Ethics in transportation innovation: the case of neighborhood electric vehicles and municipal partnerships

Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) are smaller than economy cars and travel at low speeds on urban streets. (Stein, Kurani, and Sperling, 1994). They look somewhat like modified golf carts. In the USA, several municipalities have partnered with NEV startups to tackle mobility issues in recent years (e.g. Circuit, 2024). In some cases, they have replaced some transport services entirely (Nam, 2023). In others, they are supportive elements of larger systems, seen as efforts to solve the first/last mile problem, which involves transporting people short distances from their homes to public transport stations and back (Rose, 2022). Although such matters sound straightforward, ethical analysis shows numerous issues lurking behind the scenes. This article uncovers some of them, aiming to provide practical guidance on maximizing the promise of these new technologies and limiting or preventing harm.

The following section goes over the methodology guiding the article. Next, I examine the ethical nature of some mobility issues in cities. It identifies stakeholder groups, and their degrees of equitable consideration based on prioritization, using “moral ordering,” a framework that has emerged in the applied ethics literature for addressing such affairs (Epting, 2024). Then, the attention turns to similar cases of earlier mobility technologies to gain insights into the nature of the problems associated with their presence on city streets. Next, it examines the kind of cases that this approach benefits, focusing on NEVs as emerging urban technologies. It then offers guidance on the ethical ways that NEV startups can support municipal transportation services while aiming to profit. The article concludes by suggesting a few areas of future research that could help such partnerships.

While this article concerns urban mobility and the emerging technologies known as NEVs as an interdisciplinary topic, the study remains grounded in academic philosophy. Yet, an inherent motivation is to use the tools of that discipline to highlight lesser-known dimensions of planning problems with social and ethical dimensions. In the most accurate sense, this work counts as applied philosophy – or philosophy applied to observations about the real world of cities, infrastructure and shared urban land. This point entails that the goal is not to produce policy recommendations based solely on empirical data of any kind. Instead, it is to observe conditions surfacing across a few urban districts to identify elements that can inform researchers in urban planning, engineering, business and architecture, along with policymakers and municipal agents, about the complex ethical relationships germane to this area of study.

In turn, the methodology uses specific elements required to deliver a perspective revealing the conditions that deserve advanced examination. Some include real-world information about mobility services in particular locations and reported felt impacts in the USA. The goal is to study it to determine if it could be helpful in similar settings there or globally. Others include insights from across the academy and somewhat similar existing cases. For instance, NEVs are an emerging urban technology, meaning there are very few precedent cases to study. Most common knowledge of the existence of these devices is through mainstream media due to the novel nature of these machines.

However, we can turn to related situations, such as app-powered transportation network companies (TNCs), to illustrate the kinds of problems that we can study to avoid similar mistakes. Due to the emerging nature of these technologies, this study also uses “thought experiments,” which are common in academic philosophy (Shieber, 2010). Exploring NEVs in this way can help us study these technologies while they are in their early stages. The point worth emphasizing here is that it is not too late to remedy such problems before doing so becomes incredibly difficult. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with matters concerning people’s quality of life and how mobility affects them, engaging in thought experiments before these technologies become urban mainstays makes sense. They are used to illustrate possibilities to be avoided that could perpetuate or exacerbate harm while gesturing toward avenues for relief, which is the original contribution to the literature that this article makes. If policy recommendations were derived from this study, any such use would be subject to additional scrutiny.

While this study might provide insights into the ethical dimensions of municipal and business partnerships, it has inherent limitations that require additional consideration. For instance, NEVs are only studied in a few urban contexts, such as those mainly dependent on passenger vehicle ownership. Due to not having a significant NEV presence in cities with robust public transport systems, this study cannot provide the same kind of insights associated with other urban mobility options such as ride-share services and e-scooters. Rural and semi-rural environments (among others) are also missing from this study. Although it might benefit those kinds of areas, no existing cases can provide insights into these situations.

Another limitation concerns the reality that this study does not examine municipal endeavors to use NEV outside of public-private partnerships. It very well could be the case that such undertakings could exist in the future, improving urban mobility without dealing with NEV companies. This possibility suggests that more traditional means of servicing residents remain, and this could deserve study to determine if city leaders and residents want to pursue such choices. Despite this option, we cannot ignore the existing partnerships; we must study them to gain insight into their ethical aspects.

