With the recent demise of Car2Go in Minneapolis and some other cities, it is worth revisiting my 2013 post Carsharing is the mode of the future, and always will be. I am a member of Car2Go, which is why I get the attached notice: I basically made the claim that this is a network-effects driven business, for this to work, the access costs must be low, generating demand, which will increase vehicle availability (as suppliers respond to demand), which will lower access costs, which will increase demand. Given the idleness of existing Car2Go vehicles (which I have heard are as idle as private cars in Minneapolis), they clearly could have accommodated more customers on the existing fleet. My belief is access costs were insufficiently low to get this positive feedback network effect going here. Perhaps a greater investment would have juiced the market, I am not sure. Gas prices are exceptionally low, the economy is at the peak of expansion, so people readily buy and drive private cars. The company complains about taxing, and I am sure that is also an element. Clearly carsharing should not be taxed a the same rate as rental cars, which are aimed to extract money from out-of-towners (taxing foreigners living abroad) who don't vote locally, this is a case of public policy not catching up with changing technology. There is also the rise of ridehailing apps like Uber and Lyft, which are only slightly more expensive and loads more convenient than carsharing for many trips. That they are only slightly more expensive is due to tremendous Venture Capital subsidies, which are great to exploit as customers, while they last. This also did not help carsharing.