The Role of States and Provinces in Shared Micromobility

Over this series, we looked at how five states and one province approach shared micromobility: Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Minnesota, Quebec, and New York. Shared micromobility policy is usually discussed at the municipal level, where systems are permitted and managed, or at the federal level, where the largest funding programs live, but this series has shown that the layer in between also has a role to play, is doing meaningful work, and there is potential for more to be done.  We’ve also seen that in the same way that no two municipalities approach shared micromobility in quite the same way, neither do states or provinces.

These states and provinces are housing their micromobility work in different places. Minnesota houses shared micromobility in MnDOT’s Office of Transit and Active Transportation, alongside transit, microtransit, and other shared services. Maryland places it in MDOT’s Office of Active Transportation and Micromobility, within a portfolio covering all of active transportation. Oregon built its support around a single program created by the Oregon Transportation Commission. New York runs its funding through NYSERDA, its energy authority, tying investment directly to the state’s climate goals. Quebec funds it through its transportation ministry using revenue from its carbon market. And Massachusetts convened a formal legislative commission to study the question before committing to a program.

These states and provinces also look at funding shared micromobility differently. Oregon paired $10 million in federal funds with $10 million in state dollars to launch the Innovative Mobility Program quickly and make important investments across the state. Quebec built the most durable model in the series, funding shared bike systems directly through the cap-and-trade carbon market. A Massachusetts commission concluded that while federal programs could help with capital investments, there was a clear lack of funding to support operating capacity, and it recommended formula-based operating support combined with competitive capital grants.

Money is not the only form of support coming from these jurisdictions. Minnesota hosts monthly shared micromobility calls that function as a peer network, and has built a library of practical resources including a policy toolkit, a public-private partnership guide, and sample ordinances and license agreements that other communities can adapt. Maryland is developing a sample permit system and contract for municipalities and brings its jurisdictions with active systems together roughly every two months to share best practices. This kind of administrative and technical support reduces cost and complexity for the communities that lack the staff and experience to navigate procurement, permitting, and operations on their own.

Finally, several of these places direct their efforts toward the communities that need them most. Minnesota’s Moving Greater Minnesota Forward incubator is built around the needs of rural and small urban communities under 200,000 people. New York’s Clean Mobility Program gives priority to disadvantaged communities, seeding new services in the places that have historically had the fewest options. Massachusetts’ commission wants existing systems, as well as systems beyond the Boston core, to thrive.

These six jurisdictions show what the layer between municipal and federal policy can accomplish, and that states and provinces can have a significant role to play in shaping the future of shared micromobility in North America.

Here’s some of our key takeaways from this exploration:

• Operating support is the biggest funding gap. Capital funding for bikes and stations is easier to find than money to keep systems running. Formula-based operating support paired with competitive capital grants can move systems away from ad hoc sponsorship models and toward stable public investment.
• Any investment is a huge win, but sustained funding beats one-time investment. It is still rare for states and provinces to invest funding directly into shared micromobility systems. One-time funds can launch programs or expand footprints, but those programs are vulnerable when budgets tighten. Dedicated revenue streams written into state budgets would turn shared micromobility into sustainable everyday transportation. 
• Technical support can be really valuable, even when there isn’t funding available. Peer networks, sample permits, and model ordinances lower the cost and complexity of launching a system, especially for communities without dedicated micromobility staff.

To learn more about the state of shared micromobility across North America, read NABSA’s 2025 Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report. You can also find more advocacy resources like NABSA’s Advocacy Toolkit, our advocacy posts on our blog, and our member-only state bill tracker to follow micromobility legislation and advocate for shared micromobility in your community.