Clean cars, unequal access: The equity gap in shared electric mobility

The global transition to electric mobility is exposing a growing fault line between environmental ambition and social equity. While electric vehicles (EVs) are promoted as a cornerstone of low-carbon urban transport, access to electric driving remains uneven, shaped by income, housing conditions, and the unequal distribution of charging infrastructure. 

A new study titled From Ownership to Equitable Access: Shared Electric Mobility as an Alternative to Private Electric Vehicles, published in the journal Future Transportation, examines whether shared electric mobility can offer a fairer and more inclusive pathway to decarbonizing urban transport, particularly for groups excluded from private electric vehicle ownership.

Based on extensive interviews with policymakers, practitioners, and researchers in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands, the study asserts that shared electric mobility holds significant promise as an alternative to private electric cars, but current systems and policies are falling short of delivering equitable access. 

Shared electric mobility grows, but access remains unequal

The study documents a rapidly expanding landscape of shared electric mobility across Northwestern Europe, including shared electric cars, bicycles, cargo bikes, mopeds, and step scooters. Cities have embraced these services as tools to reduce emissions, lower congestion, and make more efficient use of limited urban space. Shared electric mobility is also increasingly positioned as a complement to public transport, supporting first- and last-mile connections and enabling more flexible, multimodal travel.

Despite this growth, electric variants of shared mobility remain less widespread than their conventional counterparts. Shared electric cars, in particular, lag behind gasoline-powered shared vehicles, although this is expected to change as cities introduce stricter electrification requirements. Even where electric shared vehicles are available, their deployment is highly uneven. Services are concentrated in dense, affluent urban districts where demand is high and business models are most profitable.

This spatial concentration undermines the equity potential of shared electric mobility. Low-income neighborhoods, suburban areas, and districts with weaker public transport often have the greatest need for affordable mobility options, yet they are the least served by shared electric services. In these areas, residents remain dependent on private vehicles or limited public transport, while shared mobility systems cluster in city centers and high-demand zones.

Vehicle diversity also shapes access. While shared electric bicycles and scooters are common in many cities, shared electric cargo bikes and vehicles adapted for people with mobility impairments are rare. Market-driven service provision prioritizes vehicles with broad appeal and high turnover, limiting options for elderly users, people with disabilities, or households with specific transport needs. As a result, the promise of shared electric mobility as a universal solution remains unrealized.

Financial, digital, and spatial barriers shape who can participate

The study identifies a set of structural barriers that systematically limit access to shared electric mobility for socially and spatially disadvantaged groups. Financial constraints are among the most significant. Many shared mobility services require upfront deposits, subscription fees, or access to credit cards, creating immediate obstacles for lower-income users. Even when per-trip costs are lower than private vehicle ownership, the perception of paying for each use discourages adoption.

Digital dependency represents another major barrier. Most shared electric mobility services rely on smartphone applications for registration, booking, payment, and vehicle access. Users must have reliable internet access, sufficient digital literacy, and, in many cases, proficiency in dominant local languages. For people with limited digital skills, older adults, migrants, or those without smartphones, these requirements effectively exclude them from participation.

Awareness and familiarity also play a role. The study finds that many potential users are unaware of available shared electric mobility options or lack the practical knowledge needed to use them confidently. Instructions on pricing, unlocking vehicles, charging procedures, and penalties for improper use are often complex, reinforcing hesitation among new or infrequent users.

Spatial inequality compounds these challenges. Shared electric mobility services struggle to operate in low-density or peripheral areas where demand is lower and profitability uncertain. As a result, suburban and rural communities, which often face weaker public transport provision, are underserved by shared mobility despite potentially high social benefits. The market logic governing service deployment conflicts directly with equity goals.

These barriers reveal that access to shared electric mobility is shaped less by environmental intent than by socioeconomic position. Without deliberate policy intervention, shared electric mobility remains most accessible to young, highly educated, urban residents with stable incomes and strong digital skills.

Policy focus lags behind equity ambitions

The study finds that local policies governing shared electric mobility are primarily designed to manage safety, order, and operational efficiency rather than equity. Permitting systems regulate the number of vehicles, parking locations, and operational rules, but offer municipalities limited leverage over pricing structures, service coverage, or user accessibility. Commercial providers must apply for permits city by city, encouraging them to focus on jurisdictions with favorable conditions and high demand.

Infrastructure investment has been a central policy priority, particularly the expansion of public charging networks that support both private and shared electric vehicles. Cities and regions increasingly collaborate to build interoperable charging systems and promote seamless mobility across municipal boundaries. While these efforts support electrification, they do little to address underlying access inequalities.

Equity-focused measures remain largely experimental. The study identifies a range of pilots and local initiatives aimed at improving access, including discounted shared mobility services for low-income groups, shared bicycle programs for workers in remote industrial zones, and in-person assistance for users lacking digital skills or smartphones. Some cities have begun incorporating social criteria into permit evaluations, encouraging providers to compete on accessibility rather than scale alone.

Community-based shared mobility models also emerge as a promising alternative to purely commercial services. These initiatives allow residents to collectively manage shared vehicles, set pricing rules, and support neighbors with limited financial means. While such models can lower costs and strengthen social inclusion, the study cautions that they require significant organizational capacity and are unlikely to scale without sustained public support.

Achieving equitable access requires a shift in policy priorities. Rather than treating equity as a secondary benefit of shared mobility expansion, cities must embed social and spatial criteria directly into regulatory frameworks. This includes negotiating service obligations in underserved areas, supporting diverse vehicle options, simplifying access requirements, and coordinating across governance levels to strengthen municipal bargaining power.