Other limitations include the small number of cities with NEVs and the short timespan they have been operational in select cities. Although this condition has been acknowledged initially, it is worth highlighting because additional cases could change our perspective on such partnerships. However, it is also worth noting that this study provides vital insights into an emerging issue, suggesting that it might limit harm and maximize advantages in some scenarios. While this list of limitations remains nonexhaustive, future research should address these cases and search for others that would benefit from advanced investigations. In turn, despite these limitations, exploring the idea of NEV partnerships, even in theory, could be a valuable enterprise for cities engaging in such practices or considering them in the near future.

Establishing a view of the ethical dimensions of urban mobility is vital to understanding the stakeholders that city transportation decisions will affect. Moreover, such impacts must be stacked next to each other to determine relevant topics such as severity, urgency, preexisting conditions and how these concerns might intersect (Epting, 2024). Regarding urban mobility services, the public is the prominent stakeholder group. However, other members must contend with situations that warrant further study, consideration and action within this category.

For instance, in places like the USA, there are several cases wherein transportation infrastructure implementation and operation have harmed already marginalized populations (Bullard, 2004; Bullard, 2003). In many such cases, the harm is deep-seated, situated in more historically complex prejudicial arrangements. Researchers illustrate instances involving mobility in population centers that qualify as environmental injustices according to established criteria (Amekudzi et al., 2012). When dealing with transportation problems that only concern one specific population, seeing the issue through a lens of environmental justice works just fine. Yet, developing mitigatory measures and restorative practices to deal with past injustices must happen alongside entirely different groups of stakeholders, further complicating matters. This point does not entail that marginalized groups do not deserve justice, but it does suggest that working toward it could be more complicated than commonly anticipated.

Despite such a possibility, advances in applied ethics provide a way to address such issues. For example, in the recent philosophical literature on cities, affairs such as mobility require examining several stakeholder groups simultaneously, in addition to marginalized groups (Epting, 2024). [¹] They include vulnerable persons, the public (which includes the groups above), nonhuman life and urban artifacts such as buildings, bridges and parks. Some instances involve overlapping harms toward people (Noll and Hubbard-Mattix, 2019). Ecosystems and individual species are harmed by impacts from land use to building expansive infrastructure like roadways to public health issues such as vehicle emissions, which play a significant role in climate change. Several positions in environmental ethics argue that nonhuman life has moral standing in such cases, generating debates among scholars (Sandler, 2009; Callicott, 1999; Hargrove, 1992; Callicott, 1989; Hargrove, 1989). Even though future generations do not exist and therefore cannot have legitimate moral standing due to lacking an identity, existing people have interests in preserving their possible existence (Jonas, 1984). In turn, by assigning possible future people stakeholdership, we avoid the nonidentity problem as fleshed out in analytic philosophy (Boonin, 2014). It holds that we cannot owe something to somebody who does not exist. Finally, urban artifacts like buildings, neighborhoods, parks and bridges have instrumental and intrinsic value, and these values provide the basis for moral inclusion (Epting, 2024).

Within the history of applied ethics, moral arguments exist for all these groups to receive consideration on their own terms, but it does not make sense to say that each group deserves the same degree of consideration and action (Epting, 2024). Dealing with this issue involves the problem of moral prioritization: how do transportation agents (e.g., planners, engineers, policymakers) make equitable decisions regarding which group should receive actions benefitting their interest? This predicament is known as the “problem of moral prioritization” (Epting, 2024). The way to deal with it practically is to use the stakeholder order above to guide the implementation of changes to urban transportation systems, which is called “moral ordering” (Epting, 2024). Defined briefly, it is a suggestive guide about which stakeholders require moral consideration. It brings elements such as historical injustices, cultural concerns and special needs into complex decisions wherein those stakeholders, along with other humans, nonhuman life and significant historical or cultural urban artifacts, will be affected. It is a theoretical device municipal agents can use to create better mobility networks.

Although it sounds straightforward, there are two caveats to its use (Epting, 2024). One is that stakeholders must have a meaningful voice in making decisions, one wherein they can influence improvements. The significance of this aspect cannot be understated. It remains inspired by a central premise from Nancy Fraser’s (2001) work on recognition, meaning that it is imperative that people are valued and treated as equals regarding decisions affecting them. The second is that the stakeholder order can be shifted to account for urgent (or similar) issues.

