Many cities are now approaching a critical decision point: legacy bikeshare contracts—often linked to costly, proprietary rack systems—are expiring. Simply renewing those 10–15-year-old agreements is like buying a fax machine in the age of cloud computing. Fortunately, cities today have better tools, smarter models, and more cost-effective options at their disposal.

The formula for a high-impact bikeshare system is relatively simple: combine geofencing, dynamic policies and pricing, minimal but clear signage, and operator-neutral infrastructure. This approach gives cities - and smaller communities - the flexibility to scale service dynamically, the levers to steer operator behaviour toward public goals, and the structure to keep urban environments tidy and functional—without locking into fixed hardware or single-vendor dependencies.

The foundation is flexible parking. Geofenced zones and digital parking rules give cities control over where bikes and scooters can be parked or operated. In dense or sensitive areas, this can be complemented by minimal physical infrastructure—such as painted zones, street signage, or shared racks that are not operator-specific. It’s important to note that racks themselves are not the issue; rather, it’s proprietary, inflexible docking systems that constrain competition and innovation. In some places, especially where there’s high foot traffic or a need for order, neutral racks absolutely make sense as part of the mix. You can even take a parking space for private cars and turn it into a parking area for shared bikes.

Next comes dynamic pricing and incentive models. In central urban areas, cities should charge operators fees that reflect the true value of public space. These don’t need to be modest—just reasonable enough to ensure operators can remain profitable. That revenue can then be redistributed to support coverage in areas where commercial interest is lower. 

Incentives should be responsive to context—varying by time of day, user demographic, or mode of transport. For example, cities may choose to support bike availability during school hours or subsidise specific areas during commuter peaks. What matters is that these incentives are tied to real-time availability and actual use—not static service promises.

Data is the key to making this system work. All operators must share standardised, real-time data and follow digital policies. This enables cities to identify gaps, rebalance fleets, and fine-tune pricing and policy decisions. 

In smaller towns or rural areas, a slightly different approach can be applied. Here, local governments can tender flexible contracts that reward the operator offering the most expansive and fair service. These contracts should guarantee a minimum number of available vehicles and include fair, transparent pricing for end users. Even in these contexts, cities can introduce dynamic parking fees or charges in the most commercially attractive locations, ensuring a fair return and responsible use of public space.

The result? More mobility, smarter spending. Cities today can achieve bikeshare coverage equal to or better than legacy systems at a cost reduction of anywhere from 0% to 50%. There are no long-term infrastructure lock-ins, just scalable, adaptable service delivery. With this approach, cities gain better reach, including in underserved areas, and more tools to respond to changing urban needs.

In the end, racks aren’t the problem—rigid systems are. By embracing digital tools, open infrastructure, and flexible pricing, cities can build bikeshare programs that scale, serve, and sustain themselves for years to come.

Isn’t it time to leave the fax machine behind?