In the scenario of sustainable mobility and pandemic emergency: experiences of bike- and e-scooter-sharing schemes in Budapest, Lisbon, Rome and Vilnius

ENIn this chapter we focus on four countries and their capital cities: Rome (Italy), Lisbon (Portugal), Budapest (Hungary) and Vilnius (Lithuania) to illustrate how shared light sustainable mobility spread in different political, social and economic contexts. The current status of sustainable mobility practices, policies and discourses in these countries is characterized by a series of common trends but also by elements of absolute divergence. The existence of light mobility sharing schemes in these capitals is an indicator of a potential to expand the rates of active mobility. Furthermore, it is also a relevant factor of digitalization and commodification of mobility as a service, in line with the EuropeanGreenDeal, hence it concurs to simplify transportation systems and urban logistics, to free public space, while reducing environmental, social and economic costs.With an increased rate of 45% per year, bike sharing has been the fastest growing mode of urban transportation since 2007 (Lopes, 2015). It is therefore interesting to discover the specificities that characterize the landscape and the policy framework of the analysed countries and capital cities, what limits are found in the use of bicycles and/or electric scooters (e-scooters) sharing schemes, and where to leverage to favour the transition towards more sustainable modes of transport.The primary goal of the comparative research we propose, is to identify similarities and differences between these countries and cities, in order to understand how shared light sustainable mobility is developed in European capital cities of different characteristics and opportunities. For this purpose the analysis compares and contrasts cultural, societal, institutional and political traits related to light mobility, with a specific focus on the bike sharing and e-scooter initiatives, in order to understand and identify various evolution patterns as well as key institutional actors and measures. The following section defines sharing mobility and describes the reality of bike and e-scooter sharing in the four cities; Section 4.3 sheds light on the broader mobility cultural contexts and institutional actors; in Section 4.4 we analyse national policy frameworks; in Section 4.5 we discuss the impact of the pandemic, before presenting some final remarks.