By using moral ordering to help municipal agents think with urban residents, they can work toward implementing emerging mobility technologies more ethically. To understand this process, the following section examines less recent cases of mobility technologies emerging in cities before investigating the newest NEV service described at the outset. After establishing this view, the attention turns to how some scenarios are ethically problematic. The task will be to explain what these services do and how they do it in some instances, identifying possible benefits and concerns about their emergence on city streets.

Although mobility history in the USA is controversial, some transportation historians illustrate how mobility options have evolved over several generations, moving from streetcars to private passenger vehicles (Slater, 1997). The reality is that urban mobility in numerous cities is horrible and car-dependent places are typically at the center of such criticisms (Montgomery, 2013). In response to such matters, select cities have undertaken steps to incorporate alternative transportation options that move away from automobile dependency. Regarding such shifts, municipal agents like former Bogotá mayor Enrique Peñalosa worked to implement exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and increase safe bicycle use (Montgomery, 2013). His efforts lead to worldwide attention and celebration.

Select cities like La Paz, Bolivia have aerial cable cars. They transport people above the cityscape, decreasing travel time by 22% (Garsous, Suárez-Alemán, and Serebrisky, 2019). The city of Portland, Oregon, has put forth tremendous efforts to steer away from strict car reliance. They have implemented designated bicycle lanes throughout the city and have expanded public transport. Today, the Tilikum Bridge connects the city over the Willamette River and does not offer passenger vehicle lanes (Libby, 2014). These instances show that changing existing services and implementing new infrastructures are possible. Yet, it seems probable that taking such steps required significant arguments and discussions in town hall meetings and or online forums germane to political activity that relies on public monies.

In many such cases, municipal, state and or national entities provide transportation services or at least facilitate urban travel in some capacity. Conversely, privately funded transportation companies can operate primarily outside of such parameters at times and to limited degrees. This point does not entail that they can act with impunity, but it does suggest that they are not subject to strict oversight or enforcement measures. While such behavior is sometimes legal, critics note that some companies have blatantly ignored policy and have engaged in questionable practices (Edelman, 2017). Although these issues do not represent all mobility startups, such realities underscore the idea that mobility enterprises require debate, regulation and supervision.

Consider that in the past few decades, two kinds have emerged that have created problems for local governments. The first is TNC, which are on-demand vehicles powered by mobile device apps, now staple subjects for transportation researchers (Diao, Kong, and Zhao, 2021; Erhardt et al., 2019). These companies emerged incredibly quickly on our city streets, almost promising to save the world by reducing vehicle ownership and congestion (Hawkins, 2019). Researchers were just as quick to argue that these services were terrible for cities and people (Erhardt et al., 2019; Roy, 2019; Schaller, 2018). Like many new popular technologies, people had strong reactions, which included some places banning TNCs (e.g. Than and Fenyo, 2016). Yet, researchers and mobility authors are quick to illustrate the numerous reasons to criticize them. Consider popular transportation writer Schmitt’s (2019) “All the Bad Things About Uber and Lyft In One Simple List.” She provides an abridged account that includes increased congestion, harms transit services and other forms of mobility, mismanages customer data and increases emissions, injuries and fatalities (Schmitt, 2019).

In addition to traffic and mobility-related issues, labor-related problems are not in short supply worldwide. For example, drivers’ protests in New York over pay-related issues have garnered much attention from the local government and the media (Gorlick and Lung, 2024). The practice of some TNCs ignoring local regulations is well documented. One company’s use of lobbyists to advance its goals globally has received ample criticism. Wells et al. (2023) Disrupting D.C.: The Rise of Uber and the Fall of the City painstakingly details one company’s rise to prominence in Washington DC and how they used that experience to become a global super force in on-demand urban mobility. However, despite the nefarious characterization, the ultimate blame rests with city dwellers (Wells et al., 2023).

Yet, despite the status quo and alleged corruption at all levels of government, we must acknowledge that TNCs have woven themselves into the mobility fabric of numerous cities. This notion suggests that the issues mentioned above accompany that reality. Perhaps this is why Hans Jonas (1984) argued that we must worry about a technology’s “success,” focusing on the idea that it can entrap us to accept it. For urban dwellers merely aiming to travel to and from, it is fathomable to hold that they would defend TNCs because their routines depend on them. Beyond this point, TNCs are ubiquitous worldwide. Today, some airports now have designated TNC waiting areas built into their permanent infrastructure. Like it or not, these once controversial “startups” remain part of urban mobility networks, warts and all.

