It seems like just yesterday that people were protesting Uber for disrupting the traditional taxi business. Now the question has become: are AVs about to disrupt Uber?

Over the last six months, Uber's stock price has declined nearly 19%. At the time of writing this post, its market cap is around $155 billion, compared to Waymo's private market valuation of $126 billion (though I'm sure many would argue this is a wee bit high).

The market seems to think that self-driving cars are a two-horse race between Waymo and Tesla. If this is true, what role will Uber play?

Uber has naturally tried to assuage concerns. Alongside their Q4 2025 earnings, they published a 13-page "spotlight" on AVs, where they argued, don't worry, everything is fine:

AVs will change how trips are supplied, but not how demand is aggregated. History suggests that over time as supply fragments and technology commoditizes, the platform that can bring the highest utilization to assets, and superior reliability to customers, will capture a large share of value. That is the role Uber is set up to play.

One of the arguments for this is that rideshare demand is highly variable throughout a week. A typical Monday can be less than half of a Saturday night, and daily troughs can decline to something like 5% of peaks.

So, if you try and service this demand variability with only AVs, you're going to have a lot of underutilized vehicles during off-peak times. This makes sense to me right now, but I'm not certain it will persist or always matter as the space evolves.

When Uber sold its AV division in 2020, I understood why (to try and reach profitability), but it always felt a little unsettling to me. AVs were very clearly the future — are you sure you want to sell this off?

Now I suspect they'll have to re-enter in a meaningful way. They're going to need to do it as long as the market continues to believe the current narrative.

I use Uber on a regular basis, but I already have the Waymo app on my phone (I downloaded it on a long layover in SFO where I contemplated a joy ride). As soon as rides become available in Toronto at reasonable prices, I wouldn't think twice about switching.

Cover photo by clement proust on Unsplash

Stock graph from the WSJ

Demand chart from Uber Q4 2025 Earnings — Autonomous Vehicles Spotlight

Read through planning documents across North America and you're bound to find language that refers to low-rise residential neighbourhoods as "physically stable areas" where the "existing neighbourhood character" is paramount. But to be more precise, what this kind of language is actually saying is not that these neighbourhoods need to be broadly stable; it is saying that they just need to look more or less stable.

Here in Toronto, for example, it has been widely documented that many of our low-rise neighbourhoods are losing people. Household sizes are getting smaller, and houses that used to be subdivided are being returned to single-family use. A similar thing is happening in other cities like New York:

Bloomberg News recently reported that since 2004, at least 9,300 homes have been lost as a result of multi-family buildings getting "rolled up" into single-family homes. More recently, the city has even seen an increase in people combining two or more buildings into large urban mansions.

And while the total number of homes removed is relatively small for New York as a whole, it can be quite impactful to individual neighbourhoods. In the West Village, where there's a high concentration of rowhomes and townhouses, Bloomberg estimates that one out of every six small apartment buildings has been rolled up into a single-family home since 2004!

From a built form standpoint, you could say these are "physically stable" areas that are obediently adhering to their existing neighbourhood character. But under the hood and behind their street walls, they are clearly changing.

It is one of the great ironies of city building. People often fear new development because they worry it might disrupt the character of a neighbourhood. But preventing development does not guarantee stasis. In fact, we know that not building new housing actually increases the pressures felt on a city's existing housing stock, as people compete for a more fixed amount of supply.

The wealthy can always outbid the less wealthy on housing. So if you don't provide any new options, the wealthy will just buy up the existing stuff and turn it into what they want. Alternatively, you can build more housing and create a "moving chain" that frees up more existing housing for people of lower incomes.

Cover photo by Chanan Greenblatt on Unsplash

Map from Bloomberg

It's not easy gaining support for pedestrian-only streets. Here in Toronto, Kensington Market is a neighbourhood that has been under consideration for pedestrianization for as long as I can remember. Yet it remains an aspiration, largely because of a number of common objections: it will hurt local businesses, lower foot traffic, and limit access for those with mobility issues.

Yonge Street in downtown Toronto went through a similar debate, and the end result is a plan that will prioritize pedestrians, while still allowing one vehicle lane in each direction. This will still be a nice improvement, and my understanding is that the option to fully pedestrianize has been or will be designed in. Construction is expected to start on this in 2030, once the Ontario Line Queen subway station is complete.

But there are cities that are going all the way. This week, it was announced that London has approved the pedestrianization of Oxford Street, specifically the stretch between Orchard Street in the west and Great Portland Street in the east.

Oxford Street is one of the most important thoroughfares in the world, and one of, if not the, busiest shopping streets in Europe. It is estimated that nearly 500,000 people visit it each day, meaning that most are not travelling there by car.

Pedestrianizing Oxford is an idea that arguably dates back to the 1960s, when a plan was put forward to create pedestrian-only walkways on top of podiums; although, this may have been more about getting people out of the way of cars. Pedestrianizing the street was also a prominent part of Mayor Sadiq Khan's platform when he was first elected in 2016, some 10 years ago. So, it too has had its opponents.

However, consultations done last year showed that nearly two-thirds (63%) of Londoners were in favour of pedestrianizing the street — a figure that increased to almost three-quarters (72%) when the question was asked to people who had specifically visited the area within the last 12 months.

Data from similar pedestrianization projects completed around the world indicates that both foot traffic and retail sales should increase once the project is built out. And I have little doubt that the same will prove true here in London. If you can't pedestrianize a pre-eminent, transit-rich street in one of the world's capital cities, then where can you?

Cover photo from the Mayor of London

Map from Transport for London