[Turing_Machine]

"(ideally state owned and taxpayer funded)"

Why "ideally"? That would be a recipe for broken, dirty cars. People won't take care of government property (or property that doesn't belong to them in general). You don't usually see privately-owned cars driving around with ugly graffiti tags, nor do such cars typically smell of urine, the way that public buses and train cars often do.

With respect to cars specifically, ask anyone who's worked for a rental car company what kind of condition the cars often come back in. People abuse the crap out of rentals to the fullest extent they think they can get away with. This isn't specifically a modern phenomenon, either -- consider the old-time phrase "I'm going to beat him like a rented mule."

[neuromute]

> Why "ideally"? That would be a recipe for broken, dirty cars.

Not necessarily. Granted, very few countries run a well-functioning socialist state, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible, more that many countries do a poor job when it comes to implementation.

The solution would be quite simple. These smart autonomous cars would contain security cameras that ensure passengers don't vandalise the vehicle. If they do, then it's a simple case of locking the vehicle and driving the passengers to the police station, where they would then get booked for vandalism of public property, and banned from using the service for a period of time. I should imagine that this would quickly curtail the issue.

[g_sch]

Nonetheless, public transit is an immensely popular way of getting around in cities all over the world, and it comes with the advantage of providing greater access at lower cost than privately owned transportation. There are many people willing to make this trade-off.

[marcosdumay]

Public transit does not need to be owned by the government.

But governments can work too, so I don't think there's a universal best way to do it. (Here at Brazil we'll certainly be better with no government interference at all, but other places have other trade-offs.)