In addition to car-centric emerging technologies, other app-based options that challenge operations on local levels have emerged globally. For example, electric scooters that rely on mobile device activation and payment have caused numerous controversies, and major cities have banned them in some instances (Wong, 2024; Guy, 2024). Concerned residents in select cities show that these devices impede people who depend on clear sidewalks when users abandon them, obstructing pathways for disabled users (Fowlkes, 2024). In a recent study spanning almost three years involving over three thousand cases, Shichman et al. (2022, 5) hold that electric scooters are harming residents at an alarming rate: “The introduction of the shared e-scooter services is associated with a dramatic increase in e-scooter injuries presenting to the emergency department (ED). Electric scooter use carries considerably underestimated injury risks of high-energy trauma and misunderstood mechanisms of injuries. These injuries challenge the healthcare system, with a major impact on both EDs and surgical departments.” In turn, numerous cities globally have used studies focusing on e-scooter’s impacts to inform regulatory measures (Zhang, Nelson and Mulley, 2024). Considering these cases, one could argue that additional policy initiatives are in dire need in some locations, underscoring the notion that municipal leaders should not discount new mobility technologies as they quickly appear on city streets.

In both instances involving TNCs and electric scooters, it seems plausible to posit that neither municipalities nor regulatory agencies could have anticipated their arrival on our city sidewalks and streets. Despite the differences in the kinds of emerging technologies mentioned above, it seems likely that novel mobility modes will continue to appear on suburban and urban roadways and spaces. In turn, urban planners and engineers might also lack the ability to see these trends coming into existence. The point here is that we typically must often deal with emerging mobility devices after the fact – assuming that passing laws prohibiting their emergence is deemed antithetical to innovation and progress.

Establishing this background brings us to the central topic of concern, as expressed in this article’s title. NEV services have emerged on many city streets and suburban cul-de-sacs. Just a short time ago, they were illegal in some major metropolitan areas (Petras, 2024). Some municipalities have embraced them with gusto (Grabar, 2016; Shaheen and Chan, 2016). This new reality in numerous locations could affect countless urban dwellers. The full range of effects has still yet to be seen. Until we have sufficient data to make substantial claims about their impacts, we can turn to moral ordering to postulate some measures that can guide municipalities in general, aiming to reduce unwanted harms and promote the responsible implementation of the new mobility services. To that end, the following section moves this article in that direction. It presents some philosophical “thought experiments” that draw from possible scenarios. The idea here is that while cities differ, these exercises will provide enough ground for conversation for municipalities and entrepreneurial NEVs services to examine how and if partnerships could enhance urban life while making a profit.

The reality is that NEVs now exist in several locations across countries like the USA. They are in major metropolitan areas, college towns and medium-sized cities (Circuit, 2024). Even historic and eclectic neighborhoods find these fashionable four-wheeled numbers mixing with local traffic, among other locations (City of Del Rey Beach, FL, 2025). Despite existing in many environments, their limited durations make it challenging to say anything concrete because their outcomes are still in the process of surfacing. This section explores two hypothetical cases to understand some ethical issues about NEVs and municipal and community relations. In both cases, the company focuses on aspects like those found with TNCs, such as sustainability and reducing congestion, which applies to all such settings.

The first example involves a medium-sized city with good weather, exceptionally nice homes and a few tourist attractions. It has an auto-centric design and no public transit. Case Two is a bustling metropolis that combines car-centric design and public transport. Even though both examples differ, examining them shows how introducing new mobility technologies into urban environments can affect stakeholder groups in myriad ways. This reality entails that each transportation authority planning to incorporate NEVs to improve mobility services will require advanced investigation to avoid perpetuating or exacerbating harm while aiming to enhance services. These two cases exhibit how such effects can yield different results.

Regarding Case One, many towns that depend on tourism typically have two or three main areas with attractions. The first might be a beach and boardwalk or equivalent. A short distance away, there is usually an area with restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, bars and a variety of stores or a district for shopping. Hotels are customarily nearby, and some are only a short distance down the road. Tourists mainly stay and play within a limited area, and other wealthy folk live close to the action or a short distance from it, perhaps in large, stylish homes overlooking the ocean. In many such places, those houses will fetch well over a million dollars; anything nearby still comes close to that amount. Yet, the people working at the nearby businesses who cook, clean, serve and entertain visitors and wealthy locals must commute lengthy distances. Everyone who works, resides and visits such cities must get around town to carry out desired affairs.

