Spotlight On: Alexander Esposito, Co-Founder & CEO, Circuit

Key points:

• • Microtransit is shifting from pilot programs to essential infrastructure for access and mobility.
• • Success depends on clear use cases, strong public-private alignment, and tailored service design.
• • Cities are prioritizing outcomes, cost efficiency, and real-world impact over innovation hype.

April 2026 — Invest: spoke with Alexander Esposito, co-founder and CEO of Circuit, about how cities are rethinking short-trip mobility, and what it takes to scale shared, electric, on-demand service without chasing innovation for its own sake. “Microtransit and solving the last-mile problem are becoming more of a necessity than a novelty,” Esposito said.

Join us at the Invest: Greater Fort Lauderdale 8th Edition Leadership Summit! This premier event brings together hundreds of Atlanta’s business and regional leaders to discuss the challenges and opportunities for businesses and investors. Buy your ticket now!

What shifts have occurred over the past year in how cities and transit agencies think about short-trip mobility?

It has been an encouraging year, and the biggest shift is that microtransit and solving the last-mile problem are becoming more of a necessity than a novelty. In fast-growing markets, leaders are viewing short-trip mobility as infrastructure that supports access, jobs, and the experience of moving around a district, not as a pilot program that is nice to have, and that’s been a really exciting evolution for the industry and for us at Circuit.

When we look at the impact these services can make, it connects people to transit hubs, connects people to jobs, and reduces demand for parking. That has real downstream effects for local economies, equity, access, and emissions reduction, and it matters even more in places where growth is driving congestion.

I also think the industry has matured. Years ago, the conversation was often innovation for the sake of innovation. New mobility appeared, and the question became what is new, what is flashy, and what is trending. Now, we see cities and properties spending more time on use cases and outcomes. What are we trying to solve, and what tools make the most sense? That includes software, service design, and vehicle mix. It is not just assuming an app fixes everything.

Where are you seeing the most traction for shuttle-based solutions, and where does the model still face limitations?

We have always been intentional about complementing public transit rather than trying to replace it. The shared goal is reducing single-occupancy vehicles and reducing congestion, and you do that by making it easier for people to choose alternatives.

One area of traction is first- and last-mile connections. If someone has to walk too far to reach a transit stop, they may overlook buses and trains as viable options. If we solve that access gap, we can help more people use fixed-route services, which lowers the number of cars on the road.

Parking is another overlooked driver of traffic. A meaningful portion of congestion comes from people circling for parking. If someone can request a ride and get where they need to go without bringing a car into the district, it reduces both parking pressure and vehicle miles traveled. It also encourages economic activity as people may be more prone to explore, shop, and dine for longer periods of time. 

Another lever is pooling. Many people call transportation network companies (TNCs) ride-sharing, but very few rides are actually shared. We use pooling in our app so that if there are empty seats and another group is on the way, we can pick them up and combine trips. That increases passengers per vehicle hour and helps lower the cost per rider.

Limitations typically show up when a program is not set up around a clear problem statement, or when expectations are not matched to the service design. If you try to solve too many different needs at once without aligning coverage, hours, and fleet, performance can suffer. The model works best when the use case is clear and the service is designed specifically for it.

As far as limitations go, more broadly, there’s really no shortage of places where parking, traffic, and last-mile problems exist. That said, we do have supply limitations in some of our markets where the service is incredibly popular and there just aren’t enough vehicles as part of the service contract. Unfortunately, that may lead to higher wait times. That said, it’s a good problem in that it shows the services are highly utilized and creates clear data that the services are effective and that Cities and partners should continue to invest in these types of services. 

When do public-private partnerships work best in delivering shared mobility, especially around risk, procurement, and performance expectations?

Many stakeholders share similar goals. Cities, hotels, offices, and shopping areas all generally want less vehicle congestion and fewer parking headaches. The challenge is that even with shared goals, each group has different incentives, budgets, and customers, so coordinating one unified program can be difficult.

We have seen strong outcomes when each party can commit in a way that directly supports its own objectives, while still aligning with the broader community benefit. For example, a hotel might be reluctant to simply contribute funding into a city program, but it may be willing to fund a dedicated vehicle that serves guests, carries hotel branding, and improves the guest experience. If that service is designed thoughtfully, it can also indirectly add supply to the public system by absorbing a portion of trips that would otherwise pull from shared capacity.

Common threads across the work we do with cities are alignment, transparency, and flexibility. Define what success looks like, set performance expectations early, and make sure there is a shared understanding of what the service is designed to do. If everyone is measuring the same outcomes, it is easier to manage performance and risk. If the service is set up to be flexible, it allows partners to adjust the program when conditions change.

In the markets where Circuit has been successful, what are the most common policy or planning decisions that set cities apart?

Growth is a major catalyst. When cities are growing, congestion and parking issues appear quickly, and leaders who plan ahead are often the ones who move first. They recognize that if they wait until the problem is severe, the community experience deteriorates and the cost of fixing it increases.

We also see a strong relationship between transportation access and real estate dynamics. Central locations often have the highest rents. If residents move farther away from central downtown areas, to manage housing costs, transportation costs increase. That tension makes access and connectivity more important, and it pushes cities to look for solutions that reduce friction for short trips.

In some regions, policy goals also shape adoption. In parts of Southern California, for example, there is a strong emphasis on emissions reduction, air quality, and access, and those priorities can accelerate interest in electric, shared mobility. In South Florida, FDOT and the Broward MPO have some great programs to promote new mobility solutions.

There is also a momentum effect. When one city launches a program and demonstrates results, other cities nearby want to understand how it works and whether it can fit their context. That is not just a trend dynamic. It is a response to visible outcomes and an attempt to address shared challenges.

Looking ahead three to five years, what are your priorities in expanding Circuit’s footprint and sustaining long-term success?

Our priority is continuing to invest in the right technologies and service designs, guided by first principles. We are moving riders, and riders care about a straightforward set of outcomes. They want the service to be easy to use, cost-effective, and reliable. Technology should support those outcomes, not distract from them.

I also expect more scrutiny across the industry around performance, particularly cost per rider and utilization. Some microtransit programs were not set up the right way, and that can create negative perception. It is important that a few weak examples do not define the entire category. The way to address that is measurement, transparency, and continuous improvement.

Public transit is rarely profitable as a standalone service, but it is essential. The real ROI is the impact transportation has on productivity, economic activity, and job creation. Cities need mobility to support jobs, tourism, and access to opportunity. That makes the questions about spend and outcomes more important than the question of profit. If a city can measure what it invested and what results it achieved, it can evaluate programs more holistically and build confidence in the outcomes.

For us, that means continuing to strengthen operations, focusing on metrics that matter, and making investments that drive real outcomes rather than digital gloss. We believe the market is moving toward more mature expectations, and we want to be the partner that helps cities and districts meet those expectations with data, planning support, and service design that fits the problem.

Want more? Read the Invest: Greater Fort Lauderdale report.