their impact on ridership and inform city-wide policies. In short, cities can continue to tax scooters and e-bikes ad nauseam, a form of double taxation that holds back the full potential and promise of these sustainable, last-mile transportation alternatives. Or cities can shift towards a more incentive-based system of municipal revenue, whereby citizens are motivated to ride rather than drive. Doing so will produce a greener urban ecosystem and a more progressive transportation system that benefits all.