The Future of Mobility
Are we finally getting flying cars?
This is Startup Pirate #110, a newsletter about technology, entrepreneurship, and startups every two weeks. Made in Greece. If you haven’t subscribed, join 6,610 readers by clicking below:
The Future of Mobility
The Thiel-inspired meme "They promised us flying cars. All we got was one hundred forty characters." was a bit of a dig at Twitter but, most importantly, a demonstration that technological progress has fallen short in many domains when tracked against the admittedly lofty hopes of past decades. Well, we might be getting flying cars after all. And not only flying cars, but also autonomous vehicles and more, which present a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine tomorrow’s cities.
I couldn't think of a better person than Adam Markakis to walk us through the latest developments in urban mobility. Adam runs Astylab, a non-profit with the mission to accelerate urban transformation and writes the popular blog Take Back the City. He previously founded Kineo, a micromobility startup with a fleet of 1,200 vehicles, acquired by instacar in 2023. Here’s what he has to say. Let’s get to it.
The future of mobility stands at a fascinating crossroads. What makes this moment particularly exciting is the convergence of multiple transformative trends.
Venture capital has poured over $120 billion into ambitious moonshots like autonomous vehicles and flying taxis. Electric powertrains have matured beyond cars to enable everything from e-bikes to e-buses, making sustainable transport practical and appealing. Digital platforms have made sharing vehicles seamless, while big data, IoT, and artificial intelligence empower cities to fine-tune their transportation networks with surgical precision.
Yet beneath the techno-optimistic headlines lies a more nuanced story about equity, access, and the true meaning of mobility in modern society.
The most promising innovations aren't necessarily the most technically sophisticated. Paris's transformation into a cycling capital happened through political will and paint, not complex technology. Barcelona's superblocks prioritised walking and community life by simply restricting car access. Meanwhile, cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen continue to demonstrate how human-centred mobility infrastructure can create more livable, sustainable urban environments. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated experimentation with car-free zones and "15-minute cities", demonstrating how quickly our urban fabric can adapt when prioritising people over vehicles.
As we explore the future of mobility, we must look beyond the allure of futuristic technology to ask deeper questions: How can new mobility solutions strengthen rather than fragment our communities? What role should private companies play in providing essential transportation services? How do we ensure innovations benefit those who need them most rather than just early adopters? The answers will shape not just how we move but how we live together in the cities of tomorrow.
Autonomous Vehicles: Where are we now?
The autonomous vehicle revolution isn't a question of if but where and how. While tech sceptics (myself included) once dismissed AVs, the numbers tell a compelling story: Waymo now facilitates 150,000 paid trips weekly, while China has deployed over 200 autonomous buses, 1,500 robotaxis, and 1,000 self-driving trucks. “The future is already here—it's just not evenly distributed.”
My journey from AV sceptic to cautious optimist has been shaped by grappling with two fundamental tensions. First, there's the Jevons Paradox—the counterintuitive reality that making something more efficient often increases its total consumption. Just as expanding highways induces demand, cheaper and more convenient autonomous vehicles could increase vehicle kilometres travelled, congestion, and space dedicated to cars. Second, like many technological solutions, AVs were initially developed with systems and efficiency in mind, while human needs and urban livability came as afterthoughts.
But here's what changed my perspective: driverless cars may already be safer than human drivers. Every 24 seconds, somewhere in the world, someone dies in a traffic collision. That's 1.35 million lives lost annually (including 637 in Greece last year alone). Beyond the immeasurable human toll, road crashes drain between $2-3.6 trillion from the global economy each year. Viewed through this lens, the $100 billion invested in AV development starts to look less like tech industry excess and more like a crucial public health investment.
Moreover, AVs could help address one of our most pressing urban challenges: mobility justice. For elderly, disabled, and teenage residents who can't safely drive, walk, or ride a bike and live in areas poorly served by public transit, autonomous vehicles could restore independence and social connection. The technology is also spawning promising innovations in public transit, like autonomous minibuses that could provide flexible, affordable service in areas where traditional bus routes aren't viable.
Yet I remain sceptical about AVs' potential to cure our collective "car brain"—that deeply ingrained assumption that private vehicles are the default mode of urban transport. Even in Greece, where driving sucks and taxis are relatively affordable, we still see a strong cultural preference for private car ownership. This suggests that convenience and cost alone won't break our automobile dependency.
One of the most interesting tech matchups of the decade
The Waymo vs Tesla debate represents two radically different philosophies about approaching the future.
Tesla, true to Silicon Valley's "move fast and break things" ethos, champions a vision of rapid scaling through consumer vehicles equipped with cameras and AI. Every Tesla becomes a data collector, training their neural networks across millions of kilometres. It's pure Elon Musk: ambitious, tech-first, and focused on rapid iteration.
