Robotaxis in San Francisco : As self-driving vehicles from companies like Waymo, Cruise, and Zoox have become a fixture in San Francisco over the past four years, they’ve sparked a complex conversation about the future of urban mobility. These autonomous taxis, which traverse the city’s hilly streets—either carrying passengers or driving empty to pick them up—have raised hopes for a safer, more convenient future while simultaneously generating frustration for many residents and city officials.
Jeffrey Tumlin, the outgoing head of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), oversaw the city’s efforts to manage robotaxis amid the rise of autonomous technology. Tumlin, a veteran of the transportation industry, reflected on the challenges and lessons learned during his tenure, sharing his insights with David Zipper in a conversation about the robotaxi phenomenon and its implications for urban transportation.
The Impact of Robotaxis on San Francisco
Despite the convenience and innovation robotaxis offer, Tumlin expressed concerns about their overall benefit to San Francisco’s transportation system. Although companies like Waymo have improved the technology, offering smoother rides with fewer human errors, Tumlin emphasized that the broader transportation system has not seen clear advantages. “The robotaxis create greater convenience for the privileged but cause disruptions for the system as a whole,” he stated. Tumlin believes that while robotaxis can enhance individual experiences, they don’t address systemic inefficiencies in urban transportation.
A Closer Look at the Technology
As a regular user of Waymo’s services, Tumlin acknowledged the vehicle’s improved capabilities in handling the erratic behavior of pedestrians and drivers. The autonomous vehicles’ slow and steady driving style and user-friendly interfaces set them apart from traditional ridesharing services. However, Tumlin pointed out that these positive qualities—like smooth, predictable driving—could easily be replicated in other transportation modes. “If we regulated taxis to optimize for convenience, we could achieve similar qualities,” he argued.
Tension with the Transportation System
One major issue Tumlin encountered was the clash between robotaxis and other modes of transportation. For example, robotaxis have sometimes obstructed emergency vehicles, caused traffic blockages, and even become immobilized in busy intersections or near construction sites. These disruptions have prompted complaints from city officials and residents alike, highlighting the challenges of integrating autonomous vehicles into a highly complex urban environment.
The tension between user convenience and system efficiency is a central theme in Tumlin’s reflections. While private, on-demand services like Waymo may offer more personalized travel options, they contribute to road congestion and undermine the efficiency of public transit, walking, and biking. Tumlin also warned that an overabundance of robotaxis could exacerbate these issues, further reducing the overall capacity of city streets to move people.
The Future of Robotaxis and Public Transit
Robotaxi companies like Waymo and Cruise have not managed to become effective partners to public transit. Tumlin noted that, similar to early promises by ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, robotaxis have failed to connect to transit in a meaningful way. Instead of reducing car dependency, they often replace other forms of sustainable transportation.
As San Francisco considers the prospect of an expanded robotaxi fleet, Tumlin questioned whether these services will truly benefit the transportation system or merely cater to the city’s wealthier residents, creating greater disparities. He cautioned that robotaxis could be just as inefficient as private vehicles, increasing congestion and wasting valuable road space.
A Lack of Data and Regulatory Control
One of the greatest challenges San Francisco faces is the lack of consistent data on robotaxi operations. While the city can regulate taxis, it has little authority over robotaxis, which are primarily regulated at the state and federal levels. Tumlin lamented the difficulty in tracking the performance of autonomous vehicles, as most data comes from informal sources like 911 calls and social media.
This data gap has made it difficult for city officials to assess the full impact of robotaxis. For example, Tumlin explained that many incidents involving robotaxis, such as being blocked in intersections or interacting poorly with first responders, do not trigger official safety reports because they involve no collisions.
Concerns for the Future
Looking ahead, Tumlin is concerned about the long-term implications of autonomous vehicles in dense, multimodal cities like San Francisco. While self-driving cars may work well in less complex environments like Phoenix, where roads are designed primarily for cars, they pose greater challenges in cities designed for a variety of transportation modes. He is also worried about the potential impact on public spaces, as self-driving vehicles could diminish the joy of walkable urban areas and contribute to congestion.
Advice for Other Cities
Tumlin’s experiences in San Francisco have made him a sought-after advisor for other cities grappling with the rise of robotaxis. For cities in Europe and East Asia, he recommends creating data-sharing protocols early on to ensure the public benefits from autonomous technology. However, in the United States, where local governments lack regulatory control over self-driving cars, Tumlin suggests that cities focus on issues they can control, like curb management.
Ultimately, Tumlin believes the key to successful regulation of robotaxis lies in balancing public interests with technological innovation. His experiences in San Francisco serve as a cautionary tale for other cities about the complexities of integrating autonomous vehicles into already complicated urban environments.
