Designed to fail

Yarra City Council cancelled their share bike scheme, blaming the sole tenderer for not meeting the procurement conditions. In our opinion:

• the tender was designed to fail; the specifications were so onerous no share bike operator could comply
• councillors used the ‘non-complying tender’ to cloak their anti-bike agenda

Resolution to cancel share bikes

On 14 July 2026 council resolved to cancel share bikes in Yarra.

Justifications

Mover (Deputy Mayor Harrison):

• “They’ve been given every opportunity to clean up their act and improve their game. But I see no evidence of this happening”
• “council has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars managing shared mobility in Yarra defending a VCAT human rights case brought by local residents”
• “Why would we enter into an agreement for an e-bike share scheme with a multinational company which is effectively corporate cost shifting onto Yarra’s rate payers?”
• “Not one operator submitted a proposal that complied with the tender specifications”

Seconder (Councillor Ho):

• “I do not support continue commercial share ebikes scheme that does not probably meet the council operational financial community requirement.”
• “I cannot ignore those problems simply because the service convenience for some young user who sometime like others say is drunk.”

Voted to cancel (Councillor Gomez):

• “Residents complain to me weekly about unsafe riding and inappropriate abandonment of e-bikes everywhere and anywhere. I’ve yet to see any long-term effective mechanism to address these concerns.”
• “We pay the costs, they earn the revenue. We tried to, for one of a better term, renegotiate and it wasn’t successful.”
• “No suitable proposal was received” (Councillor Gomez on his Facebook page)

Voted to cancel (Councillor Aston):

• “the people who responded to the procurement wouldn’t comply with the conditions”
• “Lime is very very happy making a profit here without paying for using the public infrastructure and they want to keep it that way.”
• “At 200 rides per day, we have around 100,000 people who live and work in Yarra. So that’s about 0.1% or a tenth of a percent of the population that is using the e-bikes…we’ve got people asking us to subsidise that 1% of the population”
• “With the average ride at 2 kilometres, the saving in CO₂ emissions is 733 quintilions of a percent…200 trips per day is not going to save the planet and it never will…If you gave up vaping, you would save 33 trillionths of a percent…Or additionally, you could stop buying fast fashion. If you bought two less garments every year, that would make up for probably about 1,800 two kilometre rides.”

Voted to cancel (Mayor Jolly):

• “this decision is around a bog standard procurement policy.”
• “We’re not here to debate climate change. We’re not here to debate e-bikes”
• “officers are saying in a very sober language, not political, very sober language that this tender did not meet the needs that we had set.”
• “this company refuses to police their clients. They’ve got the technology to do it. And that’s why we see e-bikes all over the joint.”
• “What I suggested on the radio recently was three strikes and you’re out…They did not want to know” 
• “For all the talk about transport and the environment, this is simply a bog-standard procurement issue”
• “This was a procurement issue.”

Tender specifications

The tender specifications were publicly available:

Deputy Mayor Harrison posted an excerpt to social media:

Issues found

Streets Alive Yarra’s analysis identified the following issues with the tender specifications:

• operator asked to pay council’s undefined costs for:
  • managing the impact of share bikes
  • installing bike parking corrals
• operator asked to build parking infrastructure that is somehow located neither on footpaths nor on car parking bays
• contract isn’t economically viable, owing to:
  • cost to install share bike parking corrals
  • cost to maintain a 24/7 30-minute response time
  • possible costs for escalating penalties
  • limitation on fleet size

Commit to undefined costs

Clause 2.4.4 (overlapping with Clause 7.5) requires the tenderer to commit to covering all council’s costs, yet those costs aren’t defined. Asking a counter-party to execute a contract committing them to undefined costs is deeply unserious.

In addition, clause 3.2.2(v) clarifies that the tenderer must pay for the installation of e-bike parking bays, yet neither the quantity of bays nor the cost per bay are specified.

Limited options to locate parking corrals

Clause 3.2.2(l) states that the share bike parking corrals (that the tenderer must pay for) may not be located on footpaths (unless there will be a minimum of 2 m unobstructed clearance), nor have any impact on car parking bays. Considering a parked bike would need 1 metre of width, and that very few of Yarra’s footpaths are wider than 3 metres, we interpret that clause to mean that the tenderer must identify suitable parking locations using magic.

Tender structured to be economically unviable

Streets Alive Yarra estimates the cost to install the required share bike parking corrals as between $1.5 million and $10 million, or $0.3 million to $2 million per year if amortised over five years.

