|
|
|
|
|
by gilbertbw
1828 days ago
|
|
> it wouldn't make economical sense in have a fleet large enough to handle peak hours, but have the cars do nothing most of the day. But that’s the current state of the world. Even if you have enough cars to meet peak demand you will have an efficiency saving (at least where I live you see a lot of cars in driveways during rush hour traffic). That said I agree that for a lot of people their car is an extension of their home, they’ll keep the golf clubs and a coat in the boot etc. But for the 80% case of just carrying a rucksack to and from work there is a massive efficiency improvement to be had. |
|
True, but the difference is who's carrying the financial risk of the buying the car. Right now it's the individual consumers, who are mostly forced to do so, because better alternatives are not available.
Leasing companies would never buy a fleet of cars that would sit mostly unused. Their cars needs to be on the road most of the time.
This puts us back in Uber vs. taxis. Uber works because (depending on area and regulation) there cannot be sufficient taxis to handle peak demands, that wouldn't be financially sound for the taxi companies. Uber tries to fix this, by taping into idle cars in the driveways. A company that maintains a fleet of cars that you can just order on-demand, would always have to few cars for rush hour.