Tourists can walk to many places, but some distances are too lengthy, requiring a vehicle to make travel feasible. In some cities, buses have a negative image and many travelers avoid them (Borhan et al., 2019). Trolleys are impractical and too costly for some places (Chang, 1990). Considering these mobility challenges in tandem, one could make a strong case that startup NEVs offering on-demand service via phone-based apps have stepped up to fill the need. That is the view emerging in many locations in the USA.

Today, golf-cart-sized shuttle-like vehicles easily navigate these environments in several popular, touristy locations, taking tourists from hotels to restaurants, beaches, bars and numerous other activities while vacationing (e.g. Circuit, 2024). By opening apps on their mobile devices, they can request a driver who will arrive to take them to their destinations. Tips are appreciated but not required. For riders wanting to consume alcoholic beverages, they can drink with ease, knowing that they do not have to get behind the wheel later that night. Parking is also a pain and comes at a premium, and using these app-based services relieves them of those burdens.

For the servers, bartenders, cooks, dishwashers, cleaning crews and maids, driving for them is also not convenient. Due to the high cost of living in such locations, car ownership could be challenging for many, meaning that public or “private public” transport is the only option. The on-demand option offers some relief for places like those in Case One, which lacks dedicated public options on a schedule with fixed routes. Yet, reality can hinder their travels in many instances. Herein lies the central issue: these workers are the ones who require these transit services the most based on need, considering that private vehicle ownership is out of reach for many of them.

Rather than address these challenges as a municipality seeking to solve problems with homegrown solutions to meet those working, residing and visiting the area, urban governance in Case One has partnered with a NEV company as described above. Municipal leadership gave them the exclusive rights to operate in the municipal district, paying them an annual lump sum to operate fifteen NEVs from early morning until midnight. To increase income, the company sells advertising space on the sides and back of the vehicles, along with pop-ups that users see while using the app on their mobile phones. In turn, NEVs help support local businesses, bolstering the local economy. Moreover, the partnership boasts sustainable mobility that reduces emissions, improves traffic and reduces impaired driving. Tourists and wealthy residents rave about the convenience. On the surface, every aspect of this partnership seems “win-win.”

As alluded to above, one gains a different perspective on the local mobility situation when examining issues that surfaced in select cities. They suggest that the ethical issues that should concern municipalities. Economically, in terms of the burdens, workers are the ones who desperately require efficient mobility services. Their livelihoods depend on it. For those trapped in poverty, transportation researchers show that the lack of quality, reliable mobility is a primary reason why people cannot escape such situations (Blumenberg and Agrawal, 2014). This situation is the same as that in Case One. Instead, the partnership is a tourist incentive rather than a way to navigate the cityscape. Here is a typical scenario that illustrates this point and why it matters.

Recall that workers typically live on the city’s periphery. Some might live outside the company’s service area, meaning they must walk to it to access it, which could be a few blocks or even miles. Although this distance is not considerably lengthy, it exposes workers to the elements, which could cause unnecessary perspiration that could make them uncomfortable while working a shift. Other workers might have disabilities or personal issues like time constraints that could make traveling by foot for those distances rather burdensome. Like service industry workers, the drivers also do not make a living wage that matches the living expenses of the area, suggesting they might live in the same neighborhoods as service industry workers.

Yet, remember that some NEVs typically operate within tourist zones. This notion entails that drivers must travel greater distances to pick up local workers. Every minute they spend going to and coming from the town’s outskirts means fewer rides overall. More specifically, it could mean fewer rides for tourists. Even though tipping is not required, many tourists and wealthy locals tip. They are on vacation, having a good time and spending freely comes with being away from responsibilities. And they can afford to do it.

Meanwhile, workers rely on the service daily. If they were riding a bus service, tipping would be eliminated by design and custom. One could argue that tipping bus drivers is a ridiculous practice, even in the face of excessive tipping culture spreading throughout the USA. Perhaps tipping on buses is not realistic due to the volume of passengers. Tipping would disrupt that service, making it far less efficient. What is more, the set route eliminates customer-specific services that would encourage tipping. Cultural norms in many locations would perceive riders tipping drivers as incredibly odd.

