A few days ago, Waymo announced (on X) that its robotaxis are now doing more than 50,000 paid trips every week across Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
This means that the company is getting an average of 300 bookings every hour or five bookings every minute. And if you add in Austin, where it's currently offering a limited number of rides, the company has completed a total of over one million rider-only trips.
In the announcement, Waymo also went on to say that "fully autonomous ride-hailing is a reality and a preferred mobility option for people navigating their cities every day." All of this is something.
But perhaps the most important takeaway, right now, is that the company continues to claim -- by way of a study from Swiss Re -- that its robotaxis are already significantly
A few days ago, Waymo announced (on X) that its robotaxis are now doing more than 50,000 paid trips every week across Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
This means that the company is getting an average of 300 bookings every hour or five bookings every minute. And if you add in Austin, where it's currently offering a limited number of rides, the company has completed a total of over one million rider-only trips.
In the announcement, Waymo also went on to say that "fully autonomous ride-hailing is a reality and a preferred mobility option for people navigating their cities every day." All of this is something.
But perhaps the most important takeaway, right now, is that the company continues to claim -- by way of a study from Swiss Re -- that its robotaxis are already significantly
safer than human-driven vehicles
.
I don't personally know if this is true, but it's not hard to believe. I mean, human drivers suck. And assuming it is true, we should all want more robotaxis on the road, because statistically, we would be significantly safer.
The problem, though, is that autonomous vehicles suffer from a perception bias. We're all looking for them to fail. If a robotaxi gets into an accident, it's news. But if a human driver gets into an accident, it's standard operating procedure. It'll be interesting to see how and when this flips.
One argument that you might be able to make is that home prices follow urban density. New York City, for example, is dense. And homes in New York City tend to be more expensive than those in, oh I don't know, rural Canada. So with this, you might conclude that development and density are bad -- it makes housing more expensive. But then there's places like San Jose, California. It's not very dense, and yet it has some of if not the most expensive housing in the US.
Well, it turns out that housing density and median housing values don't actually exhibit a particularly strong correlation. A better and much stronger relationship can be found in what Kasey Klimes explains, here, in this excellent post, which is that home prices more accurately follow incomes. In other words, the more high paying jobs that exist in a market, the more likely that housing will be expensive.
Here is what that looks like for US metros over 1 million people:
The above chart compares median home value to aggregate income per unit of housing. And here, Kasey discovers an r-value of 0.9, which suggests that "over 81% of median home values in large metros can be attributed to aggregate income per unit of housing." This explains why San Jose, and San Francisco, are such outliers. They have very high incomes for every unit of available housing, despite the former being not all that dense.
Okay, so now that we know this, how do we make housing more affordable? One option is to just make people poorer. If you reduce incomes per unit of housing, then home prices will, almost certainly, go down. And this is why poorer cities tend to have more affordable housing. But this is obviously suboptimal. The better option is to keep people wealthy and simply increase the denominator in "aggregate income per unit of housing."
If you're looking to block new development, drive up the cost of housing, and appear "progressive" all at the same time, one generally effective technique is to do it under the guise of historic preservation. San Francisco is really good at this, as are many other cities. And it works because, who
safer than human-driven vehicles
.
I don't personally know if this is true, but it's not hard to believe. I mean, human drivers suck. And assuming it is true, we should all want more robotaxis on the road, because statistically, we would be significantly safer.
The problem, though, is that autonomous vehicles suffer from a perception bias. We're all looking for them to fail. If a robotaxi gets into an accident, it's news. But if a human driver gets into an accident, it's standard operating procedure. It'll be interesting to see how and when this flips.
One argument that you might be able to make is that home prices follow urban density. New York City, for example, is dense. And homes in New York City tend to be more expensive than those in, oh I don't know, rural Canada. So with this, you might conclude that development and density are bad -- it makes housing more expensive. But then there's places like San Jose, California. It's not very dense, and yet it has some of if not the most expensive housing in the US.
Well, it turns out that housing density and median housing values don't actually exhibit a particularly strong correlation. A better and much stronger relationship can be found in what Kasey Klimes explains, here, in this excellent post, which is that home prices more accurately follow incomes. In other words, the more high paying jobs that exist in a market, the more likely that housing will be expensive.
Here is what that looks like for US metros over 1 million people:
The above chart compares median home value to aggregate income per unit of housing. And here, Kasey discovers an r-value of 0.9, which suggests that "over 81% of median home values in large metros can be attributed to aggregate income per unit of housing." This explains why San Jose, and San Francisco, are such outliers. They have very high incomes for every unit of available housing, despite the former being not all that dense.
Okay, so now that we know this, how do we make housing more affordable? One option is to just make people poorer. If you reduce incomes per unit of housing, then home prices will, almost certainly, go down. And this is why poorer cities tend to have more affordable housing. But this is obviously suboptimal. The better option is to keep people wealthy and simply increase the denominator in "aggregate income per unit of housing."
If you're looking to block new development, drive up the cost of housing, and appear "progressive" all at the same time, one generally effective technique is to do it under the guise of historic preservation. San Francisco is really good at this, as are many other cities. And it works because, who
doesn't
think that history is important?
This exact thing just transpired in San Francisco, where earlier this year Supervisor Aaron Peskin passed an ordinance enacting new density controls for most development in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the Jackson Square Historic District, and the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (solid neighborhood names).
Of course, sometimes you can run into resistance when you're trying to push through new anti-housing policies. And in this case, San Francisco Mayor London Breed actually vetoed Peskin's bill. In a letter dated March 14, 2024, she wrote:
Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this City a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.
This ordinance passes off anti-housing policy in the guise of historic protections. Existing rules already protect against impacts to historic resources. I believe we can add new homes while also supporting and improving the vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods. Many areas of San Francisco, including eastern neighborhoods like the South of Market, Potrero Hill, and the Mission, have also already removed density limits to encourage new housing.
However, her veto was ultimately overridden by the Board of Supervisors and so, as far as I understand it, the above density controls stand.
Here is also a street view image from the area, along The Embarcadero:
But like I said, San Francisco seems to be really adept at this sort of maneuvering.
doesn't
think that history is important?
This exact thing just transpired in San Francisco, where earlier this year Supervisor Aaron Peskin passed an ordinance enacting new density controls for most development in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the Jackson Square Historic District, and the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (solid neighborhood names).
Of course, sometimes you can run into resistance when you're trying to push through new anti-housing policies. And in this case, San Francisco Mayor London Breed actually vetoed Peskin's bill. In a letter dated March 14, 2024, she wrote:
Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this City a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.
This ordinance passes off anti-housing policy in the guise of historic protections. Existing rules already protect against impacts to historic resources. I believe we can add new homes while also supporting and improving the vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods. Many areas of San Francisco, including eastern neighborhoods like the South of Market, Potrero Hill, and the Mission, have also already removed density limits to encourage new housing.
However, her veto was ultimately overridden by the Board of Supervisors and so, as far as I understand it, the above density controls stand.
