Who Pays for Cycle Sharing in the UK and Why Nobody Wants to Answer

Last week I was fortunate enough to attend the CoMoUK Summit. I sat in a room full of local authority officers and mobility operators, expecting to leave with more clarity about the future of cycle sharing in the UK. Instead I left with a bigger question — one that nobody in that room seemed willing to ask out loud. The tension between who funds shared cycling schemes and who benefits from them is becoming impossible to ignore. And until we confront it, the sector will keep going in circles.

The Shared Transport Conference on 25 March 2026 in London.

The Procurement Problem Nobody Can Agree On

The tension in that room was subtle but hard to miss. Operators frustrated that councils select schemes based on financial contributions rather than service quality. Local authorities talking up the importance and success of cycle sharing, yet from the latest tenders I've seen, allocating nil budget. They expect schemes to pay for themselves without causing any financial burden. If cycle sharing delivers the benefits they describe, why won't they support it financially?

It's not just conference talk. Last month, Voi, Lime, Dott, Forest, Bolt and CoMoUK jointly wrote to Simon Lightwood MP, the Minister of State for Local Transport, warning that UK procurement is broken. Councils are awarding contracts based on how much revenue operators promise to share back, not on safety, service quality, or affordability. CoMoUK's Chief Executive called it plainly: a "race to the highest bidder." There have already been failed procurements. Wasted time and money on both sides.

But here's the question nobody in that letter, or that room, is asking directly: if councils won't allocate budget, and VC-backed operators need to reach profitability, where does the money come from?

There's only one answer. It comes from the rider.

Affordability Is What Drives Uptake — Not Branding, Not Tech

In London, a 20-minute ride now costs £6 or more. Meanwhile in Belgium, WaytoGo's CEO Johannes Rodenbach described strong adoption in suburban areas with schemes charging just €5 for a full day. Affordability drives uptake. That's not a surprise. That's just how it works. No wonder Belgium has seen such success with its micromobility numbers, actually serving its purpose to address first and last mile transport needs for everyone.

Cycle sharing in London costs over £6 for 20 minutes, while in Belgium it's €5 for a full day, highlighting the impact of affordability on usage.

And there's a second problem hiding underneath the first.

If you're London, Manchester, or Birmingham, you have scale. You can negotiate with private operators. You're a big enough prize that operators will compete for your tender even with onerous conditions. But if you're not... if you're a mid-sized town, a suburban borough, a rural community, how do you convince an operator to come at all, let alone share profit with you? Operators are not charities. Without scale, without subsidy, the economics simply don't stack up.

So smaller places, the communities that arguably need affordable cycle sharing the most get left behind entirely.

Public Transport or Premium Product — We Need to Pick One

This brings me to the question I left the summit with: should cycle sharing be treated as public transport, accessible, affordable, partly publicly funded? Or is it a premium mobility product, priced by the market?

Because right now the sector is trying to be both simultaneously, and succeeding at neither.

Councils want the social outcomes of public transport without paying for them. Operators need commercial returns but are expected to deliver public value. Riders are caught in the middle, paying premium prices for what was supposed to be sustainable, accessible transport.

The financial dynamics of cycle sharing, who actually pays for it?

Better procurement guidance which is what the coalition is asking for — probably still won't resolve it. That's a sticking plaster on a structural problem. Until we answer the fundamental question about how cycle sharing in the UK is funded, we'll keep going around the same loop.

The conversation needs to change. Not just how we procure, but what we're willing to invest in.