However, for NEVs, the service is on-demand, which could create the conditions for personal relationships between driver and rider. Consider that the driver is summoned via app to move the rider through the area. By design, the driver provides the rider with a specific service, arriving at a location and a destination that the rider selects on the app. Due to the nature of this arrangement, tipping seems fitting for all rides. Riders might be seen as rude as they exit the vehicles without providing gratuity. Yet, they might feel shamed for not having extra money for a tip or see the driver as a jerk for expecting additional compensation when earning an hourly wage. From the local rider’s perspective, when going to work or running errands, they use the service as if they were riding in a bus. Considering that no other public mode of service exists, they are then forced into a situation wherein the tension between them wanting a ride and a driver expecting a tip is inevitable. In turn, it makes sense to say that this tension is a product of design.

It is doubtful that the driver is greedy and self-righteous, and the rider is cheap and unappreciative. Rather, many cannot afford to tip, especially when their living situations require every dollar to make ends meet. They feel the negative attitude of drivers when they do not tip, along with a passive-aggressive comment now and again. Due to economic need, drivers prefer to transport wealthy homeowners and visitors around town. However, Case One involves a municipal partnership, meaning they cannot avoid picking up locals – but they aim to avoid those requests as much as possible. Instead, drivers strive always to pick up tourists and residents in affluent neighborhoods when they have a choice. In turn, such situations pit disadvantaged groups against each other.

For instance, hospitality workers need transportation services to get to work, back home and run errands. In such scenarios, their living circumstances are tantamount to mobility marginalization. For the drivers, their low salaries create coercive conditions that inadvertently steer them away from those employed in the tourist sector. One way to ease this tension could require “collaborative planning” (i.e. coplanning) efforts involving workers, drivers, municipal agents and NEV staff and management (Epting, 2024, 12). Through engaging in such discussions, the communication channels could theoretically provide shared ground for conversation, which could help mitigate harmful mobility conditions and ameliorate relationships.

The worry is that the partnership remains morally questionable if the company’s leadership continues with business as usual. The municipality will always contribute to the harmful conditions for drivers and workers while benefitting most business owners, wealthy residents and tourists. While this issue should garner much attention, recall that governance in Case One and the company aim to increase sustainability efforts, and the above example illustrates how the economic pillar of the sustainability framework is weak (i.e. lopsided), considering that it is not economically viable for the drivers. However, if we examine this situation as a problem of moral prioritization that we can address with moral ordering, each affected stakeholder group could receive the needed efforts that show consideration for their situations while gaining an understanding of other stakeholders’ circumstances.

For instance, business owners, wealthy residents and visitors probably lack insight into local workers’ or drivers’ living conditions. However, if we assume they could be empathetic, perhaps they would support reform efforts that would benefit the people they depend on to keep the town operating. The municipality must initiate such efforts because it defines part of their existence. In turn, creating measures that would bring relevant stakeholders together to enhance perspectives of a shared reality should emerge, which is the coplanning process mentioned above. Such meetings could yield feasible measures that benefit all riders while the company profits.

While the practical know-how and needed actions remain outside many philosophers’ skill sets, the required measures could include a surcharge on trips from places like bars late at night that could be held over and applied to trips beyond the tourist zone. Such procedures could then entice drivers to avoid economically driven workarounds. Another option could be for the company to offer increased compensation for drivers transporting workers. Other technical solutions could focus on controlling the order of passenger pickups, not allowing drivers to deviate from the order of requests. Although this approach sounds simple, it might do little to improve matters like driver-rider relations and job satisfaction. In turn, collaboration between stakeholders without an overwhelming power differential must hold steady to attain an ethical outcome that is respective of stakeholders’ places in the moral ordering sequence.

Though the above measures are mere speculation and should be taken with significant reservations, they indicate the kind of thinking that should accompany a way to incorporate NEV operations within municipalities’ mobility networks. To gain a more comprehensive view of how the pattern behind their thinking applies to different scenarios involving NEVs, the section below turns to Case Two. Examining this hypothetical case will illustrate how we can extend the pattern behind moral ordering to inform us about the nuances of situations wherein municipalities choose to partner with NEV startups.

Several cities have seen NEV startups begin to operate over the last few years. Some cities praise these companies’ innovative approach to dealing with sophisticated mobility issues. These app-based, “on-demand” vehicles have become permanent in many places, cruising along city streets next to buses, passenger vehicles, bicycles, e-bikes, scooters and brave pedestrians. Seeing a golf-cart-like vehicle trotting down the road could appear unique to some, looking like a novel approach to getting around town. While these vehicles enhance sustainable urban mobility in the best sense, several issues require examination for such a claim to hold. This section aims to investigate the promise and uncover the possible peril these devices could have for the cities that embrace them with gusto. One notion that must accompany this inquiry is that technologies are not always inherently good or bad, but we must examine their roles in much larger socio-material arrangements, especially those found in cities today (Brey, 2014). In turn, their use in such settings remains problematic.

