My point with the light and water is that there have been significant reductions in the ways they are culturally perceived as status symbols.

Except that you're mistaken. The examples demonstrate that. When "light" became ubiquitous, the presentation of that light became linked to status. When "water" became readily available, the presentation of that water became linked to status. The bottled water industry is growing faster than nearly anything else and most of the developed world has clean water galore.

I just care that everyone on the planet has light and water. Hopefully we can work towards the same thing with transportation.

It's been over 100 years and we haven't. Henry Ford struck a blow with the Model T and Ferry Porsche with the Beetle, but durable goods have always been and shall always be linked to status.

If we had a driverless transportation system we could dramatically reduce traffic, ensure everyone had access to cheap and accessible transportation, etc. That is my point.

But you haven't made it. And the article doesn't either. It states, in clear terms:

Kockelman is quick to point out the caveats. The biggest is that for all the savings in private car-ownership, vehicle-miles traveled doesn't go down in the Austin model. In fact, it goes up about 10 percent. That's because not only are SAVs making all the trips people used to make on their own, but they're repositioning themselves in between trips to reduce wait times (see below). The additional wear also means manufacturers produce about the same number of cars, too, though each new fleet is no doubt a bit smaller and cleaner than the last.

Same number of cars, more miles traveled. The utopian future of the article basically eliminates the need for driveways, not anything to do with the vehicle fleet.

I didn't write this article, and do not defend every aspect of every article I post.

No, but you made this statement:

The point with a distributed autonomous system of driverless vehicles of any and all kinds... is that we essentially increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone.

I pointed out that the material you linked - the article you used to start this discussion - contradicts your statement. If you have other evidence to support your statement, you should have posted that.