I live in a mega city where taxis are cheap so I take the daily and avoid owning my own car. The big deal will be in cities like mine where parking is rare and expensive if found at all, while roads are extremely congested. Self driving cars solve the parking problem (which admittedly, taxis do today) + can use road bandwidth much more efficiently (which taxis cannot). In the end, I see all of these factors destroying personal car ownership in big cities. Now:

Cleanliness: this is an issue in taxis already. Sometimes I get into a taxi without window handles, but that is the government's doing.

Style: expressing yourself through your car sounds like a very American thing. Much of the world is not America, to say the least.

Status: this is the biggie where I live: those with money have to show off their Audi TT's and BMWs. Perhaps they will still own their cars, just like they do today (whereas many people just rely on taxis).

Practicality: my city already does not allow outsiders to enter within the 5th ring road during working hours (7AM to 7PM), while their is a lottery for "owning" a car with 20-1 odds per cycle. I can imagine that there will just be different vehicles for the country-side vs. the cities: the latter will be automated while the former won't be. You can own your country-side car if you want, but you can't drive it inside the 5th ring road given traffic unless it has a self-driving mode (to optimize traffic).

I think the price of a self driving car will be very high, and the price of a taxi/rental service (which will no longer have a driver) will go down, making a taxi/rental much more attractive monetarily than it is at present. To your arguments:

- storing necessities - this is probably the strongest argument that will have to be worked around

- cleanliness - is this currently a problem with taxis and rental cars? I haven't had this issue.

- style - I think this is true in certain places (I'm thinking of places like LA where there is a strong car culture) and I think is something that will change as owning a car becomes an unneeded expense. Think of it like owning a plane. Sure, it could say something about who you are, but there are cheaper ways to do that.

- status - same argument as style

- practicality - especially at a larger scale, wait times could be greatly reduced by having more taxis/rentals on the road at any given time, including in the suburbs. There still would be a lack of convenience, but I think the idea of having an expensive piece of equipment sit idle all day in your driveway for the off chance you need to use it suddenly will seem wasteful. In fact it's wasteful now, it's just there isn't a good, cheap, and convenient enough alternative to use instead. A driverless taxi/rental could be that alternative.

About cleanliness, taxis and rental cars are clean because there is someone there to clean it between each customer. That doesn't work for carsharing, where cars go directly from a customer to the next.

My experience with these systems is that you don't find anything really dirty in the cars, but you tend to find empty bottles and things like that in them. Not a deal breaker if you just want to get somewhere, but not very family-friendly either.

Car sharing services in Japan ask you immediately (via the navi) what the state of the car is. I imagine it negatively impacts the previous rider in some way. A simple social pressure like that can work wonders.

> A simple social pressure like that can work wonders.

So would variable pricing based on how often you leave the car a mess (with appropriate filters to mitigate against the trolls).

I predict a maximum price of $9k, but suspect the target price is $5k. For reference a SmartCar in this market (California) is $15k. Low power and a minimal interior means the main costs are the roll cage/safety features and the drivetrain. The marginal cost of the self-driving functionality is low, and Google can amortize the fixed costs very easily.