While free parking is appealing for many users, it’s definitely not for many others because unlike Airbnb, the value of their possession (in this case, their car) is variable while the compensation (free parking and $10/day rented out) is fixed in the sense that it is pre-determined.
With Airbnb, the compensation is variable and is set based on the owner's perceived value (which factors in the 'emotional piece of mind’ too among other things). It’s essentially a market based approach, and to get a wider acceptance from the supply-side, that’s what FlightCar needs to incorporate while preserving simplicity.
As an optimist, I believe the creases will get ironed out eventually. It’s not going to be easy (never is) and it might take some time, but it will happen. Here’s a structure that comes to my mind:
Tier 1 – Free parking and $10 for every day the car is rented out (like they have now)
Tier 2 – Pay $X per day to park and Receive $Y for every day the car is rented out, where X is the market rate which in SFO’s case is $18 and Y is the daily rental-price you name.
While I think this is a good approach, since the service's main drawbacks involve cosmetic damage, it makes sense to launch using a payment model which favors lower-end cars. Once the damage issues are adequately addressed in practice Tier 2, or an equivalent, might become more attractive.
Because if you park on the street outside of the apartment where you live (which is many people, btw - very few people have a dedicated parking spot), then chances are you will get ticketed if you are gone while there's street cleaning happening. To prevent that from happening, you would have to arrange with your friends to move it while you are gone, or you would have to pay someone to do it. In the first case this is an inconvenience, in the second case it's an expense, and the downsides of letting someone else behind the wheel of your car are the same as renting it out.
I've lived in the two largest cities in the US. I'm very familiar with urban living. In NYC everyone takes cabs and don't own cars. In LA everyone drives and can hire very cheap cars to lax or shared shuttles. Its hardly a problem in either of the biggest urban centers in the US.
"In NYC everyone takes cabs and don't own cars." - Jesus man, have you ever been outside of Manhattan? If everyone in NYC doesn't own a car, why are there so many fucking cars there all the time?
I grew up in Queens, in huge apartment buildings. Everyone there has cars with street parking that they have to move every time street sweeping comes around.
With all due to respect, I think I am done with this thread. Perhaps it is unintentional from your side, but I feel like I am arguing with someone who willfully exaggerates things to get a rise out of me.
In Houston, at least, many apartment complexes have parking lots or parking garages. You may not necessarily have a specific assigned spot, but you can park in the garage.
Speaking for the Bay area, public transportation here is shockingly bad, even for something as routine as getting to the airport. For someone living in the valley to get to SFO (about 40 miles), a taxi can cost anywhere from $50-$80, and the public transportation alternative takes anything between 2-2.5 hours, 1 bus, 3 trains, some distance walking with your luggage, and about 15 bucks. Oh, I forgot to mention that trains are once an hour, and there are a total of 3 distinct operators for the bus and train systems who are totally uncoordinated with each other.
Not surprisingly, most people who value their time prefer making a 35-minute drive at their convenience, and paying about $12-$18 per day of parking.
