During a Senate hearing, we actually learned something. In a follow-up testimony to Senator Markey, Waymo revealed some interesting data. A local San Francisco paper — they dug and got some data. Uber says they don't want to be in the asset business, but yet we get an announcement: they're going into the asset business. Then in New York, what's going on? The governor pulled a complete 180. Yes, I like AVs. Oh no, AVs are bad. That's not happening. That's your neck of the woods. There's a lot going on. Let's start with the Waymo data. What do you make of this data? We learned...
To get something valuable out of any Senate hearing is a bit of a stretch. And in this case, and just to be clear, it didn't happen at the hearing itself, where basically the Waymo chief safety officer had kind of an embarrassing performance. Senator Markey had him on his heels and talking about the remote assistance agents and some of them being located in the Philippines, which obviously there was grandstanding about that. But the benefit to us here on Autonomy Markets is we got something we've been wanting for a while, which is more data, right? And the more data that we got was Waymo actually disclosing to the senator, and obviously in a memo that was made public, that there are only 70 remote assistance agents that are on duty worldwide, half of them which are in the Philippines, which we'll get to next. But let's first talk about this 70. And by the way, Waymo also updated and said they now have 3,000 cars on the road. So there's only 70 remote assistance agents servicing as a backup the 3,000 cars on the road. What is your reaction to that?
My reaction is you need to run for Senate because we've been trying to get this information for a long time. So if you were a sitting member of Congress, you could have given it to us. But all kidding aside, it's impressive. You have 3,000 vehicles on the road and you have 70 remote assistance operators. And the interesting thing in the letter to Senator Markey, those 70 individuals are not online all the time. So in theory, maybe there's 40 online at one time, 50 online at one time. It's really truly impressive and it tells you the quality of the Waymo stack and how far truly advanced it is. Look, I've had past discussions with some of these Chinese companies that Uber has recently put forth as their partners as being, you know, effectively equivalent to Waymo and, you know, specifically maybe Pony. And what I've heard in China, you know, even in what the regulators in China require in terms of remote safety agents to cars on the road, it is a much higher ratio, you know, meaning many more remote people to the autonomous cars that are on the road than what Waymo has basically disclosed. I'm actually just absolutely shocked that the number is as low as it is. Whether it's 40 or 70, I don't care if it's 100. I would have been shocked by 100. The economics there and the kind of the — not, I don't want to say proof, but like the validation that autonomy is real. Anyone out there saying, 'Oh, these are just remote drivers driving this car.' Like, unless they're absolutely lying, that goes out the window, right? 3,000 autonomous cars, right? Obviously, they're not always on the road at the same time, but I don't even care. Cut that in half. Cut that, you know, by 70%. You know, that number of cars for that number of remote drivers is such a, to me, a positive thing about this industry and kind of where the economics can go for it.
100%. And I'll say it very bluntly and very loudly. It's something Waymo should tout. They should be proud of. You have individuals on both sides of the equation. 'Oh, their tech's not advanced, tech's not advanced,' and you and I know people pile on. But the data that was released to the United States Senate tells you that Waymo is clearly ahead and clearly advanced. And frankly, it is impressive.
Now look, the flip side of this is why are they bothering having half of these 70 people being in the Philippines? Like literally, what is the cost savings that are possible? And like even if you're like getting ready to scale up at this point when you're trying to get approvals, and we'll get to New York later, like why would you have that risk, which obviously was exploited by Senator Markey at a Senate hearing, of having half in the Philippines? Is it really that hard to find another 35 remote assistance agents in the United States of America?
No. And there's companies such as Transdev, which is a Waymo partner, that can do that. It goes back to this unfortunate situation with Waymo and unforced errors. You have the remote assistance in the Philippines. Then you have the Chinese-made Zeekr, another unforced error. The pushback that we'll probably get: 'Well, the time zone difference.' Well, folks work the graveyard shift in America. There are individuals that work different odd hours, so we can have it here in America and it would avoid that situation. I mean, the key to the answer here might be, you know, another thing that I know you put your inspector hat on for in this response, which is...
Again, not shocking because I think I'd heard this before, don't remember where, but that these are not, you know, necessarily Waymo employees. This is a third party. So it's possible that Waymo contracted with this third party for these remote assistant agents, didn't have enough control over them. Just like, you know, you could argue like when did Apple gain control over what was going on with its manufacturing partners, and it was the third party person that effectively hired the Philippines. You still, you're Waymo, you still need to have control over that, know that, and know the kind of political ramifications that you had to deal with in front of the Senate.
