×
Here are the 49 US AI startups that have raised 0M or more in 2025 | TechCrunch

Here are the 49 US AI startups that have raised $100M or more in 2025 | TechCrunch

Tech-news ,

Last year was monumental for the AI industry in the U.S. and beyond. 

There were 49 startups that raised funding rounds worth $100 million or more in 2024, per our count at TechCrunch; three companies raised more than one “mega-round,” and seven companies raised rounds that were $1 billion in size or larger. 

How will 2025 compare? As we enter near the final month of the year, 2025 has already matched 2024 in terms of companies raising rounds that are $100 million and larger. There are also significantly more companies that have raised multiple funding rounds larger than $100 million this year compared to last.  

Here are all the U.S. AI companies that have raised $100 million this year: 

November

  • Anysphere, the maker of viral vibe-coding platform Cursor, raised $2.3 billion in a funding round that valued the company at $29.3 billion. The round was announced on November 13 and is the company’s second funding round this year.  
  • Parallel, which builds web infrastructure for AI agents, raised a $100 million Series A round that was announced on November 12. The round was co-led by Index Ventures and Kleiner Perkins.  
  • Healthcare AI agent startup Hippocratic AI raised a $126 million Series C round that valued the company at $3.5 billion. The round was the company’s second this year, was announced on November 3, and was led by Avenir Growth.  

October

  • Fireworks AI, a platform that allows users to build AI applications using open source models, raised a $250 million Series C round that was announced on October 28. The round valued the company at $4 billion.  
  • Enterprise AI startup Uniphore is valued at $2.5 billion after a $260 million Series F round that was announced on October 22. The round included Snowflake Ventures, Nvidia, Databricks Ventures, and AMD, among others.  
  • Sesame, a voice AI company, raised a $250 million Series B round co-led by Sequoia and Spark Capital. The round was announced on October 21 and also included SignalRank as a participant.  
  • Cambridge, Massachusetts’s based OpenEvidence, which builds an AI chatbot for the medical field, raised its second funding round of 2025. The $200 million Series C round was announced on October 20 and valued the company at $6 billion.  
  • Lila Sciences, which is looking to build a science superintelligence platform, announced its second funding round of 2025 on October 14. The $350 million Series A round was co-led by Braidwell and Collective Global. 
  • DeepSeek competitor Reflection AI announced its second mega-round of the year on October 9. The $2 billion Series B round valued the company at $8 billion and was led by Nvidia.  
  • EvenUp, which builds AI for the personal injury legal field, announced a $150 million Series E round that valued the company at more $2 billion on October 7. The round was led by Bessemer with participation from Lightspeed, Bain Capital and SignalFire, among others.  

September

  • Periodic Labs, which is building an AI scientist, announced a $300 million seed round on September 30. Felicis and Andreessen Horowitz led the round with participation from Nvidia, Lightspeed, and Khosla Ventures, among others.  
  • Cerebras Systems, an AI infrastructure company, raised a sizable $1.1 billion Series G round that valued the company at $8.1 billion. The round was announced on September 30 and was co-led by Fidelity and Atreides Management. 
  • Modular announced a $250 million funding round on September 24. The round was led by US Innovative Technology Fund with participation from GV, Greylock, and General Catalyst, among others.  
  • Distyl AI, which builds AI enterprise software, raised a $175 million Series B round that was announced on September 23. This round valued the startup at $1.8 billion and included investors like Khosla Ventures and Lightspeed.  
  • AI infrastructure startup Upscale AI raised a sizable $100 million seed round that was co-led by Maverick Silicon and Mayfield. The round was announced on September 17 and also included StepStone Group, Stanford University, and Qualcomm Ventures, among others.  
  • Groq, an AI inference company, raised a $750 million Series E round that valued the company at nearly $6.9 billion. The round was announced on September 17 and was led by Disruptive.  
  • AI training startup Invisible Technologies was valued at $2 billion after a $100 million fundraise that was announced on September 16. The raise was led by Vanara Capital with participation from Greycroft, Tallwoods Capital, and Freestyle Capital, among others.  
  • Cognition AI, the creator of vibe-coding agent Devin, raised a $400 million Series C round that was announced on September 8. The round was led by Founders Fund and valued the company at $10.2 billion. 
  • AI Infrastructure startup Baseten raised a $150 million Series D round that valued the company at $2.1 billion. The September 5 round was led by Bond with participation from CapitalG, IVP and Spark Capital, among others.  
  • Bret Taylor’s customer service AI agent platform Sierra raised $350 million in a round led by Greenoaks Capital. This fundraise was announced on September 4 and valued Sierra at more than $10 billion.  
  • You.com, a personalized AI search engine, raised a $100 million Series C round led by Cox Enterprises. The round was announced on September 3 and valued the company at $1.5 billion.  
  • AI research lab Anthropic raised its second round of 2025 in September. Anthropic announced a $13 billion Series F round on September 2 that valued the company at $183 billion. The round was led by Iconiq, Fidelity, and Lightspeed.  

