Robo‑taxis could change everything— so why do we hate them?

By Julia Stafi

Intl.Assoc.AIA, Architect, urban planner

One of the strategic solutions for systematizing urban logistics and addressing the problem of CO2 emissions is already present on our streets—but we continue to treat this innovation the same way we treated the first cars 120 years ago.

This innovation is Transport-as-a-Service, or TaaS, or simply robotaxis.

This system must be the basis of any smart city and the primary component in the program for the sustainable climate development of urban areas.

Why? Because TaaS will represent a major turning point, offering solutions from improved passenger transportation and addressing the affordable housing crisis to resolving global problems such as climate change and collapsing globalization.

According to the American think tank RethinkX, 10 years after legislative approval of autonomous transport, 90% of passenger transportation will be carried out by robotaxis, and the refusal of a personal car will save the average American more than $7,100 per year (2024). Moreover, it would be "almost a 10% increase in median household income, keeping an additional $1 trillion per year in Americans' pockets by 2030 and potentially generating the largest infusion of consumer spending in history."

However, at the moment, I have never encountered the idea of considering robotaxis in full synthesis with the matter and structure of the city. Cities are currently trying to actively and haphazardly rebuild themselves to satisfy the "green"agenda at any cost, practically forcing people to walk or ride a bike. This is a dead-end idea and does not suit everyone, both in terms of logistics and benefits for the climate and people. The first step to making our cities greener, safer, and cleaner is a program prioritizing the use of robotaxis in the city over individual cars.

But today, robotaxis are in approximately the same position as the first cars were on streets ruled by horse-drawn carriages. The first cars were luckier—there was no social media at that time.

The reasons for this rejection are not only the stubbornness of city bureaucracy and the dominance of "traditional"drivers.

It cannot be said that all complaints are unfounded, but calls for "more regulation" are a regression. We must accept that the era of the human-driven car is over. The era of the city adapted to the individual car is over.

What are the possible solutions? What mistakes can we avoid?

Mistakes of automakers:

The decision by General Motors to close its self-driving division, Cruise, was a strategic mistake. In this regard, I completely agree with the founder of Cruise, Kyle Vogt.

Most manufacturers of "robots"—and first and foremost, Tesla—continue to copy the shape of a traditional (driver-centric) car, thereby significantly limiting the potential of this revolutionary type of transport.

Solution: Give free rein to manufacturers of robotaxis and related industries. I believe that the affordable, high-tech transportation model deserves the same attention as the microchip industry. TaaS must be an act, like the CHIPS and Science Act or a newborn ROAD to Housing Act. Aligning these elements may mark the dawn of a new era of American prosperity, serving as a model for the global community. For tech giants like Apple, this is a real opportunity to try again—to rethink and restart the failed Apple Car project with something like an "aiCar," where "a" stands for "autonomous"and "ai" for Artificial Intelligence.

Mistake: The rapidly growing smart city industry currently consists of hundreds of startups and other initiatives that, in my opinion, have no strategic vision and do not solve global urban challenges.

Solution: Architectural and engineering colleges and universities. We need a bold and swift educational change for the urban planning and infrastructure of tomorrow, taking into account the inevitable driverless future. The real "15-minute city" is a city with fully automatic traffic, with an infrastructure created specifically for robotaxis, and as a result—for people. We need to start with digital twins of every neighborhood of every major American city and show residents how their daily lives will be transformed by implementing self-driving cars—for good.

Mistake: A robotaxi is just a fancy gadget on wheels.

They’ll never replace real drivers and real cars.

Solution: Influencers and Social Advertising.

We’ve all been there: lost in an unfamiliar city, panicking at an airport, or worse—facing a medical emergency with no quick way to get help.

Now imagine a world of autonomous transport. A robotaxi that doesn’t just drive you around—it saves you. It gets you to the hospital in record time. It finds you when you’re disoriented and lost in a big city. It cuts through the madness of travel hubs with calm, precise coordination.

This isn’t a dream. It’s a glimpse of tomorrow’s cities, where technology isn’t cold or distant—it’s deeply human. Where every vehicle on the road could be a tool for safety, confidence, and peace of mind for its passengers. I am sure that Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor of California—who not long ago spoke about the state’s housing problems—will become the best popularizer of this type of transport. Let me say it again: solving the affordable housing crisis goes hand in hand with making high‑tech transportation widely accessible.

Why should we focus on this specifically in 2026? Well, for one key reason: that’s the year Tesla is set to launch its Cybercab. And in my view, 2026 will mark the beginning of the death spiral for the personal car ownership era. Given autonomous vehicles’ mixed track record, we need rigorous oversight before widespread adoption. But the biggest problem won't be the tech—it’ll be us. Human decisions, not machine errors, could become the real roadblock.

Connect With Julia

www.linkedin.com/in/julia-stafi

Instagram: @blackspiral.us