That's why the inspector hat — it goes back to the fine print. All the data that you and I discuss on this podcast is publicly available. We just go through it with a fine-tooth comb and a magnifying glass in some cases. I mean, this goes back to your historical world. Well, checks and balances, isn't it? Where's the checks and balance system as some of these decisions are being made? Because they could have avoided a lot of heartache, a lot of very negative press, and this now becomes a talking point for individuals and organizations that want to see a Waymo vehicle stop. 'Look at this. They're sending jobs overseas.' And it's just not a very good narrative.
Not good. But let's not lose the underlying positive here in terms of Waymo and frankly the industry. 70 remote assistant agents for 3,000 cars. I mean, clappy hat for that. Clappy hat for that reason. Get the clappy hat out. That's amazing. And by the way, the 3,000 vehicles — the last update we had was 2,500. You know, I've talked about it doubling to more than, you know, 6,000, I think, vehicles by year end. So if there are 3,000 basically now and everything we heard last week in terms of what's going to come out of the Mesa plant, what's going to come from Hyundai, you're well on their way to hitting my target.
Clappy hats here. Waymo, you get the clap. You did a wonderful, wonderful job. Now, Walt, here's the question. We always look to benchmark things. Should this Waymo number, 70 to 3,000, be the new benchmark? And if so, should other robo taxi companies release the data so we can properly compare?
I don't know if I'm Waymo. First of all, I'm not sure why you were sitting on this info. But absolutely, I'm like touting this and anyone else that kind of emerges, demanding that they also release what these ratios are, right? This is certainly a relative validation point to other players in the market. Anyway, well done. But that wasn't the only data we got from Waymo this week. There was, I guess, an article in a newspaper called the San Francisco Gate, I believe. I think it was mostly talking about basically about Uber. So we can kind of match this to some Waymo opportunities, but they basically...
touting the amount of revenue that Uber and Lyft generate for the airports because it's $6 a ride and there's 10 million rides and, you know, for last year, 60 million to the airport, yada yada yada. Let's dissect some of the data. San Francisco Gate said Uber and Lyft do about a million rides per month to the airport. So they're getting back to like whatever, some type of pre-COVID levels. They were making some relationship there. There's obviously slower months. Let's assume it's at like 800,000 per month when you kind of average out big months versus low months. And they also said that the airport represents about 15% of total rides for these companies. So if you just do basic math, 800,000 is 15% of about 5.3 million rides per month. So then you just take that, you know, total rides, back out that 800, and you're left with 4.5 million non-airport rides that Uber and Lyft are doing. Now, we've seen, you know, Yipit data and other people refer to Waymo being 20 to 25% of the San Francisco market, right? So if you just take that 4.5 million rides, which are the non-airport rides, because remember, Waymo doesn't have or didn't have for most of '25 any type of real airport volume. So if you take 20 to 25% share, which is, you know, what some of these data companies have referred to, of that 4.5 million, that implies that Waymo is doing about 200 to 260,000 rides a week in San Francisco. Now we also know that in Waymo's latest update, nationally they're doing 400,000. So if you're using this math from the — and look, there's always rounding and things like that. But if you're doing — and if I'm doing my math right, I'm sure I can always screw up my math. Hopefully not. It basically implies that San Francisco is like 50 to 60 to, you know, a half to two-thirds of total Waymo rides nationally. I mean, does that surprise you?
No. Especially when you look at the entire Bay Area going all the way down to San Jose now, because the Bay Area and the Valley are tech-forward and they're early adopters. And let's not forget that's where Waymo decided to launch their service. So no, first market, first-mover advantage, no surprise to it. Over time, will that number go down? Yes. The number that will go up — they're going to continue to eat into traditional rideshare, especially as they get to the garage. And if somehow, some way, they're able to get to the curb, you're going to watch that number go even higher.
I mean, you mentioned the Bay Area and that's where maybe these numbers get a little funky because like, is it San Francisco? Like when people have talked about the 20 to 25%, I think they were referring to San Francisco proper as opposed to the Bay Area. So the numbers can be a little squirrely, but even if you go to the low end of that and even lower, you know, you talk about like Waymo hitting scale, but if you're like all of your rides — or not all, but half of your rides are basically in San Francisco, then you again reflect back on what our friends at Uber said on the earnings call, which is like, 'Oh, San Francisco is different than LA. We have tech-forward people here and this, that, and the other thing,' and saying that you can't extrapolate what the great people of San Francisco do to other cities around the country. You know, this provides a little evidence to that saying like, has Waymo really proved out if half of the rides are still basically in this first market?
