I don't think the title is misleading, and it definitely isn't intentionally. Half of the post is an email to Zipcar proposing it, and the title needs to be sho

I don't think the title is misleading, and it definitely isn't intentionally. Half of the post is an email to Zipcar proposing it, and the title needs to be short. I think the other issues you identified are real, are solvable, and are addressed in the post. The post explicitly says not to allow a one-way trip to empty out a lot/neighborhood (permanently vanished car). An "I miss this car" button on the Web site would make it easier for Zipcar to know when to reward someone for parking a specific car type in a given lot. In many cities, Zipcar has dozens of cars in the urban core. The use here is going from Seattle to Bellevue or Mountain View to San Jose, not BFE 1 to BFE 2. I agree that Zipcar hasn't been not particularly interested in solving this problem. I think that may change now that they have competition in most markets. As far as less revenue, most of the trips this enables aren't happening today because so few people spend $60-$80 (day rate) to drive 30 minutes then park for 8 hours. If someone could book two one-ways cheaper than a round-trip, it would be because it's helping Zipcar. If my driving balances out two one-way trips booked earlier, I'm helping reduce Zipcar's costs by slightly altering my behavior (driving different cars).