Consider, for instance, as mentioned at the outset of the last section, urban mobility in many automobile-centric environments like the USA faces myriad challenges. Numerous urban centers have horrific traffic conditions, and specialized terms like “super commuters,” which describes drivers who spend at least ninety minutes traveling to work, are now part of the transportation lexicon (Tarrant, 2023). Public transportation in many such places requires considerable planning from riders who depend on the services. Others who can ride public transport or drive have the name “choice riders,” indicating that taking public transit or driving a personal vehicle is an option (Lachapelle, 2015).

The point is that, depending on the location, each area will face unique mobility challenges, meaning there is no one-size-fits-all solution. What works for Portland, Oregon might not work in San Diego and vice versa. Still, the outcomes wherein people suffer from pollution, stress and other health effects remain constant, correlating to the conditions associated with each transportation system. This idea suggests that planning and engineering education will only help mitigate harm when enough relevant elements are identified. However, figuring out the intimate knowledge of how to remedy such situations requires connecting professionals with community members to learn how mobility infrastructure affects different stakeholders and teaching them about possible strategies.

Such steps are of paramount importance in attaining the necessary information to get the job done correctly. “Correctly,” in this sense and applied to this case, entails examining existing mobility networks and determining how implementing NEVs can benefit stakeholders according to moral ordering as described above. Again, coplanning measures might help facilitate efforts. A careful study of Case Two can help exhibit the underlying patterns of harm or benefit that might have widescale applicability to inform similar situations wherein municipalities could use or adjust measures to deal with local transportation affairs.

For example, consider that we are dealing with major population centers in case two. Although they differ, they bear a family resemblance to other cities. Locations where personal automobiles are the most common mode of mobility in the city are the norm in numerous urban centers globally. For such cases, reducing the volume of passenger vehicles on the road might significantly reduce harmful emissions, offering several benefits to most of the stakeholder groups outlined previously. Each trip in a NEV could seem to contribute toward such a goal. If people could depend on these services, they might hang up the keys for good. At first thought, such an idea might sound like municipal leaders and residents should pursue their implementation into existing transportation systems with great enthusiasm. For many places, introducing NEVs might have many advantages.

For example, electric vehicles reduce emissions. If NEVs have a significant and beneficial impact, they might reduce respiratory-related illness. They weigh significantly less than regular vehicles and travel at slower speeds, suggesting a reduction in collision-based injuries and deaths. The same idea applies to nonhuman animals navigating city streets. For individuals and families struggling economically, they might offer a feasible alternative to transport fees and vehicle ownership costs. If they improve traffic, drivers will spend less time on roadways. First responders might arrive at their destinations quicker, possibly saving more lives. Implementing NEVs might be a modest step toward progress in climate change mitigation. This list is nonexhaustive, but it illustrates the benefits they could provide.

While the reasons above indicate ample motivation to study NEVs to enhance transportation systems, recalling the issues associated with other recent mobility technologies mentioned above should give us some reservations about their immediate acceptance without policy oversight. For instance, just as app-based ride-hailing services with traditional passenger vehicles promised to improve traffic and reduce harms associated with their use, in many cases, those results failed to materialize, as discussed earlier. Even though they are mainstays in numerous population centers worldwide, the tensions and problems with them remain constant today. In turn, it is not a stretch to hold that mobility-focused entrepreneurial startups should not be permitted to operate on city streets with impunity. One could assert that those failing to study transportation history doom the rest of us to live through similar outcomes. Yet, we do not want to discourage creative measures, suggesting that partnerships, including coplanning, could provide such assurances while providing feasible outlets for technological progress. Considering that municipalities and urban residents should have mobility as their primary objective rather than profit, with the latter having an immediate stake with a felt impact, their voices must remain at the forefront of discussions.

