Last week, SHARE NOW -- which was previously known as Car2Go -- announced that it will be exiting the North American market entirely come February 29, 2020, and that it will also cease operations in London, Brussels, and Florence. A couple of reasons were cited, including the "volatile state of the global mobility landscape," but that really translates into low adoption:
Further, despite our best efforts and investments in Brussels, London and Florence over the years, we are unable to continue operations in a manner that’s sustainable for our business due to low adoption rates.
Moving forward, SHARE NOW will focus on the remaining 18 European cities. We, along with our shareholders, believe these markets show the clearest potential for profitable growth and mobility innovation.
There was a period of time when I used to use Car2Go here in Toronto. My network did as well. But that quickly stopped with the rise of Uber and Lyft. I mean, why bother finding a Car2Go and then parking it, when there's a much lower friction option? I would imagine that's how most people feel. (Maybe there's a care share advantage for longer trips.)
Last week, SHARE NOW -- which was previously known as Car2Go -- announced that it will be exiting the North American market entirely come February 29, 2020, and that it will also cease operations in London, Brussels, and Florence. A couple of reasons were cited, including the "volatile state of the global mobility landscape," but that really translates into low adoption:
Further, despite our best efforts and investments in Brussels, London and Florence over the years, we are unable to continue operations in a manner that’s sustainable for our business due to low adoption rates.
Moving forward, SHARE NOW will focus on the remaining 18 European cities. We, along with our shareholders, believe these markets show the clearest potential for profitable growth and mobility innovation.
There was a period of time when I used to use Car2Go here in Toronto. My network did as well. But that quickly stopped with the rise of Uber and Lyft. I mean, why bother finding a Car2Go and then parking it, when there's a much lower friction option? I would imagine that's how most people feel. (Maybe there's a care share advantage for longer trips.)
At the same time, companies such as Uber and Lyft have, as you know, not performed well as public companies. The market is nervous about their path to profitability. In my view, they're largely an undifferentiated offering right now, and it's pretty easy to switch across them. So yeah, I guess the global mobility landscape is pretty volatile.
At the same time, companies such as Uber and Lyft have, as you know, not performed well as public companies. The market is nervous about their path to profitability. In my view, they're largely an undifferentiated offering right now, and it's pretty easy to switch across them. So yeah, I guess the global mobility landscape is pretty volatile.
Lately it has been in the news that a growing number of people in Tokyo are using car-sharing services for reasons other than to drive places. It started when companies began noticing that "several percent of their rented vehicles" were not being driven at all. What they ended up discovering, largely through customer surveys, is that car-sharing services have become an affordable option for people looking to nap, work, eat, store things, charge their phone, practice rapping, and probably a bunch of other things.
This immediately struck me as being quintessentially Japanese, partially because one of my experiences of Tokyo is that Tokyoites are often cool to sleep all throughout the city, including at the bar and on my shoulder on the metro. But I also think this finding tells you something about Tokyo's urban fabric and, in particular, how much of a precious commodity that space is within the capital. This guy once rented a car because he couldn't find a place to sit down and eat his boxed lunch.
This may also be a case of mispriced private space. Cities should, of course, have well-designed public spaces that accommodate people wanting to eat their boxed lunches. But for those looking for a little quiet time, a few hundred yen for 30 minutes has proven to be a competitive, and in some cases a more affordable, offering compared to, say, internet cafes. From the sounds of it, none of the car share companies ever anticipated this use case. Pricing is interesting.
New York City is considering a congestion charge for drivers entering Manhattan below 60th street. It is part of Governor Cuomo’s Fix NYC plan. But we all know how difficult these things are to implement.
Last month, Felix Salmon wrote a piece in Wired where he argued that our cities are dying of traffic congestion and that the cause is ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. The solution: A tax on ride-hailing services.
The article elicited a few reactions, including this one by Charles Komanoff over at Streetblogs and this one by Joe Cortright over at City Observatory. Joe’s message: “The problem isn’t the ride-hailed vehicles, it’s the under-priced street.”
Precisely.
Felix later followed-up with a post on his blog where he clarified that the reason he loves this idea – of taxing ride-hailing companies, not riders – is that it’s far more politically palatable than a blanket tax on all cars. I don’t disagree.
Which is why I think my idea is something which is eminently politically possible, in contrast to congestion pricing, which has been implemented exactly nowhere in the USA.
Americans love their cars, and they love the freedom that cars represent, and they hate the idea that they should be taxed for driving their cars. Tolls on roads and bridges are bad enough, but a fee just to drive in to a city?
That said, I’m with Charles and Joe.
Last year, it was reported that roughly 25% of all Uber trips in New York City were UberPool trips. I’m not sure what the number is today, but these are people who are car pooling to get around. That’s generally considered to be a positive thing.
Are these really the trips we want to be discouraging (and singling out) with a charge simply because we don’t have the moxie to do what is right and makes rational sense?
Lately it has been in the news that a growing number of people in Tokyo are using car-sharing services for reasons other than to drive places. It started when companies began noticing that "several percent of their rented vehicles" were not being driven at all. What they ended up discovering, largely through customer surveys, is that car-sharing services have become an affordable option for people looking to nap, work, eat, store things, charge their phone, practice rapping, and probably a bunch of other things.
This immediately struck me as being quintessentially Japanese, partially because one of my experiences of Tokyo is that Tokyoites are often cool to sleep all throughout the city, including at the bar and on my shoulder on the metro. But I also think this finding tells you something about Tokyo's urban fabric and, in particular, how much of a precious commodity that space is within the capital. This guy once rented a car because he couldn't find a place to sit down and eat his boxed lunch.
This may also be a case of mispriced private space. Cities should, of course, have well-designed public spaces that accommodate people wanting to eat their boxed lunches. But for those looking for a little quiet time, a few hundred yen for 30 minutes has proven to be a competitive, and in some cases a more affordable, offering compared to, say, internet cafes. From the sounds of it, none of the car share companies ever anticipated this use case. Pricing is interesting.
New York City is considering a congestion charge for drivers entering Manhattan below 60th street. It is part of Governor Cuomo’s Fix NYC plan. But we all know how difficult these things are to implement.
Last month, Felix Salmon wrote a piece in Wired where he argued that our cities are dying of traffic congestion and that the cause is ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. The solution: A tax on ride-hailing services.
The article elicited a few reactions, including this one by Charles Komanoff over at Streetblogs and this one by Joe Cortright over at City Observatory. Joe’s message: “The problem isn’t the ride-hailed vehicles, it’s the under-priced street.”
Precisely.
Felix later followed-up with a post on his blog where he clarified that the reason he loves this idea – of taxing ride-hailing companies, not riders – is that it’s far more politically palatable than a blanket tax on all cars. I don’t disagree.
Which is why I think my idea is something which is eminently politically possible, in contrast to congestion pricing, which has been implemented exactly nowhere in the USA.
Americans love their cars, and they love the freedom that cars represent, and they hate the idea that they should be taxed for driving their cars. Tolls on roads and bridges are bad enough, but a fee just to drive in to a city?
That said, I’m with Charles and Joe.
Last year, it was reported that roughly 25% of all Uber trips in New York City were UberPool trips. I’m not sure what the number is today, but these are people who are car pooling to get around. That’s generally considered to be a positive thing.
Are these really the trips we want to be discouraging (and singling out) with a charge simply because we don’t have the moxie to do what is right and makes rational sense?
