|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Rochester’s transportation system works because it is rooted in our community.
When you call for a ride in this city, you’re connected to a licensed driver who knows the streets, understands the weather and lives in the community. The money from that trip helps pay a mortgage in Greece, supports a family in Irondequoit or keeps a small business afloat in the city.
When Governor Kathy Hochul proposed expanding New York’s autonomous vehicle pilot program in her January budget to allow commercial, for-hire driverless cars outside New York City, many of us in Rochester’s transportation industry were alarmed.
We spoke up. So did drivers, small business owners and riders across the state.
Last week, the Governor listened. She announced that she would not pursue the budget language that would have opened the door to commercial robotaxis operating upstate. That was a smart and responsible choice. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, New York should move cautiously, put public safety first, and resist pressure to rush unproven technology onto our streets.
But the issue is not settled. There are still efforts in Albany to authorize commercial, for-hire driverless vehicles in New York. Rochester residents have good reason to pay attention, particularly when it comes to public safety and the effect on our local economy.
Autonomous vehicle companies maintain that their systems are ready for prime time. Yet in other states, driverless cars have stalled in traffic lanes, interfered with emergency responders and mishandled school bus stops. In California, a self-driving vehicle struck a child near an elementary school.
Rochester presents its own set of challenges. Lake-effect snow can cover lane markings in minutes. Ice builds up at intersections. Construction reroutes traffic with little notice. Even experienced drivers must constantly adapt. The idea that a fleet of unmanned vehicles can seamlessly handle those variables — without error — deserves skepticism.
When something goes wrong with a human driver, there is clear accountability. With a driverless vehicle, responsibility can be diffused among a manufacturer, a software company and a fleet operator. The public is left asking who is truly in charge when a split-second automated decision causes harm.
For-hire drivers in Rochester are not anonymous gig workers in some distant market. They are our neighbors. They spend their earnings locally. They pay state and local taxes. They contribute to the same schools, churches, and small businesses that make up the fabric of our community.
Autonomous vehicle companies operate very differently. Profits flow to Silicon Valley and multinational investors. At a recent congressional hearing, executives acknowledged that remote support staff for robotaxi operations are based overseas, including in the Philippines. That means even the human oversight tied to these vehicles is not rooted in the communities where they operate.
We are often told that driverless taxis represent progress. But progress should strengthen a community, not hollow it out. It should make streets safer, not introduce unresolved safety questions. It should create opportunity locally, not centralize profits thousands of miles away.
At the heart of the robotaxi debate is a straightforward question: who benefits?
If the answer is primarily out-of-state corporations and overseas contractors, while local drivers lose their livelihoods and our streets bear the risk, that is not a trade-off Rochester should accept.
Kevin Barwell and David Bastian
Limousine Bus Taxi Operators of Upstate New York
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post.