• Cost to install each share bike parking corral: $3,800 to $10,000
  • Source: Yarra spend $100k (Budget 2025-26) to install 26 marked micromobility parking bays (Agenda 16 Dec 2025) showing an average cost of $3,800 
  • On-street bike parking corrals, useable for both private and share bikes, would cost more, owing to the need for hoops (concreted in), perimeter protection, and extra traffic management, our estimate is $10,000
• Number of corrals required across Yarra: 400 to 1,000
  • Source: walking distance from any home to a corral set at 100 to 150 metres
• Total between $1.5 million ($3,800 x 400) and $10 million ($10,000 x 1,000)

Clause 6.1.1 requires the operator to relocate a bike within 30 minutes of being notified, effectively requiring them to maintain 24/7 staffing, with e.g. four shift workers and a van, which we estimate as a minimum annual cost of $500,000.

Clause 6.1.5 defines penalties (described as ‘remedies’) for failure to meet a performance target (which are defined in clauses 6.1.1 to 6.1.4), e.g. $5,000 per month for the first failure. If disgruntled anti-bike activists create just one artificial situation per month that results in a remedy, the operator would be liable for another $60,000 per year.

Clause 4.1 caps the fleet size at 250 bikes, which limits the possible revenue the operator can obtain.

Councillor Aston (in the council meeting) and Councillor Gomez (posted to Facebook) estimated Lime’s total revenue (not profit) over 6 years at ‘over $2 million’, which aligns with data provided in the officer report.

We suggest that Lime’s profit (not revenue) over that time was at best a tenth of that, i.e. $0.25 million, or $50,000 per year. So, we should compare an estimated profit of $50,000 per year (at best) against estimated total annual costs of over $860,000 imposed by the tender specifications, comprising:

• $300,000 to $2,000,000 to install share bike parking corrals
• $500,000 for a 24/7 response team
• $60,000 for remedies (possibly initiated by anti-bike activists)

Of course, the share bike operator’s annual costs are higher than that, and must include significant costs to purchase (and depreciate) the bikes, re-balance the bikes around the municipality, swap batteries for freshly charged ones, and maintain the bikes. Indeed, independent analysis from The Guardian shows that Lime (globally) is losing money, and reports that Lime ‘has no plans to pay any dividends to shareholders in the foreseeable future’.

Considering all of the above, in our view, it’s reasonable to conclude that the tender was designed to fail; it was so onerous and unserious (committing to undefined costs) no share bike operator could make it work.

Review of councillor claims

“They’ve been given every opportunity to clean up their act and improve their game. But I see no evidence of this happening”, “this company refuses to police their clients. They’ve got the technology to do it. And that’s why we see e-bikes all over the joint.”, “Residents complain to me weekly about unsafe riding and inappropriate abandonment of e-bikes everywhere and anywhere. I’ve yet to see any long-term effective mechanism to address these concerns.”

Council has neglected to provide on-street (off-footpath) parking corrals. That’s the ‘opportunity’ this issue deserves. The long-term effective mechanisms are clear – provide a safe environment to ride on-street, via 30 km/h zones, modal filters, and a network of protected bike lanes, and provide a safe environment to park on-street, via a parking corral on every street.

“council has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars managing shared mobility in Yarra defending a VCAT human rights case brought by local residents”

Again, council has neglected to provide on-street (off-footpath) parking corrals, which would directly address that issue. 

“Why would we enter into an agreement for an e-bike share scheme with a multinational company which is effectively corporate cost shifting onto Yarra’s rate payers?”

If council wishes to prevent cost shifting, it should examine why it is offering ¾ of Yarra’s on-street parking bays for free, which transfers costs from commuters (who don’t have to pay to park) onto ratepayers (who lose the revenue foregone). Council has an obligation to manage our streets so that people can get around safely, and avoid severe congestion or gridlock. Providing viable alternatives to driving is part of that, including by supporting share bikes. 

“Not one  operator submitted a proposal that complied with the tender specifications”, “No suitable proposal was received”, “the people who responded to the procurement wouldn’t comply with the conditions”, “this decision is around a bog standard procurement policy.”, “officers are saying in a very sober language, not political, very sober language that this tender did not meet the needs that we had set.”

Because the tender was designed to fail – it was so onerous and unserious (committing to undefined costs) no share bike operator could make it work.

“We pay the costs, they earn the revenue. We tried to, for one of a better term, renegotiate and it wasn’t successful”, “Lime is very very happy making a profit here without paying for using the public infrastructure and they want to keep it that way.”

The alternative to a dockless share bike operator such as Lime is a docked share bike operator such as the old Melbourne Bike Share, which ran for nine years and cost taxpayers $2 million per year. Faced with that alternative, Council should be welcoming a zero-dollar arrangement with Lime.

Also, there is no law requiring a share bike scheme to be revenue positive; it’s an entirely political decision. If council wishes to reference other adopted policies such as the Financial Sustainability Strategy they should also reference the Pricing Policy and apply both of them in a consistent manner to all modes of transport, not just share bikes. Specifically, the Financial Sustainability Strategy refers to the revenue opportunity of reforming the pricing for on-street parking. The Pricing Policy states that if a service delivers a private good (which on-street car parking is) then it should be charged at market rates. Council hasn’t done that – they have declined to stoop down to pick up the money available on the asphalt underneath each parked car, worth in our estimate over $40 million per year of additional revenue, only a tiny portion of which would be needed to cover any costs related to share bikes.  

