Ten years ago, I gave up my car. It was the best decision I ever made. Public transport, taxis, walking, cycling. In a small city like Amsterdam, you can go a long way without owning a vehicle. I rent a car only when absolutely necessary, four to six times a year. Often it is inconvenient, unavailable where you need it, or simply expensive.
Yet Dutch municipalities continue to invest millions of euros and significant administrative capacity in what is presented as the lever for sustainable mobility. In election manifestos, shared mobility has become standard repertoire for building a liveable city.
The latest Dutch “State of Shared Mobility” describes a sector that is “maturing.” A sober reading of the data, however, reveals stabilization and consolidation rather than breakthrough growth. Total supply increased by 6% in 2025 to just over 46,000 vehicles. That sounds robust, but growth is concentrated almost entirely in shared cars and e-scooters, while shared cargo bikes are declining sharply. The era of hypergrowth is over. The market is searching for equilibrium. And, above all, for a sustainable business model.
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht dominate the landscape. Outside these urban regions, shared mobility remains marginal. Nationally, around 36–38% of the population has access to a shared car. That indicates availability, not actual usage, and comprehensive usage data remain limited.
Celebratory claims about reductions in private car ownership deserve nuance. The assertion that 21% of users have given up a car sounds impressive, but the sample consists of active users recruited through providers. Enthusiasts are not representative of broader mobility behavior. The real question is not what committed urban users do, but what the average household does.
Equally relevant is the sector’s structural dependence on public policy. Municipalities subsidize, regulate, allocate permits, and actively shape market shares. This enables scaling, but raises a fundamental question: how viable is this market without public support?
A mature sector should, in principle, stand on its own. Amsterdam’s experience illustrates provider vulnerability. Procurement frameworks often combine high ambitions at the award stage with harsh operational realities. Knowledge and capital dissipate, while users primarily seek stability and continuity.
The underlying challenge is governance fragmentation. Each municipality develops its own criteria, licensing systems, and impact KPIs. For operators, this translates into high transaction costs and operational uncertainty. For users, it results in a patchwork supply that constantly changes. Habit formation becomes difficult.
The core question remains uncomfortable: who truly benefits? Usage is concentrated within a relatively small urban segment. Outside the major cities, shared vehicles are scarce. Yet public funds continue to flow through concessions, pilots, and incentive schemes to a sector that often remains structurally unprofitable without support.
This does not mean shared mobility lacks societal value. As a complement to public transport and cycling, it can be effective, particularly in dense, car-lite environments. But it is not a disruptive replacement for private car ownership, nor a panacea for accessibility challenges.
It is time for a national, independent evaluation. Not only of usage patterns and business models, but also of municipal roles, subsidy effectiveness, and governance coordination. Transparent, data-driven, and inclusive of a thorough review of public expenditure.
For mobility professionals, the message is clear: shared mobility is not a miracle solution, but a policy instrument. And instruments must be assessed on effectiveness, cost–benefit performance, and system impact. Not on good intentions alone.
Walther Ploos van Amstel