Although the idea of using emerging transportation technologies to address social and environmental harm sounds worthwhile, success could lead to peril in select circumstances. For instance, by merely implementing NEVs into existing cityscapes as a solution to the first-last mile problem, it could overshadow ideas that could lead to more equitable and permanent solutions that align with moral ordering. This possibility would, perhaps inadvertently, stymie significant efforts that might lead to overhauling entire transportation systems. This notion entails that any unethical outcomes would continue, and efforts to remedy those troubles could be met with resistance. In other words, relying too heavily on NEVs as a stopgap would preserve the dominant roadway system. NEVs would exist to maintain roadways and most passenger vehicles barreling down the asphalt. Here is what we can uncover from this view.

In some cases, NEVs seem to be steps to mitigate harm that might otherwise benefit marginalized groups, vulnerable individuals and other stakeholders. However, NEVs would benefit automobiles (i.e. urban artifacts) and their correlative industries. One way to look at this situation is that artifacts matter more than people struggling with harmful conditions or situations requiring care. Highlighting this move reveals how implementing NEVs under the wrong conditions would violate moral ordering. Although it might seem that cars benefit the most, this view only shows the surface. Instead of benefitting stakeholder groups struggling to travel to work and home, they would benefit cars, automotive manufacturers, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and others profiting from standard mobility networks and arrangements.

This view reveals the far-reaching effects beyond mobility conditions in a given location and signals that more complex issues are lurking behind the scenes. The applicability of such outcomes does not entail that municipalities should not form partnerships with NEV startups. Rather, it suggests that such opportunities should be approached cautiously instead of unwavering enthusiasm for a new transportation technology. It could be the case that NEVs significantly improve urban mobility in some locations. Those situations require assessment on a case-by-case basis to determine how they might affect stakeholder groups differently. Yet, by using moral ordering and coplanning, municipalities could work with community groups and startups to assess if and how partnerships could serve all interests equitably.

If a coplanning measure were to study how such an enterprise would benefit all parties, it could result in many kinds of beneficial arrangements. For example, in Case Two, there are many possible fruitful outcomes. One kind might involve NEV use to transport seniors in instances wherein they could not get around town, which might cost significantly less or be more efficient and effective than municipal-run services. If their mobility needs were not met at all, then adopting such measures could yield immediate results for those vulnerable populations. In locations wherein numerous people are contending with the first-last mile problem, dedicated NEVs could serve select areas, transporting regular riders to and from mass transit services. Some cities dealing with this problem have outsourced the work to ride-share app services (Grabar, 2016). Yet, using NEVs might be more cost-effective for the city, freeing additional funds for other needed services. Still, it might be worth investigating whether NEVs could run on a regular schedule to transport riders in need.

Other measures could take on different forms entirely. For example, if municipalities and stakeholders want to own NEVs in addition to existing transit services, they could partner with a start-up to help provide them. Alternatively, they could operate it as a third party, maintaining a contractual relationship. Thinking in this direction, NEV companies might offer to implement these vehicles into existing systems as possible solutions for specific population centers. Cities could choose to secure such operations – if that was a coplanning outcome.

The takeaway is that an ethical way forward for NEW startups and municipalities is possible. It can benefit residents and make a profit for bold innovators, and fruitful relationships can flourish under the right conditions. These notions entail that the future for entrepreneurial enterprises that deal with people’s ability to travel in cities must not resemble the tumultuous scenarios often associated with some TNCs whose ubiquitous presence remains subject to ample criticism. Considering that NEV operations are in their early stages of deployment, city leaders have an opportunity to ensure that the future of urban mobility pursues a different course, leading to better transportation services for residents.

The above examples and exploratory elements are only an imaginative sampling of how NEV startups could join moral-ordered coplanning partnerships. Yet, they should provide a feasible alternative to those startups operating on people’s streets without any policies that could maximize their effectiveness or minimize unexpected harm. This point entails that even though NEVs remain relatively underexplored in the transportation literature, future efforts should study the kinds of cities, and which arrangements would benefit all parties involved. Even though cities differ globally, locations should develop site-specific studies to determine how NEV might affect various groups and other transportation options. Insights gained from such studies could inform regulatory policies and practices.

Mobility affairs are not merely logistical puzzles that require transporting people around town, and this article highlights the notion that thorough examinations of such scenarios can improve urban life. It can help right historical wrongs and support sustainable transport in new and exciting ways. While this notion gestures toward the interdisciplinary character of mobility affairs, it also provides a blueprint for the needed measures to guide the ethical implementation of emerging transportation technologies.

The author would like to thank the Department of Arts, Languages, and Philosophy at the Missouri University of Science and Technology for providing travel assistance to gather background information for this article.