It's actually not the first market, but in San Francisco. The reason why I believe that a majority of those rides are in that market: one, the individuals that live there, but two, I also think it's the market that has the most vehicles. And over time, as Nashville comes online, Miami opens to the public, other markets open to the public, you're going to see that number decline. You're going to see other markets uptick. And I'll go on here and make a prediction. I'll go on the record here and say that within the next two years, Miami will become a top three market for Waymo.
I mean, that's at the end of — yeah, that's true. These numbers are only going to go down as a mix. But it's just again, where are they today? In any event, let's talk about the bigger issue here with this math, which is now that they are getting to the airport, what this could actually do to rides. So let's go back to this airport data again. Let's just — I know they said a million in the article, but let's just say it's on average 800,000 based on seasonality. Assume no growth and let's just assume Waymo is going to capture 15% of those rides that are happening to and from the airport. So that equates to about 30,000 incremental rides per week on top of the 400,000 nationally that they're doing. So the San Francisco airport alone in this scenario could technically add like 7% growth to their weekly rides. Now I don't know, you know, in terms of maybe you can refresh my memory. Can you drop off and pick up in Waymo? And obviously interested in your thoughts on — we know Waymo is still not in the ideal pickup and drop-off locations. How much that impacts it?
Yes, as of today, if you have early rider access, you can get dropped off and picked up at the RAC, which is the rental car center. So yes, it is about 11 to 12 minutes to go on the little choo-choo train — sorry, the electric train — to get over to the RAC to get into it. I'll be there in two weeks. I will be taking Waymo from the RAC down to Silicon Valley when I give a talk with Don Burnette at Kodiak. So I'll let you know the experience firsthand. But yes, to me it's a consistent experience and I will — and you know me, I don't like to walk. I want curbside. But to not have to deal with the Forrest Gump analogy of life is like a box of chocolates because you don't know what you're going to get, I will gladly take the little choo-choo train for 12 minutes to get a consistent experience.
The bottom line is based on this math, and people can make whatever assumptions they want. Like opening up San Francisco airport alone can have like a 5% plus impact on rides. And let's be clear, like the average, you know, revenue per ride to and from the airport is definitely going to be higher than their typical ride. So it's going to have a larger relative impact on revenue. These are the higher-value rides that obviously they can get. And as you know, I guess our listeners know, Waymo can also drop, you know, these customers off in the Bay Area. It's not just to back and forth with San Francisco. It's opened up the region. So again, interesting data and thanks to the intrepid reporters at the San Francisco Gate for getting us that info.
Thanks for the data and I'm looking forward to seeing as data grows because we're going to get more data. And I know you and I are at odds on this, but I do still think that Waymo is a big tourist attraction and perhaps you could see Mayor London Breed or some individual in the mayor's office that wants to tout this as an economic growth engine and perhaps they get curbside. And if Waymo gets curbside, boy oh boy, watch out. So here we have San Francisco representing maybe 50% of Waymo's rides, right? You know, California often criticized in terms of, you know, some of the politicians that are there, but meanwhile on the other side of the coast, it's much worse. Like we can't — Grayson, in the great state of New York, can't now get this because our governor Kathy Hochul has pulled a proposal that would have allowed for robo taxi services outside New York City. And this is just a month after that she introduced it and touted, quote, 'New York open for business.' What do you make of that having happened here? New York closed for business. It's true. Look at the tax rate increase they're trying to pass in New York City. Businesses that are fleeing to Miami. It's not a very positive, friendly business environment in New York City. And from the governor's perspective, from the state perspective: ring, ring, ring. Hello. Special interest. 'Governor, you're not doing this.' Ring, ring, ring. 'Governor, you're running for re-election. You want that donation? Not going to get it if you support this.' Political pressure from special interest. The governor caved because a certain faction — she needs the support to win re-election. Without the support of a certain special interest, she can't win re-election. And based on many public grandiose statements that have been made through press releases and in public forums around the United States, you know who this is. The governor clearly caved to political pressure. And frankly, it's a sad day for the residents of New York because this technology would have saved lives, improved the experience, not to mention it would have been an economic growth engine for a city and a state that absolutely desperately needs it right now.
Well, let me temper some of your arguments as the defender of New York. While I'm as outraged as you are by our governor's actions and, you know, just basically putting people's lives in danger by not enabling a new technology, let's be a little bit more realistic about this and reflect back on things that we've said about New York in the past, which is it's kind of hard — it's going to be hard for them to get power and service and the nuts and bolts to launch in this city anyway. So maybe by the time they're going to still — look, Waymo and others will still work on the infrastructure to enable autonomy in New York. You know, by the time that either she's out of office or, you know, sees the light that this actually saves lives and improves the economy, maybe it will kind of coalesce, you know, with when the charging and service networks will be ready. But look, you know, we know that there's not enough capital, you know, going after this important third leg of the stool, which is service and charging. If you're the company that has the capital, like to your point, like why would I deploy it to New York when there's other areas that the politicians are welcoming, you know, this type of growth and welcoming a product that can save their citizens' lives?
