[mrweasel]

> But that’s the current state of the world.

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.

[jahller]

> 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.

car-sharing already exists on a large scale in German capitals. you can park and pickup cars from e.g. Sixt or Share Now everywhere within a marked area. the business model for owning and maintaining a big fleet is already there.

[maxerickson]

The fleet would be sized to whatever was profitable. If people were willing to pay more at rush hour, there would be some capacity to capture that demand.

Thinking through what it costs me to own a car, I'm going to carefully do the math if they price my trip into the office at more than about $5 (it's a short drive). That's probably the bigger problem.

[88]

The market solves these problems so we don’t have to.

It is extremely common for markets to face bursts in demand at peak times, and yet somehow we always find a sustainable equilibrium.