1 Comment

The broader issue involved in the AV debate is "preemption;" i.e. statutes that give states absolute authority over municipal governments in regulating critical aspects of city life. For obvious reasons, big tech players and TNCs have lobbied heavily to broaden preemption coverage on a number of transportation issues, making it far easier for them to influence only 50 state agencies and legislatures rather than hundreds of city governments.

No wonder some residents of SF feel the need to resort to guerrilla urbanism.

There are merits to both sides of the preemption argument, but a compromise I could support is judicious use of exemptions, where a state's largest cities could opt out of statewide regulation if a majority of city residents support a referendum to do so. There is already a precedent city exemptions in the ridehail market. Seattle took advantage of its exemption from statewide regulation of ridehail operations to pass the most generous pay/benefits law in the US last year. Washington subsequently followed Seattle's lead and passed statewide legislation to enhance driver pay and working conditions for all Washington ridehail drivers.

Given the pervasive impacts robotaxi expansion will have on SF residents and workers, it seems inappropriate that oversight should be goverened by an unelected state commission.

Expand full comment