News / Transport
Council puts brakes on shared e-bike scheme
Program no longer feasible in Merri-bek after delays
Mark Phillips
Monday, April 20, 2026
Leave a comment
MERRI-BEK Council has “paused” plans to introduce a shared electric bike scheme after being left behind by neighbouring councils that have already put schemes in place.
At their meeting on April 8, councillors decided not to go ahead with the program because it was no longer feasible to do so.
A report to the council meeting said a lack of a co-ordinated approach by inner city councils had created uncertainty about the viability of the scheme.
At the core of the council’s concerns was that e-bikes would not be compatible across municipal boundaries, and this reduced the benefits of an integrated network.
Merri-bek first began talking to other neighbouring councils about a joint shared e-bike and e-scooter network in the middle of 2024 and that year allocated almost $80,000 towards the program. The council was confident it would be able to offset the costs of the network through fees paid by shared e-bike operators.
But despite authorising council staff to go ahead in August last year, the scheme never got to the trial stage.
The scheme had to be reduced in scope after the City of Melbourne tore up its contracts with shared e-scooter operators in 2024 due to constant complaints about antisocial behaviour and dangerous riding.
Meanwhile, other municipalities went ahead with their own schemes leaving Merri-bek to fend for itself.
The cities of Yarra, Darebin, Melbourne, Port Phillip and Stonnington have all advanced to trials, mostly with e-bike operator Lime, and Yarra has begun the procurement phase for permanent shared e-bikes.
Melbourne plans to extend its existing scheme to make it permanent in October, and Darebin will evaluate its trial in August.
Council staff said proceeding with the scheme now would expose Merri-bek to greater delivery, financial and reputational risk.
They said that without an integrated approach so e-bikes were compatible across council boundaries, the benefits of using them would be reduced.
There had also been only lukewarm interest from shared e-bike operators because of Merri-bek’s requirement that they would have to fully fund on-street infrastructure.
Merri-bek’s scheme was predicated on an entirely on-street parking model which added extra complexity, and would have resulted in the loss of up to 150 parking spaces for cars and motorbikes.
Councillor Adam Pulford, who was Mayor when the multi-council scheme was first floated, said it was possible it could be revisited at some time in the future.
But he said in the absence of a co-ordinated approach with other councils, it made sense to put it on hold.
“It’s a shame that it’s played out in this way, especially when we’re entering a fuel crisis,” he said.
“The City of Sydney has seen a huge increase in demand for its shared bike scheme at a time when transport is getting more expensive and people are looking for alternatives.
“I don’t blame our officers at all it’s just a shame that the joint process fell apart because if it hadn’t I think we’d be in a stronger position to bring them in sooner. But there’s no point have different brands that don’t work across different boundaries.”
If you liked this story, have you thought about supporting our work?
We are an independent, volunteer-run hyperlocal news organisation owned and run by the people in your community. With your support, we can continue to produce unique and valuable local journalism for Brunswick, Coburg and the inner north of Melbourne.
Latest stories:
- Brunswick krushed by relentless Oakleigh line-up
- Poll shock: big swing to Labor in Brunswick
- Council backs Don Bosco campaign … but clock is ticking
Leave a comment
At Brunswick Voice, we welcome the comments and contributions of our readers on the issues discussed in our articles. Please keep your commentary on-topic. All comments are subject to the guidelines outlined below.
Please ensure your comments comply with these guidelines:
• Respect others
• Criticise ideas, not people
• No offensive or defamatory language
Commenters are encouraged to use their real name or a variation of their real name (e.g. first name and initial). Offensive or clearly fake screen names will not be accepted, as will those that intentionally impersonate or misrepresent others.
Comments on this article are premoderated to ensure discussion remains on. Please be aware there may be a delay in comments appearing on the site until they are approved by the moderator.
We reserve the right to refuse approval to any comments and no further discussion will be entered into if a comment is refused approval or deleted.
Our collection and use of your details are governed by our Privacy Policy and our Terms & Conditions.
Clearly taking away car spaces is not a solution. A more precise action and consideration of moving ahead addressing the challenge and engaging the community would not leave the council looking to appear so out of touch, serving personal intrests and disabling and restricting the functionality of the community to go about its business of being able to go to work, go to the shops and school.