This was super interesting! Didn’t know this data existed in Toronto and nice to see someone break it down. Perhaps you’ve already got this covered in your next post, but I’d be interested to see if there’s any evidence for autonomous ride sharing services offering benefits to cities beyond just ride services. Do they reduce congestion, pollution, noice etc. Because they don’t have to actively search for passengers? Are there taxation arrangements that can bring more income to a city? Any mandates on local job creation? Curious to read the next piece!
There is little evidence on any of this yet because volumes are so low. But we should not wait for it to begin thinking about the kinds of policy you describe!
Your underlying assumption is that ridehail drivers should be protected from automated taxis. I think that's just as wrong as the argument 10-15 years ago that taxi drivers should be protected from ridehail drivers. Times change, jobs that once made sense no longer do (c.f. buggy whip makers) and the goal of good policy is not to cast the economy in amber, preserving it forever in its current form.
Robotaxi policy should not be focused on protecting ridehail drivers, it should be focused on ensuring that travelers have convenient, safe, low-cost transportation, that pedestrians and cyclists are safe and have good access, (perhaps) that robotaxis don't displace buses and light rail, that traffic is manageable and the impacts of robotaxi depots, parking, circling, etc., are minimized. To the extent that it makes sense to protect ridehail drivers, as every time technology displaces human workers, the focus should be on managing the rate of change and enabling the workers to transition.
Great work. Very interesting.
This was super interesting! Didn’t know this data existed in Toronto and nice to see someone break it down. Perhaps you’ve already got this covered in your next post, but I’d be interested to see if there’s any evidence for autonomous ride sharing services offering benefits to cities beyond just ride services. Do they reduce congestion, pollution, noice etc. Because they don’t have to actively search for passengers? Are there taxation arrangements that can bring more income to a city? Any mandates on local job creation? Curious to read the next piece!
Before commenting on my underlying assumptions, you would do well to reread the final two paragraphs of the article
There is little evidence on any of this yet because volumes are so low. But we should not wait for it to begin thinking about the kinds of policy you describe!
Your underlying assumption is that ridehail drivers should be protected from automated taxis. I think that's just as wrong as the argument 10-15 years ago that taxi drivers should be protected from ridehail drivers. Times change, jobs that once made sense no longer do (c.f. buggy whip makers) and the goal of good policy is not to cast the economy in amber, preserving it forever in its current form.
Robotaxi policy should not be focused on protecting ridehail drivers, it should be focused on ensuring that travelers have convenient, safe, low-cost transportation, that pedestrians and cyclists are safe and have good access, (perhaps) that robotaxis don't displace buses and light rail, that traffic is manageable and the impacts of robotaxi depots, parking, circling, etc., are minimized. To the extent that it makes sense to protect ridehail drivers, as every time technology displaces human workers, the focus should be on managing the rate of change and enabling the workers to transition.