I have the inspector hat on here because what we're going to do, we're going to watch for public filings and building permits to see if Move.io or another Waymo partner or Google Alphabet Real Estate starts to acquire energy assets in New York. But getting to your larger point, yes, you are going to see companies migrate to states that are friendlier. I'll give you the greatest example in the time I can give you. The autonomous trucking industry was built and developed in California, and California put undue regulations that you can't deploy a Class A truck on public roads. So what does the industry do? They took jobs and they moved all the commercialization to the Dallas-Fort Worth Triangle, DFW. And that worked really well for them. And with robo taxis, you're going to see those companies go to where they can operate. And the states and cities that are willing to welcome them are going to have a great economic impact. Not to mention the quality of life increase and the amount of lives that are going to be saved. It's going to be positive. So I know you're in New York, Walt, but it's a sad day for the Empire State. The empire is not friendly to technology.
Okay, before we tear too much into New York, let's go to a different state, Iowa, where lawmakers have advanced two bills from House subcommittees that would require a human behind the wheel. So this is not necessarily a red versus a blue issue. I mean, autonomy companies are going to face challenges from a variety of different angles. But this is a series of tactics that certain special interest groups have used. They go to state houses, they rally support: 'Let's put a driver in because oh, if you get rid of the driver, it's going to eliminate jobs or it's going to kill jobs.' Well, to the folks that are trying to pass that off as truth, there is economic data, including data from the United States Department of Transportation, that debunks that. Then the issue in Iowa is you have the — the other issue in Iowa is that you have the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. They're supposed to be pro-autonomy. They're out there using the Uber and Lyft talking points around hybrid networks. So on one side of this group that's lobbying for this is saying yes, we need hybrid networks and no, autonomy is good. Iowa is a big basket of confusion as it relates to this policy. The pro-autonomy folks are now the hybrid folks. The traditional folks that don't like this, they're together. It's a hodgepodge of a hot mess.
Well, look, the one way we can solve all this, I assume, is a federal mandate. Like, where are we with — first of all, is that true? Like, if we have some type of national mandate, federal mandate, can that, you know, displace what Hochul has made, you know, harder to do now? And where are we with that process? Preemption. A national autonomous vehicle framework will preempt state and local laws. OSHA will lose all of her power. The lobbyists in Iowa will lose all their power and an autonomous vehicle will legally be able to go across state lines, county lines, city lines. As it relates to where we are, the bill that came out of committee in the House, I do not see a path forward as of today in the Senate. I do not necessarily see it going forward because we have a midterm election coming up and the gears are shifting now towards a midterm and it's sad. Would I like to be optimistic and see it go through? Oh yeah, I'd like to be the world's biggest cheerleader for this. Do I see it going through at this point? Unfortunately, I do not.
Well, there's still time on the clock. I'm not too disappointed because, you know, we still do have to ramp volumes. We have to build the infrastructure. So it's not, I don't think, dramatically holding back the progress of the industry. It's just, you know, like many things, a little disappointing on when things like this evolve. Let's shift over to Uber. Which again, I wouldn't say I'm shocked, but I'd be a little surprised that Uber, who has long, you know, kind of pushed this concept of like, 'Hey, we don't want to be a part of servicing. We'll have minority stakes. We'll partner. We don't want to —' like they said they're not going to own cars long term. I get that they're buying some near-term, but now there's a report out of Bloomberg that they're going to spend $100 million building fast-charging autonomous vehicle charging stations. What do you make of this? By the way, this is San Fran, Los Angeles, and Dallas. Three markets obviously where autonomy is important.
Build and own. You listen to the past couple earnings calls from Uber: 'We want to be an asset-light company.' The last quarterly call: 'We want to be an asset-light company.' How are you going to be an asset-light company if you're owning assets? We have the SEC filing that Uber is going to own 20,000-plus Nuro robo trucks. Now you're going to spend $100 million on infrastructure. I'm going to pull an Eminem on you: Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? Please stand up. Will the real Uber please stand up? It seems to me that Uber is trying to figure out who they want to be. Not to mention, Walt, I thought they had partners — Aurora and Move — they've invested in and they're on their cap table that was supposed to handle all of this.
