[nathan_long]

Why not? Suppose your commute occupies the car for 1/24th of the hours of the day. In theory you could pay for only that usage.

There would be some markup so the owning company has a profit margin, but the higher the price is, the greater the incentive for competitors to exist, which would exert downward pressure. So maybe you'd end up paying 1/20 the price of owning a car.

If you don't agree, why not?

[wil421]

Eventually you will own the car and the costs will decrease dramatically. My wife’s corolla is 14 years old, gets 30 miles a gallon, and costs about $250 a year due to failing sensors and a MAF replacement.

If I used Uber every time I’ve used her corolla in the past 10 years it would far outweigh the cost of gas, insurance, and fixing the car.

[bronco21016]

You’ve completely left out the cost of the car though. Even over a 14 year period if you bought the car new for $15k (2005 MSRP Corolla LE) you’re still at roughly $90/month. Factor in insurance, gas, and continued maintenance and you’re at a couple hundred a month. Of course that number continues to fall but eventually you buy a new car. If ride sharing moves to a subscription model of just a straight $200-300/mo I think it completely obliterates the market for individually owned small cars used primarily for commuting.

[wil421]

I can take a 1.5 mile Uber to Waffle House and it costs me $7-8 dollars each way. The Uber to Waffle House costs more than my meal. I give it as an example because Ive done it often. Almost the same distance to Publix, Lowe’s, more restaurants, and public transport.

Uber pool is cheaper but why would I inconvenience myself so much for a 2 miles radius.

[rimliu]

He also left out driving in a car which was not covered in vomit from the previous rider.

[dmortin]

If the car is soiled you'll indicate it via the app, they send an other car and make the previous user to pay for cleaning.

When people learn they have to pay for cleaning/repairs if they don't take care of the car then they will be much more careful keeping it clean.

[bluGill]

No I don't agree. When I go to work in the morning there is nobody at work who wants to go elsewhere and there won't be until lunch time. Either the shared car is burning fuel driving empty to get back out to where people live who want to get to work, or it is sitting in a parking lot. The first makes the shared car more expensive, the second is just what we have today so I may as well own the car and get the convenience of being able to store things in the car (golf clubs for example).

Even in the best case, there are lot more people who want to get around during "rush hour" than the rest of the day, so most shared cars could at most work for 2-3 people each day. The types of people who are on the road during not rush hour are more likely to have a larger group (kids) with them so the shared car needed for them is a different size.

[skohan]

So that might be true for people who commute from a relatively remote location to another remote location. For someone like me who lives in an urban environment, autonomous ride shading would absolutely be more efficient than owning a car.

[vonmoltke]

Most of the cost of operating a car is directly proportional to the usage of said car. Some costs per unit distance go down, some go up. In the end, if you need a car daily there is almost no way a service will work out cheaper.