\n<\/p>\n
In a win for the autonomous vehicle industry, California regulators have given the green light to Cruise and Waymo to offer commercial robotaxi services across San Francisco 24 hours a day, seven days a week.<\/p>\n
The commission voted 3-1 in support of the expansions; Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma cast the sole \u201cno\u201d votes.<\/p>\n
The California Public Utilities Commission\u2019s (CPUC) votes in favor of the AV companies come in spite of mounting opposition<\/a> from residents and city agencies that have urged caution and a more incremental approach to expansion. Since AVs hit the streets of San Francisco, there have been numerous instances of vehicles malfunctioning and stopping in the middle of the street<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 referred to as \u201cbricking\u201d \u2014 blocking the flow of traffic, public transit and emergency responders.<\/p>\n Cruise and Waymo both offer limited paid services in San Francisco \u2014 Cruise charges for driverless rides at night, and Waymo charges for its robotaxi service throughout the city at any time of day, but with a human safety operator present. The permit extension allows the companies to expand their services significantly and with no limit on the number of robotaxis they can put on the roads.<\/p>\n While Cruise and Waymo have both said they would expand incrementally, and not all at once, scale is vital for the companies\u2019 success. Developing, testing and deploying AV tech has cost Cruise and Waymo millions of dollars. Waymo has had to pull back on operations this year after Alphabet issued a slew of layoffs<\/a>\u00a0in the first quarter. In July, the company\u00a0shut down its self-driving trucks program<\/a> to shift all its available resources to ride-hailing. If either Waymo of Cruise are to get a return on their investments, they need to grow exponentially in San Francisco and beyond.<\/p>\n The CPUC ended up voting to grant the permit expansions because it did not anticipate the robotaxi services to result in significant safety risks. The agency\u2019s primary role is to promote the public interest by ensuring safe, reliable and affordable utility services. As long as Cruise and Waymo\u2019s services meet those requirements, the CPUC doesn\u2019t have the authority to limit them.<\/p>\n Many who spoke during the public comment period at the CPUC\u2019s hearing called out the companies for not deploying robotaxis that are Americans with Disabilities Act compliant. They asked the CPUC to require clearer guidelines for companies to become ADA-compliant.<\/p>\n \u201cCan<\/span> driverless<\/span> vehicles<\/span> assist<\/span> passengers<\/span> who<\/span> need<\/span> escorting\u00a0to<\/span> and<\/span> from<\/span> the<\/span> vehicle?,\u201d said Laura Massey, <\/strong>a member of San Francisco\u2019s Paratransit Coordinating Council.<\/span> \u201cCan<\/span> they<\/span> load<\/span> and<\/span> secure<\/span> mobility<\/span> aids<\/span> like<\/span> wheelchairs<\/span> and<\/span> walkers?<\/span> Can<\/span> a<\/span> driverless<\/span> car<\/span> spot<\/span> a<\/span> blind<\/span> passenger<\/span> waiting?<\/span> Can<\/span> it<\/span> call<\/span> out<\/span> to<\/span> that<\/span> blind<\/span> passenger<\/span> that<\/span> it<\/span> has<\/span> arrived<\/span> to<\/span> pick<\/span> them<\/span> up?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Others expressed concerns that Waymo and Cruise discriminate against the unbanked and those who aren\u2019t digitally literate; would only add thousands of more cars to streets that should be focusing more on micromobility; and are taking away jobs in a city that is suffering from increasing levels of homelessness. A handful of taxi and ride-hail drivers spoke at the hearing saying they were fearful of losing their jobs and being unable to support their families if robotaxis prevailed.<\/p>\n Callers critical of autonomous vehicles also citied CPUC Commissioner John Reynolds<\/a>\u2018 past role as \u201cManaging Counsel at Cruise\u201d as a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n Many of the public comments in favor of the applications to expand AV ride-hailing came from those representing the interests of people who are blind.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I get into a Waymo vehicle, I feel not only that I\u2019m able to get to where I need to be on my own terms, which is huge, but I\u2019m able to do so without the fear of being harassed, groped, assaulted or attacked,\u201d said Jessie Wollensky, who identified as a blind woman.<\/p>\n Other public comments in favor called on residents not to fear technological progress and pointed out that AVs could make streets safer and greener. Some people representing unions like Local87 said they believed Cruise and Waymo would bring unionized jobs to the city.<\/p>\n Daniel Gregorski, 27, one of Cruise\u2019s beta testers told TechCrunch he was excited about the permit expansion. He works as a nurse assistant at night and finds the experience of riding in an autonomous vehicle to be safer than riding in a taxi.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople like me who get off at 1am who still need to keep that heightened amount of safety when you\u2019re with a human Uber driver,\u201d said Gregorski. \u201cBeing with a robot driver, I feel a little bit safer. I\u2019m in control of the music, the temperature, so I could truly feel comfortable during my ride.\u201d<\/p>\n The companies fought hard for their win. Cruise in particular went on the offensive in recent months. The company took out full-page ads in major newspapers across the U.S. claiming humans are terrible drivers<\/a> and robotaxis could save lives. Cruise also launched a petition<\/a> this week, urging the CPUC to grant its permit expansion, and has amassed 2,600 signatures.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n