The bicycle sharing company Hoppy has decided to remove its electric bicycle sharing from Hasselt.
Since last year, there were around 200 Hoppy electric bikes in the city, but according to Hélène De Meester, a representative of Hoppy, the operation was simply not profitable. “It turned out not to be profitable,” De Meester told local media. “We had several conversations with the city, but it just didn’t work in Hasselt.”
The electric bikes were intended as a supplement to the existing bike sharing system of Mobit and Blue Bikes, which are mainly active around the station areas in Hasselt. These 'regular' shared bikes will remain in Hasselt for the time being, but the electric bikes of Hoppy will definitely disappear from the streets. According to De Meester, there was simply too little interest in their electric shared bikes in Hasselt, certainly compared to other cities such as Genk. "Our bikes are used better elsewhere, for example in Genk. In Hasselt we counted an average of 100 users per month, who together made around 300 trips. That is almost four times as many in Genk," says De Meester.
tariff model
One of the reasons for the lack of success in Hasselt seems to be, according to The Importance of Limburg to lie in Hoppy's pricing model. For a ride with an electric bike, the user paid one euro starting fee, followed by 25 euro cents per minute. This means that a fifteen-minute ride quickly costs almost five euros. According to De Meester, this price was a stumbling block for many Hasselt residents, which is why Hoppy entered into discussions with the city about possible subsidies. Genk, where Hoppy is successful, does offer subsidies, which reduces the costs for the user.
However, Hasselt mobility councillor Marc Schepers, from the RoodGroen party, indicates that the municipality had made it clear that there would be no financial support. “When we put the competition on the market, we explicitly asked for a proposal with and without subsidies,” Schepers explains. “We jointly opted for the Hoppy proposal without subsidies from the city. It would then be unfair for other interested entrepreneurs to suddenly start giving subsidies once the contract is in place. So we refused that.” This decision was in line with the municipal policy not to give preferential treatment to a specific provider, especially if the contract has already been signed.
An additional reason for the termination of the collaboration between Hoppy and the city of Hasselt was the issue of safety. Hoppy proposed to expand the offer with electric scooters, which are popular in many cities as a short-term solution for urban mobility. However, the city of Hasselt rejected this proposal because of the possible dangers of electric scooters in the streetscape. For the municipality, the safety of the citizens was a priority, and the chance of accidents with electric scooters was estimated to be too great.
rejection
De Meester emphasizes that the situation in Hasselt had become untenable for Hoppy due to the rejection of both financial and practical support from the municipality. “For us, this situation was untenable,” says De Meester. After consultation, both parties decided to terminate the contract early, with Hoppy paying the city 27.000 euros in damages. De Meester calls this payment “negative subsidies,” a deliberate choice by the company to further limit losses and look for profitable opportunities elsewhere.
While cities like Genk offer an alternative through subsidies, cities like Hasselt seem to be more reluctant to financially support new shared mobility initiatives. The withdrawal of Hoppy shows that the success of bike sharing systems is highly dependent on the willingness of local governments to financially support these new forms of transport, especially when the fares for users are relatively high.
The departure of the electric shared bicycles from Hasselt raises questions about the feasibility of such mobility projects in medium-sized cities without support.
