That's still quite a bit cheaper than taxi fares or the minimum $2.75 that Uber charges. Assuming that you spend $20k on purchasing the car, you'd make up for the cost of the car in just under 15,000 miles driven compared to taking Uber at the quoted rate.

Cars are high fixed cost capital goods. A taxi will be driven far more over the course of its lifetime than a personal car, so the fixed cost per mile is much lower.

Also, economies of scale make purchases and maintenance and repair cheaper.

These are two reasons to believe taxis should be cheaper than personal ownership.

Finally, let me point to airplanes. It makes far more sense to rent an airplane than buy one because almost no one travels enough to justify the purchase. Cars are analogous.

Edit: When I say cars are analogous, I mean that there are analogues between the situations. Both are vehicles with high fixed cost that can be either bought or rented. The situation is comparable, though obviously not the same. All I'm saying is that it's conceivable that someday the conditions could change so that it's more sensible to rent than buy.

Well, could be. But the cabbie's wages quickly eat into those gains.

It makes far more sense to rent an airplane than buy one because almost no one travels enough to justify the purchase. Cars are analogous.

Hardly. A 737 lasts for decades and spends nearly a full half of that time in the air; of course no one flies that much. Cars on the other hand, if driven slightly over the US average- say, 20,000miles/year- will hit 200,000 miles in just 10 years, and most cars are _done_ by 200k.

Its going to be a very strange maintenance challenge. I suspect one will never be totaled by having the heater core rot out after 16 years, like my last car.

You could probably find a car value engineered for long distance taxi/commercial type service. I imagine it would be somewhat different than a normal car, internally, although I don't know enough automotive engineering to tell exactly how.

Usually beefier in every regard, more expensive, and less performant. (Power/MPG/etc all directly conflict with durability/longevity) Longer chassis & softer suspension to reduce vibration & impacts. Just think of the Crown Vic. There's a reason it has been the commercial estate car for so long.

No they aren't. Many people need a car every day. Almost nobody needs a plane every day.

Two hundred years ago nobody needed a car because it didn't exist. Now people need it because parts of society are so entangled with it that it's nearly impossible to pull them apart.

If somehow planes had wrangled their way into our lifestyle the same way, then yes, people would need a plane every day. How else would they get home to their chalet in an inaccessible part the woods six hundred miles from the office at the end of a work-day?

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sed#Substitution .)

If you drive every day like many Americans, it's cheaper to own a car than to use a cab. The number of people that fly enough to need their own plane is effectively zero.

If you don't have a car all the time, you don't use it nearly as often. I do not spend anywhere near $20K per year on cab fare, and can't imagine coming even close.

The sooner robots replace taxi drivers, the better. And the taxis will probably still feel gross inside.