We can’t see how Lime is making a profit from Yarra. In contrast, many companies do happily make a profit in Yarra without paying for any public infrastructure, and council (rightly) doesn’t pursue them for per-trip costs, including:

• Tern Bikes, Trek Bikes, Giant Bikes, etc (selling bikes)
• Lug & Carrie (leasing bikes)
• Multiple bikes shops (maintaining bikes)
• Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Tesla, BYD (selling cars)
• Budget, Avis, Thrifty (renting cars)
• Saudi Aramco, Exxon, Total (selling fuel) 

“At 200 rides per day, we have around 100,000 people who live and work in Yarra. So that’s about 0.1% or a tenth of a percent of the population that is using the e-bikes…we’ve got people asking us to subsidise that 1% of the population”

Usage of share bikes in the last year (2025) was more than double the multi-year average. When councillors referred to the multi-year average they were misrepresenting the popularity of the service. Also, council has a responsibility to manage our streets so that everyone can get around safely. As our population density increases and congestion worsens, it’s clear that for everyone to be able to get around we’ll need viable alternatives to driving, including share bikes (with on-street parking corrals).

“With the average ride at 2 kilometres, the saving in CO₂ emissions is 733 quintilions of a percent…200 trips per day is not going to save the planet and it never will…If you gave up vaping, you would save 33 trillionths of a percent…Or additionally, you could stop buying fast fashion. If you bought two less garments every year, that would make up for probably about 1,800 two kilometre rides.”, “We’re not here to debate climate change”

The claim is absurd, similar to the argument that young people can’t afford to purchase a house because they’re spending too much on avocado toast. A share bike service is indeed about climate change, as indicated by the officer report about share bikes from the agenda on 16 December 2025 “Transport is the third largest and fastest growing source of emission in Yarra”. In our dense inner city, with many trips having a short distance, we should be offering people viable alternatives to driving, including share bikes.

“What I suggested on the radio recently was three strikes and you’re out…They did not want to know” 

Let’s see the evidence that Lime has rejected that suggestion, e.g. a copy of an email from Lime. In the past, Mayor Jolly’s claims have not stood up after Freedom of Information claims had been made.

A reasonable contract

Streets Alive Yarra suggests that a reasonable contract would include:

• council commits to providing a bike parking corral in every street (just as they provide car parking in every street), available for use by either private or share bikes
• operator commits to geo-tagging each parking corral and requiring share bikes to be parked within them
• each party covers their own costs, i.e. no per-bike or per-trip fee is payable by the operator to council
• limit on number of share bikes increased to 1,000
• penalty (or remedy) for a failure decreased to $1,000

A fleet size of 1,000 share bikes can be justified as follows:

• share bikes should offer a transport option available to most households
• a share bike (or a share bike parking corral) should be usually available within a 100 metre walk of every household in Yarra, i.e. 1,000 locations across the municipal area of 19 km²

In addition, council should:

• charge non-resident commuters a reasonable free to park all-day in Yarra, e.g. equivalent to the cost of a daily Myki public transport fare ($11.40); we estimate that such a policy would deliver over $40 million of additional revenue per year

In addition, the state government should:

• require all the inner-city M9 councils to support bike share
• offer funding for the construction of on-street (off-footpath) bike parking corrals, as NSW has done, especially for councils (unlike Yarra) who have less opportunity to raise revenue from market-rate on-street car parking
• support the roll out of 30 km/h zones in neighbourhoods
• build a cohesive network of cycleways (Strategic Cycling Corridors) 

Council’s anti-bike agenda

Since being elected in October 2024, Yarra council has:

• drastically narrowed the Elizabeth Street protected bike lanes to increase car parking
• cancelled the extension of the Wellington Street cycling corridor
• cancelled multiple bike-friendly intersection treatments
• cancelled share bikes

To determine what agenda a council has, it’s useful to focus less on what they say (which could be political spin) and more on how they vote (which has real impacts on people). 

Transport policy usually involves tradeoffs, because transport infrastructure costs money and takes up space. With share bikes, council has chosen to be absurdly reductionist. Resolving to impose a condition of revenue-positivity on a single transport service (share bikes) instead of transport as a whole, or applying principles of financial sustainability to one mode (bike share) but not to another mode (car parking) indicates a lack of good faith.

With this record, in our view it’s clear that council has an anti-bike agenda. 

Conclusion

Share bikes are essential public infrastructure, necessary to help people get around in a dense inner city. Council should be supporting share bikes.

Instead, in our view, council designed the tender to fail, and used vague references to the non-complying tender to cloak their anti-bike agenda.