Last week, Citymapper, the London-based transport application, introduced a novel concept: “floating transport.” As the company articulated, this mode of transport is characterized by its lack of fixed routes or established infrastructure, effectively addressing a critical gap in urban mobility solutions.
This term neatly encapsulates a spectrum of services, from dockless bicycle hire systems like Ofo and Mobike in London, to electric scooters offered by Bird and Lime in San Francisco, and Daimler’s Car2Go short-term car rental service. Citymapper’s application now integrates these “floating” options alongside traditional urban transport options such as buses and trains, providing users with a comprehensive suite of choices.
The functionality of these services hinges on GPS and cellular technology, enabling real-time tracking of rented vehicles. Users are charged by the minute, and the vehicles can be immobilized remotely upon trip completion, irrespective of their parking location. The surge in popularity of these systems this year mirrors broader trends, including a decrease in car ownership and a growing preference for rental and shared services over outright ownership.
These urban transport systems are rapidly becoming commonplace. But the critical question remains: what role will they play in shaping the cities of the future? Citymapper’s recent update offers a glimpse into this future, suggesting a transformative potential, albeit one that requires ironing out certain operational wrinkles.
[Uber for bikes: how ‘dockless’ cycles flooded China – and are heading overseas
Read more](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/22/bike-wars-dockless-china-millions-bicycles-hangzhou)
The allure of floating transport is particularly strong for investors, especially those who missed the initial boom of Uber and similar ride-sharing platforms. The considerable venture capital pouring into this sector underscores this enthusiasm. Scooter company Bird, for instance, secured a staggering US $300m (£226m) in funding last month, achieving a valuation of $1.7bn. This was closely followed by a joint investment from Uber and Google in Bird’s competitor, Lime, valuing Lime at $1.1bn, as the company deploys its distinctive green scooters in Paris, marking its entry into the European market.
Unlike earlier models like docked cycle hire or fixed-parking car hire (such as Zipcar), floating transport requires minimal initial investment. The absence of docks or the need to lease permanent parking spaces from cities significantly reduces setup costs. Furthermore, with sustained high demand, the financial returns can be substantial.
According to Bloomberg’s Brad Stone, a Bird scooter can conservatively generate approximately $10 in revenue per day. This equates to about five short trips. While scooters require daily recharging—typically outsourced to gig economy contractors paid $5 per scooter—the net daily profit remains around $5. Based on these figures, a $300 scooter, with an additional $50 for modifications including GPS tracking and locking mechanisms, can recoup its initial cost within just two months.
While profitability is a key driver, the broader urban impact of floating transport warrants careful consideration. The rapid expansion of this sector has not been without its challenges. A significant issue is the shared and often limited nature of pavement space. The pavement congestion observed in San Francisco due to Bird scooters mirrors the situation in London with Ofo bikes. The dockless model, where users can leave vehicles anywhere, frequently results in pavements cluttered with parked, and sometimes out-of-service, rides.
This pavement clutter can range from being a minor annoyance to a significant hazard. In London, parents have voiced concerns about being forced to maneuver strollers into roadways to navigate around piles of bicycles. Similarly, wheelchair users in Los Angeles have encountered previously accessible routes blocked by carelessly parked scooters.
Despite its relative freedom from the regulatory constraints faced by traditional transport startups, floating transport is not entirely unregulated. For instance, electric scooters face legal hurdles in expanding to the UK, as their use on roads and pavements is currently prohibited. Dockless cycle hire encounters similar challenges in places like Australia, where helmet laws pose a barrier to spontaneous usage.
Citymapper remains optimistic that, despite regional regulatory variations, floating transport represents a global trend. Currently, the app offers basic integration with many floating transport providers, displaying available bikes, cars, and scooters on the map along with battery charge levels. However, these services are not yet fully integrated into Citymapper’s core multi-modal journey planning feature.
Citymapper has indicated that deeper integration is on the horizon. Once implemented, floating transport options will be presented to users on par with other modes of transport. For example, if taking an Ofo bike to the subway is faster than waiting for a bus, the app will suggest this as a viable option.
However, Citymapper’s conceptual app interface, showcasing a route from Stoke Newington in north-east London, a neighborhood with perceived transport limitations, glosses over some inherent challenges of floating transport. While planning a journey that starts with a short walk to a bike and continues with a subway ride is straightforward, planning the return trip is less so. Will a bike be available at the return location? Or might an entirely different route have been more efficient from the outset? This is not merely a hypothetical concern; users frequently encounter situations where a bike shown as available is actually non-functional due to unreported issues or removal from the system.
Floating transport also grapples with issues similar to those faced by docked cycle hire systems in their early stages: urban mobility patterns exhibit strong correlations. Rush hour is the most evident example, but consistent patterns emerge when analyzing usage data over time. For instance, finding an available docking space near Hackney’s Victoria Park at 1 pm on a sunny Saturday, and subsequently finding a bike to return home eight hours later, can be equally challenging.
Now, consider addressing these demand fluctuations without the infrastructure of docks, where users can at least wait in anticipation of bike availability.
[Are ride-share electric scooters the future of urban transport?
Read more](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/apr/25/electric-scooters-urban-transport-bird-santa-monica-uk)
Many floating transport providers are acknowledging these potential shortcomings and are proactively implementing solutions. Some bike-sharing companies, mirroring strategies used by London’s docked cycle hire network, are now collecting bikes from less frequented areas and redistributing them to key transport hubs. Jump, an e-bike provider now owned by Uber, offers a “preorder” feature, allowing users to reserve bikes in advance (while still charging by the minute) to ensure availability when needed.
Furthermore, intelligent urban transport planning plays a crucial role. If users fully embraced apps like Citymapper, diligently following real-time routing instructions even on familiar routes, these platforms could dynamically reroute users based on current conditions. This could involve directing users towards newly available bikes or suggesting bus alternatives if scooter availability is limited.
Ultimately, floating transport must learn a fundamental lesson that traditional transport systems have long understood: while flexibility is appealing, urban mobility relies on reliability.
Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, and explore our archive here
