For generations, the automobile was much more than a means of transport. It represented independence, status, and personal achievement. Buying a first car meant owning a tangible piece of freedom.
That relationship hasn't disappeared, but in major cities, it is changing. More and more people are asking themselves not which car to buy, but whether they need to buy one at all.
The private car spends most of its time parked
It is one of mobility's most glaring paradoxes. We pay for an expensive asset only to use it for a fraction of the day, while for the rest of the time it takes up space in a garage or on the street.
For those living in areas where public transit, taxis, bicycles, car sharing, and rentals are genuinely accessible, this inefficiency is becoming increasingly obvious.
The issue is not just financial. Ownership also entails insurance, maintenance, parking, inspections, tires, unexpected minor expenses, and the time spent managing it all.
Access instead of ownership
The subscription model has transformed music, cinema, software, and even work. It was inevitable that it would attempt to make inroads into mobility as well.
Car sharing and short-term rentals promise something simple: pay for the car when you need it, and forget about it when you don't.
For certain use cases, it works remarkably well. For others, much less so. Families, commuters, underserved areas, or people who rack up high mileage still have compelling reasons to own a vehicle.
The meaning of freedom is changing
The most interesting shift is cultural. For decades, freedom meant "my car is parked outside and I can leave whenever I want." Today, for some people, it can mean the exact opposite: "I don't have to deal with a car until I actually need one."
These are two equally valid notions of autonomy, yet built on fundamentally different priorities.
The real competition for a car isn't another car
When someone decides whether to buy a vehicle, they increasingly weigh that purchase not against another model, but against a combination of alternatives: public transit, scooters, bicycles, taxis, car sharing, and trains.
This also changes how the automotive industry must approach its product. It is no longer enough to build a desirable car; manufacturers must prove that it is actually worth owning.
The future will likely be hybrid
We will not arrive at a world without private cars. But it is possible that the idea of inevitably having to own one will lose its central role, especially in denser areas.
Many people could opt for mixed mobility: public transit during the week, a shared car for an errand, a rental for a weekend, a train for a long trip.
In this scenario, the car does not disappear. It simply stops being the only answer.
Perhaps this is the most interesting shift: automotive freedom will no longer be measured by the number of keys in our pocket, but by how easily we can choose the right mode of transport whenever we need it.
The market is truly separating use and ownership
The idea is not merely cultural. The OCSE's International Transport Forum has observed for years that the private car is a heavily underutilised asset: on average, it sits parked for most of the day. It is precisely from this imbalance that car sharing, short-term rentals, subscriptions, and hybrid formulas arise, making it possible to purchase mobility without necessarily purchasing the vehicle.
This does not mean the private car will disappear. In suburban, rural, or poorly served areas, it often remains indispensable. But in dense cities, value is gradually shifting from the object to availability: what matters is being able to quickly access the right vehicle when needed, integrating it with the subway, train, bike, and micromobility.
The decisive factor will be economic. If shared services cost too much or require too many steps, ownership remains simpler. If, however, booking, insurance, parking, and charging are bundled into a single experience, owning can become less appealing than using.
