On Monday, Tesla surpassed GM in market value, making it the most valuable U.S. automaker. It’s also the first time in modern history that this title was held by a car maker not based in Detroit. The gravitational pull to Silicon Valley is immense, today.
I subscribe to Alan Murray’s CEO Daily newsletter and his overarching comments were as follows: GM sold 10 million cars last year. Tesla sold 76,230 cars (albeit high value cars – my 2 cents). And Tesla lost three quarters of a billion dollars last year. Are we partying like it’s 1999?
This is an expectations game.
Elon Musk crafted an electric sports car that was actually cool and Tesla is certainly one of the leaders when it comes to autonomous vehicle technology. If Tesla is the company that transitions our economy to both electric and autonomous vehicles, then is a current market cap > $51 billion justified?
I don’t know.
But given how often we talk about electric and autonomous vehicles on this blog (in the context of city building), I thought it would be worthwhile to also talk about where Wall Street is putting its money and placing its bets.
“If we have data, let’s look at data. If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.” – Jim Barksdale, former Netscape CEO
Fred Wilson wrote a post yesterday about Tesla’s data advantage in this self-driving car arms race that we are currently living through. (I found the above quote in the comment section of the post.)
In their Q3 2016 update, Tesla claims to have logged more than 1.3 billion miles on its vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. This is important because the more data it collects – across diverse road and weather conditions – the better the vehicles get at driving without human intervention. As Fred Wilson put it: “more data is better than more software engineers.” So that places Tesla ahead of Google, Uber, GM, et al.
I spent a lot of time driving over the past week, certainly more than usual, and I couldn’t help but think about how much better it would have been to instead sit in the backseat and read a book (or mindlessly scroll through Instagram).
I always try and use cruise control on long drives, but unless the road is fairly empty, I find it doesn’t work very well. Everyone is driving at different speeds and so I usually end up having to reset it / adjust it every so often.
The big question in my mind is still: How does the world look when driving longer distances doesn’t suck so much? What changes when you can get into your / a car (important distinction) at bedtime, fall asleep, and then wake up in a new place?
A lot, I think.
My friend Evgeny published a great blog post today called, On Car Ownership And The Future Of Transportation.
And in it he made the argument that instead of buying a car and an expensive downtown Toronto parking spot (average price: $40,000 - 60,000), most of us urbanites would be better of just taking a taxi or Uber.
This got me thinking: At what point does it really make sense to completely forgo owning a car? (Full disclosure: I own both a car and a downtown parking spot.) So I decided to dig into the numbers a bit more and compare 4 mobility options:
Owning a car ($25,000 upfront) + downtown parking spot ($40,000 upfront) and driving yourself everywhere
Taking a regular taxi exclusively ($3.25 base + $1.75 per km)
Taking an UberX exclusively ($2.50 base + $1 per km)
Or, taking a futuristic driverless car everywhere (here I assumed $1.50 base + $0.25 per km)
With the above numbers, I then assumed 15,000 km traveled per year and an average trip length of 15 km (so 1,000 trips per year). The trip length and number of trips per year matter because of the “base fare” that is charged when you take a taxi or Uber.
I also assumed that the cost of owning a car is $0.60 per km (estimated from this Globe and Mail article) and that there is an opportunity cost to NOT renting out your downtown parking spot ($200/month). That is, every month that you spend driving yourself around and parking your car, you are forfeiting parking revenue.
Finally, I looked at a 10 year time horizon and then “discounted” all the costs back to today’s dollars so that I could compare each mobility option.
So what did I find?
What this says is that if you’re driving 15,000 km per year (average trip length 15km), then you’re better off taking UberX everywhere, as opposed to going out, buying a car and parking spot, and driving yourself around.
But does this hold true at different travel distances?
Based on my model, once you hit around 18,000 km per year, then you’re better of with option 1 (owning a car). That’s because the per km savings associated with driving yourself around are enough to offset the upfront costs of the car and parking spot.
On the flip side, when you drop below 7,500 km traveled per year, even a regular taxi starts to make sense. That’s because you’re simply not traveling enough to reap the benefits of owning a car/parking spot. Again, high upfront costs; lower per km operating costs.
Of course, there are a number of things I didn’t consider in my model. For one, most people finance their car and parking spot (it is bundled into their home mortgage). So I’m sure there are ways that you could change the above outcomes using leverage.
At the same time, I didn’t account for the fact that when you’re being driven around (as opposed to driving around) you have the flexibility of doing work, responding to emails, and so on. If you want to attach a value to your time, then the scale would tip back in favor of taxis and Uber.
But all of this was really just to make one point: look how cheap it could be to ride around in a driverless car. When that becomes the reality in our cities, which it will, it’s going to completely transform our current beliefs around cars, parking, and many other things.
I guess that’s why General Motors just invested $500 million in the peer-to-peer ridesharing company, Lyft. They know the shit is coming.