San Diego leaders are looking to exert whatever local control they can as Waymo and Amazon roll out autonomous vehicle passenger service around town.

In California, AVs are regulated by state agencies, but San Diego City Council members recently approved a resolution urging the state to give local authorities control over deployment.

The resolution is said to be motivated by safety concerns and a desire to protect the jobs of taxi and ride-hailing drivers.

The local leaders are also calling on the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, an independent agency with permitting authority over ground transportation, to block AVs from operating at the airport. San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, who co-introduced the resolution, is on the airport authority’s board of directors.

Currently, AV passenger service is allowed or being tested at a handful of U.S. airports, including Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and San Francisco International Airport.

Question: Should the San Diego airport ban robotaxis? 

Economists

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: Airline passengers should be free to choose how they travel to and from the airport. Some travelers believe that AVs are reliable and as safe as vehicles with human drivers. Others may have had positive experiences taking AVs to other destinations or value the greater privacy that AVs offer over taxis and ride-hailing options. Those who prefer AVs should not be forced by local authorities to accept a less desirable mode of transportation.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: We heard all the same arguments about Uber and Lyft a decade ago. Now, many people prefer ride-hailing because they know upfront how much they will be charged and the destination is entered in advance, avoiding miscommunication. For a city that markets itself as an innovation hub, blocking new technology at the airport is not a good look.

Ray Major, economist

NO: Not sure why the current City Council is hellbent on impeding progress when it comes to alternative forms of transportation that they ostensibly advocate for. Banning robotaxis stifles innovation and limits consumer choice. AV’s eliminate human error, reduce the need for parking, adhere to traffic laws and speed limits, and are successfully being used at Phoenix Sky Harbor. Rather than banning progress, a clear operational framework that embraces technology should be the focus of this discussion.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: To allay concerns about safety and traffic congestion, driverless taxis could be restricted to use dedicated stations at the airport. And it would be reasonable to charge them a higher airport usage fee than for regular taxis or ride-hailing vehicles. If driverless taxis could succeed despite these disadvantages, then I would take that as an indication that this is an idea whose time has come.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: The only reason to ban robotaxis is to protect the jobs of Uber and Lyft drivers. Of course, the question was once, should we ban Uber drivers? In the early 1900s many cities wanted to ban automobiles as they were dangerous for horses and pedestrians, and telegraph operators tried to ban telephones in late 1870s. Bank employees once protested ATM machines as too risky for customers to use outside a bank. Need I go on?

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Robotaxis have potential — when thoroughly developed, enhanced, tested — to improve safety and efficient movement of traffic. While continually monitoring traffic conditions and strictly adhering to road rules, technically autonomous vehicles will avoid many of the problems often caused by inattentive, impaired or incompetent human drivers. Traffic movement can become much more efficient, avoid congestion, lessen overall needs for as many vehicles, while powered by clean energy. It also offers mobility for individuals unable to drive themselves.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: The technology is improving, so safety concerns are lessened. The argument against allowing them to operate at the airport is purely economic. The introduction of AVs would cause the loss of many jobs in the taxi and ride-hailing industries. While those might be considered jobs of the past, they still provide opportunities for those who provide the services. The income of these individuals would instead go to big companies such as Waymo, Amazon and Tesla.

Executives

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: While autonomous vehicles present legitimate challenges, an outright ban is the wrong response. Waymo is already authorized at multiple California airports and is building a strong safety record compared with human drivers. The airport should establish comprehensive standards for emergency access, congestion and passenger safety, then approve operators that meet them. Protecting existing driving jobs is laudable, but blocking potentially safer technology is not a sustainable solution to the inevitable challenges of technological displacement.

Mark Kersey, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

NO: Banning technology before it even gets off the ground due to politics is bad policy. Autonomous vehicles aren’t perfect, but obviously neither are human drivers, and the effort to ban AVs reminds me of a similar effort against ride-hailing companies that I dealt with as an airport board member a decade ago. Our airport instead should proactively conduct an AV pilot program to gauge whether robotaxis can provide quality ground transportation services to the flying public.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: Airports should not ban robotaxis, although they have the authority to because they are controlled environments with unique responsibilities for security and congestion. I also believe the state should retain its authority rather than cede it to cities because that could lead to chaos. Transportation does not stop at municipal boundaries. A passenger may travel through multiple cities on a single trip and could face a different regulatory framework every time they cross a city limit.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: A ban on robotaxis would reinforce San Diego’s reputation as unfriendly to business and resistant to innovation. The city too often creates roadblocks while other regions embrace new technology (Phoenix’s City Council support for Waymo offers a sharp contrast). If San Diego appears overregulated and union driven, major tech companies may look elsewhere. San Diego shouldn’t block autonomous driving options that could advance cleaner transportation and increase consumer choice. It should welcome competition and let consumers decide.

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: I maintain that if San Diego wants to earn its place as one of America’s most innovative regions it cannot push back on a very capable new technology only to save soon-to-be antiquated jobs.

Gary London, London Group Realty Advisors

NO: Perhaps the greatest utility of the emerging robotaxi business is in its cure for big destination venues like the airport. We ought to embrace this solution, particularly considering our inability to create a robust public transit solution to get in and out of the airport. Over time, this resistance will not prevent the emergence of autonomous vehicles into our lives. Focus on how best to integrate it, not to avoid the inevitable.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: A temporary ban makes more sense and gives the region time to set standards that protect people first. The airport should pause robotaxis until safety and accountability catch up. San Diego’s city council has documented incidents of autonomous vehicles blocking first responders and stopping unpredictably in traffic. Innovation matters, but not at the expense of public safety. This would also give time to taxi and ride-hailing drivers to prepare for possible work changes.

©2026 The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Visit sandiegouniontribune.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.