Waymo, meanwhile, gives careful attention to safety and systems. They're taking what I'd call the "urbanist approach": starting small in controlled environments, using remote operators as safety nets, and gradually expanding as their technology proves itself. Their vehicles use more expensive hardware (like LiDAR) and detailed mapping, prioritising reliability over rapid scaling. Here's what's fascinating about the results so far:
Waymo has been running fully driverless services since 2020 in select cities in the US, completing over 50,000 trips weekly with no one behind the wheel.
Tesla's Full Self-Driving still requires human oversight and interventions roughly every 21 kilometres.
Waymo shows lower crash rates than human drivers in their operating areas.
Tesla has yet to launch a true driverless service despite years of ambitious predictions.
Tesla argues that Waymo's approach won't scale; you can't map and LiDAR-equip the entire world. Waymo counters that Tesla's camera-only approach can't achieve the safety levels needed for true autonomy. The deeper question that emerges is about our values: Do we prioritise rapid deployment, accepting higher risk and more gradual improvement? Or do we take a more conservative approach that might deliver better safety but reach fewer people initially?
Reilly Brennan, in his mobility newsletter Trucks, recently crystallised something I've been wrestling with about autonomous vehicles. He argues that "Level 1 and Level 4 are the 'best levels' because they have just enough engagement (by the human, level 1) or just enough responsibility (by the manufacturer, level 4) to set us up on the right path." This resonates deeply with my observations of how transformative technologies succeed or fail in urban environments.
Waymo's methodical approach, working closely with cities, firefighters, and local communities, reflects an understanding that successful urban innovation isn't just about technological capability but about weaving new systems into the complex fabric of city life. The debate, at its core, is about how we introduce any major change into our urban environments. The initiatives that endure are those that respect the intricate dance between technology, policy, and social acceptance. Waymo seems to grasp this fundamental truth: that the path to transformation runs through patient engagement with the messy reality of how cities work.
Micromobility at the slope of enlightenment
Meanwhile, the micromobility sector is experiencing what we might call a "right-sizing" moment. The heady days of 2018-2021 saw billions in venture capital chasing the next urban mobility unicorn, with shared scooters dotting sidewalks from Athens to Austin. COVID-19 temporarily vindicated this exuberance as bike sales soared and cities embraced active transportation. But today's landscape tells a more sobering story: warehouses filled with unsold inventory, high-profile bankruptcies, and a dawning recognition that shared micromobility's economics were always more complex than glossy investor presentations suggested.
Yet, beneath this correction lies a more encouraging truth: micromobility isn't failing—it's simply finding its natural equilibrium. The data consistently shows a pattern that should have been obvious from the start: roughly 60-70% of micromobility users prefer ownership, 20-30% opt for leasing, and sharing services capture about 10%. This isn't surprising when you think about it. For regular users, having your own well-maintained vehicle ready at a moment's notice simply makes more sense.
While retail companies are weathering the aftermath of COVID-era overproduction, the underlying trends tell a story of resilient demand and evolving preferences. In mature cycling markets like the Netherlands and Germany, e-bike sales are now outpacing traditional bicycles. This watershed moment signals a fundamental shift in how people view these vehicles. Perhaps most encouraging is the rise of cargo bikes, which are proving themselves not just as alternatives to regular bikes but as genuine car replacements for families and businesses.
The industry's growing pains have also taught us valuable lessons about technology's role in urban mobility. The VanMoof bankruptcy was particularly illuminating. It showed us that the "Tesla of bikes" approach fundamentally misunderstands what people want from micromobility. We don't need—and frankly can't afford—proprietary technology and locked ecosystems in our bikes. The magic of the bicycle isn't in its tech stack. It's in its elegant simplicity, repairability, and reliability. We already have supercomputers in our pockets; we don't need another one on our handlebars.
What excites me most is seeing cities that understand micromobility isn't just about dropping scooters on sidewalks—it's about creating comprehensive systems. Paris and New York are showing us the way forward. Paris has masterfully integrated Vélib' bike-sharing with its public transit network while building out 180km of bike lanes during COVID. New York's Citi Bike system has become the largest in the Western world, with deep integration into the MTA's OMNY payment system and an expanding network of protected lanes.
These cities recognise that different vehicles serve different needs: scooters for nimbler trips, cargo bikes for families and deliveries, folding bikes for multimodal commutes, e-bikes for hillier areas. But at the core, the bicycle remains the most efficient form of urban transport ever invented. What's changing isn't the basic technology—it's the infrastructure and design that makes it safe and convenient to use.
Flying Taxis: Sci-fi or not?
