That higher ticket price will inevitably suppress demand. If robotaxis wish to keep customers—not only those curious to try it out for the primary time—they should make the service cheaper than other types of transportation.
Bryant Walker Smith, an associate professor of law on the University of South Carolina, echoes this concern. “These firms are competing with an Uber driver who, in any estimate, makes lower than minimum wage, has a midpriced automobile, and doubtless maintains it themselves,” he says.
By means of contrast, robotaxis are expensive vehicles packed filled with cameras, sensors, and advanced software systems, they usually require constant monitoring and help from humans. It’s almost unimaginable for them to compete with ride-sharing services yet, not less than until so much more robotaxis can hit the road.
And as robotaxi firms keep burning the money from investors, concerns are growing that they aren’t getting enough in return for his or her vast expenditure, says Smith. Which means much more pressure to supply results, while balancing the potential revenues and costs.
The resistance to scaling up
Within the US, there are currently 4 cities where people can take a robotaxi: San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas.
The terms differ by city. Some require you to join a waitlist first, which could take months to clear, while others only operate the vehicles in a small area.
Expanding robotaxi services right into a recent city involves an enormous upfront effort and price: the brand new area needs to be thoroughly mapped (and that map needs to be kept up so far), and the operator has to purchase more autonomous vehicles to maintain up with demand.
Also, cars whose autonomous systems are geared toward, say, San Francisco have a limited ability to adapt to Austin, says Cummings, who’s researching the right way to measure such a adaptability. “If I’m taking a look at that as a basic research query, it probably means the businesses haven’t learned something essential yet,” she says.
