Lime Portfolio

I served as Lime's Director of Policy Research and Public Partnerships from 2018 to 2025, where I led collaborations with cities, academics, and other stakeholders to improve shared micromobility programs, support new innovations, and evaluate the impacts of micromobility.

Below is a summary of some of my key accomplishments at Lime:

Solving scooter parking challenges

Walk through a city with shared scooters, and odds are you'll see misparked scooters. For some, it's a frustrating experience, or worse, a barrier to their ability to get around their city.

Addressing this challenge was one of the first things I set out to do at Lime, and I collaborated with Prof. Anne Brown and Prof. Nick Klein on a series of studies to understand the problem. We identified five key insights:

Insight #1: Misparking is rare: We found that parked scooters rarely impeded access, and did so much less frequently than parked cars (study, ITE journal article).

Insight #2: Riders want to do the right thing: In a survey of riders from around the world, most riders stated they had never misparked, but many riders also reported confusion over parking rules (study).

Insight #3: Nudges are only mildly effective: Testing different low-tech solutions, like sidewalk decals and in-app messaging, resulted in only small improvements in misparking rates (study).

Insight #4: Physical infrastructure is helpful: The most effective intervention we tested was requiring riders to lock to bike racks (study). Bike racks, painted "corrals", and other physical infrastructure makes it clear to riders and the public where scooters belong.

Insight #5: Build dense networks of parking corrals: If cities require riders to park at dedicated locations, like bike racks or corrals, then it is critical to provide a dense network of at least 25 parking corrals per square kilometer - or roughly one corral every 200 meters (report, study).

In 2024, Anne, Nick, and I also interviewed practitioners and assembled a series of recommended best practices for implementation of shared micromobility parking: read the report or listen to the webinar recording to learn more.

---

Understanding the sustainability of shared micromobility programs

Early reporting on shared micromobility in 2019 found that vehicles lasted only a month or so, resulting in major concerns about the sustainability benefits of this new transportation option.

Fast forward several years, and shared scooter companies had invested heavily in vehicle durability and longevity - no longer relying on off-the-shelf hardware and instead using vehicles intended for shared use. However, the common perception continued to rely on outdated data and perceptions, with many still believing that shared micromobility's sustainability credentials were over-hyped.

Working with researchers from Fraunhofer ISI in 2022, I set out to provide an updated picture of shared micromobility's carbon impacts. We surveyed riders in six cities around the globe to understand their "mode shift" patterns (what other options did they replace when they took a Lime scooter or bike), and we gathered lifecycle assessment estimates for the carbon impacts of Lime and other common transportation modes.

Combining those two data sources, we found that shared scooters reduced carbon emissions in all six cities (report), and coverage in Fortune and Streetsblog USA helped reset the  narrative around the sustainability of shared micromobility.

---

Showcasing the benefits of low-income discount programs​

Shared scooter companies commonly provide discounts for low-income travelers, helping meet cities' goals of ensuring mobility options are accessible to all.

While these low-income discounted fare programs have been in place since the early days of shared micromobility - Lime had debuted its "Lime Access" program in 2017 - there had never been a systematic study of who participates in the programs and how they use the services.

​Working with Prof. Alexa Delbosc, we surveyed Lime Access riders in the US, Australia, and New Zealand and compared their demographics and usage patterns to non-Access riders, and we identified 3 key insights in a report and study:

Insight #1: Lime Access riders are a more diverse group: Non-Access riders were more likely to be in the 25-44 year old age range, while a greater percentage of Access riders were younger or older. In the US, a greater percentage of Access riders were Hispanic, Latino, or Black.

Insight #2: Lime Access riders use Lime for utilitarian trips: The majority of trips taken by Lime Access riders were for commuting, shopping, or errands. In contrast, non-Access riders were more likely than Access riders to use Lime for social outings or joyrides.

Insight #3: Lime Access can provide an essential option for travelers with disabilities: From open-ended responses to the survey, we learned that the Lime Access program supported riders with medical conditions or physical disability - often "invisible" disabilities not noticeable to others - by reducing the fatigue and strain of other travel options.

---

Describing the landscape of shared micromobility fees

Most travelers are familiar with paying the gas tax when they fuel up a car, but how are shared micromobility services taxed?

To answer this question, I worked with Prof. Kevin Fang and John MacArthur to conduct a global overview of fees and taxed charged by cities on shared micromobility companies and riders.

In our report, we found:

Insight #1: Fees vary dramatically between cities: Some cities charge no fees, while among those that do charge fees, there is large variation in usage of four different fee types - per-trip, per-vehicle, flat-annual, and flat one-time - and big discrepancies in the sizes of the fees, with some cities charging hundreds or thousands more than others.

Insight #2: Shared micromobility is taxed twice and the revenues can be substantial:On average, cities charging fees received over a third of a million dollars every year, which equates to a 16% tax/fee rate, based on projected revenues.

Insight #3: Shared micromobility is taxed more than most other modes: In many cities, ridehail trips are not taxed at all, and even when they are, the average tax on shared micromobility is still 5 times higher, on a per-mile basis. Similarly, shared micromobility is assessed fees and taxes that are 23 times higher per-mile than what drivers pay in gas tax and othe fees.

Insight #4: Cities are particularly concerned with covering administrative costs through fee revenues: When setting fees, the most common consideration among city officials and program managers was recouping the costs of overseeing and administering the shared micromobility program, while it was much less common to consider lower costs for riders.