2. Spin Partnership Promise

3. Both cities and the operators have a similar mission - to provide sustainable, safe, and enjoyable forms of transportation to people

4. What we can also agree on - the basics of how cities and operators need to work together

5. What we can agree on
They need to share data in a way that protects privacy and mitigates exposure to breaches
They need to agree upon riding and parking rules
They need to establish uniform enforcement practices
They need to set rules around hardware and product consistency
They need to share revenue in a sustainable way that ensures a business model the community can depend on long-term
They need to provide transportation access to underserved people

6. Friction
We agree we need to share data - but not always what data to share or where it’s stored
We agree that money needs to go toward infrastructure - but not precisely how much, where it comes from, and where it goes to
We agree riders need to be safe - but we don’t agree on what policies and enforcement methods can actually achieve that

7. Political Reality Rapid change in many cities
History of interactions between cities and tech
Regulations on new mobility shaped by multiple actors
Perception of political risk when adopting new innovations

8. Some regulatory approaches deter new mobility operators

9. Cities and operators need to empathize and compromise
There will always be push and pull between cities and private companies - that’s just the reality of our working relationship
But it doesn’t have to be confrontational or contentious.
Reasonable caps on the scooter fleets.
Tie revenue sharing to usage, i.e. rides not scooters.
Create reasonable equity requirements - deployment/rebalancing goals in underserved communities.
Data driven evaluation
Frequent communication