Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I can see the cost difference existing but I'm unsure how much you actually end up seeing and how much just ends up as profit in a market that will be at least as monopolistic as cell phones. The cost for no one to own a car is much lower than the cost for x% to not own their car. And given these companies want to ensure profitability there will be a sweet spot for this car sharing option.
The rush hour problem isn't congestion it's that the demand for cars will only exist at rush hour unless people will be willing to car pool. (Which they could do now but choose not to). Changing from a driverless car from a driven one does not make car pooling any more attractive. So if car pooling does not increase and congestion decreases reducing transit times and parking costs no longer exist because I just send the car home all of these things incentivize me owning my own car.
And if people aren't willing to car pool the usage rate of the vehicles won't be high enough to get the benefits of car sharing for most people. Cartogo is an excellent example. Making car to go driverless doesn't really change the car 2 go model. It makes it a little easier to get a car but outside of that the automated fleet of corporate owned vehicles is no different.
So while automation will happen automation actually incentivized individual ownership by reducing insurance, parking and congestion costs.
|
People much smarter than you or I that study this for a living are making the exact same arguments as you and I. No one really knows what is going to happen.
Billions of dollars are being invested in autonomous Rose sharing or TaaS. Ford just invested $1B in a ride sharing start up. In fact, they announced they'll have their own TaaS by 2021. Apple invested over a billion in a Chinese ride share company. Google has spent many billions investing their own. Uber is worth billions simply based on its bet to become TaaS. I feel like these guys are smart bettors.