After decades of science fiction dreams and failed attempts, we seem to be getting flying cars after all. Maybe we will even get them soon in Greece. Over 1,000 companies, including legacy manufacturers such as Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, and several startups, are developing original eVTOL aircraft designs. China wants to dominate the market and have more than 100,000 autonomous drones, flying cars, and electric air taxis hovering over its cities by 2030. The technology is undoubtedly impressive, and some form of urban air mobility seems inevitable. But the industry faces several pivotal uncertainties: the timeline to widespread adoption, the ultimate winning configuration (whether that's vectored thrust aircraft piloted by humans, autonomous multicopters, or hybrid-electric designs we haven't yet imagined), and perhaps most importantly, the social and urban contexts where these vehicles will first prove their value.
The promise of eVTOLs speaks to our deepest aspirations for urban mobility. Imagine stepping into an electric aircraft for your morning commute, soaring above gridlocked streets to complete what was once a 90-minute journey in just 15 peaceful minutes. The promise is alluring: zero-emission flights democratising what has long been the exclusive domain of helicopter-riding elites, creating a new "low-altitude economy" that could fundamentally reshape urban mobility.
But here's where reality intrudes on our technological optimism. Even seemingly mundane issues like weather resistance pose significant hurdles. Most current designs can't handle strong winds or rain, limiting their practical utility. Safety systems for autonomous flight must be perfect, as there's no room for error when operating above dense urban areas. With helicopter pilots commanding $100,000 annual salaries, can we really achieve mass adoption without full autonomy? Current battery technology is another issue, limiting range and payload. This is why companies like Joby are exploring hybrid models.
The regulatory landscape presents equally daunting challenges. Aviation authorities must develop entirely new frameworks for managing low-altitude urban airspace while cities grapple with questions of noise pollution, visual impact, and social equity. Pilotless flight faces particular scrutiny. The infrastructure requirements are equally complex, demanding networks of vertiports, charging stations, and maintenance facilities.
And we also have to think about the deeper urban planning implications. Looking at cities like São Paulo, where helicopters already serve as "aerial taxis" for the wealthy, eVTOLs promise to democratise urban air mobility. But will they? Or will they create another layer of "transportation segregation" where those who can afford it literally fly above ground-level congestion, which will decrease attention and resources funnelled to the problems below?
The Marchetti Constant—the observation that commute times remain stable around 30 minutes despite faster transportation—suggests eVTOLs could accelerate suburban sprawl or create new segregated suburbs. Just as highways enabled far-flung suburbs, aerial commuting could push development even further from urban cores, which is negative both for the environment and also for the livelihood of cities.
For me, the future of mobility isn't about escaping our cities through ever more sophisticated technology. It's about making them places we don't want to escape from in the first place. Over the next two decades, we'll need to phase out most of the world's 1.7 billion private vehicles—a transition representing both an extraordinary challenge and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine mobility.
While flying taxis and autonomous vehicles capture our imagination, the most powerful tool for urban transformation remains deceptively simple: public transit. A well-designed bus lane moves 16 times more people than a lane of robotaxis. A bike lane, 7 times more. A strategic train station doesn't just transport passengers; it creates community, spurs economic development, and weaves neighbourhoods together.
In that light, the key question is: what mix of mobility technologies is right for each city? Crafting the right mix of solutions for each city's unique DNA is the real art of urban tech. Yes, we should embrace innovation, whether electric buses, self-driving cars, shared micromobility, or carefully integrated urban air mobility. But these technologies must serve our human-scale vision, not override it.
Jobs
Check out job openings here from startups hiring in Greece.
News
ActionIQ (customer data platform) was acquired by Uniphore.
FINNY (software for financial advisors) raised $4.2m Seed.
deepmirror (AI for drug disovery) secured $2.4m Seed.
Piney (operations for property managers) raised €1.2m led by Unifund.
Butler (hospitality tech) raised funding from Genesis Ventures.
Evercurious VC, a new fund launched (€12.5 million) to invest in Pre-Seed and Seed.
A €30m initiative called Pharos to advance AI development in Greece.
Resources
Sales growth for B2B SaaS with George Gatos, CRO at Epignosis.
Data-driven decision making with Christos Lontos and Nicholas Bobos from Skroutz.
Building a healthcare AI startup with Eirini Schlosser, founder & CEO of Dyania Health.
This year’s Startups in Greece report by Foundation.
Events
We’re hosting Greeks in Tech in London on Jan 24. Join us!
“Open Coffee Thessaloniki #85” on Dec 18
“DevOops Athens #2” on Dec 19
“Building AI Applications from Scratch” by Practical AI Thessaloniki on Dec 19
That’s all for this week. Tap the heart ❤️ below if you liked this piece—it helps me understand which themes you like best and what I should do more.
Thank you so much for reading,
Alex