August

  • Healthcare and housing automation platform EliseAI raised $250 million in a Series E round that valued the startup at $2.2 billion. The round, which was announced on August 20, was led by Andreessen Horowitz.
  • Decart, an AI research lab, raised $100 million at a $3.1 billion valuation. The round included Sequoia Capital, Benchmark, and Zeev Ventures, among others, and was announced on August 7.

July

  • Generative media platform Fal raised a $125 million Series C round led by Meritech Capital Partners. The company announced the round, which values Fal at $1.5 billion, on July 31. Salesforce Ventures, Shopify Ventures, Google AI Futures Fund, and others joined the round.
  • Five-year-old Ambience Healthcare, which is building an AI healthcare operating system, raised a $243 million Series C round that was led by Oak HC/FT and Andreessen Horowitz. Kleiner Perkins, OpenAI Startup Fund, Smash Capital, and others also participated in the round.
  • Reka AI, an AI research lab, raised $110 million in a round that included Snowflake and Nvidia. The Series B round was announced on July 22 and values the company at $1 billion.
  • AI research lab Thinking Machines Lab confirmed that it raised $2 billion on July 15. This sizable seed round was led by Andreessen Horowitz with participation from Nvidia, Accel, and AMD, among others. The round values the company at $12 billion.
  • Cambridge, Massachusetts-based OpenEvidence, which is building an AI-powered search tool for clinicians, raised $210 million at a $3.5 billion valuation. The Series B round was announced on July 15 and was led by Kleiner Perkins and GV.
  • Harmonic, which is building a mathematical reasoning engine, raised a $100 million Series B round led by Kleiner Perkins. The round was announced on July 10 and values the company at $875 million.

June

  • Healthcare AI unicorn Abridge announced it raised a $300 million Series E round that values the company at $5.3 billion. The round was led by Andreessen Horowitz with Khosla Ventures participating. It was the company’s second round of 2025.
  • Harvey, which builds AI tools for the legal industry, announced it raised its second $300 million round of 2025 on June 23. This latest Series E round was co-led by Kleiner Perkins and Coatue and brings the company’s valuation to $5 billion.
  • Healthcare AI startup Tennr announced it raised a $101 million Series C round led by IVP with participation from Lightspeed Venture Partners, GV, and Andreessen Horowitz, among others. The round values the company at $605 million.
  • Enterprise search startup Glean continues to rake in cash. The company announced a $150 million Series F round on June 10, led by Wellington Management with participation from Sequoia, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Kleiner Perkins, among others. Glean is now valued at $7.25 billion.
  • Anysphere, the AI research lab behind AI coding tool Cursor, raised a sizable $900 million Series C round that values the company at nearly $10 billion. The round was led by Thrive Capital with participation from Andreessen Horowitz, Accel, and DST Global.

May

  • AI data labeling startup Snorkel AI announced a $100 million Series D round on May 29, valuing the company at $1.3 billion. The round was led by Addition with participation from Prosperity7 Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Greylock.
  • LMArena, a popular, community-driven benchmarking tool for AI models, raised a $100 million seed round that valued the startup at $600 million. The round was announced on May 21 and was co-led by Andreessen Horowitz and UC Investments. Lightspeed Venture Partners, Kleiner Perkins, and Felicis also participated, among others.
  • Las Vegas-based AI infrastructure company TensorWave announced a $100 million Series A round on May 14. The round was co-led by Magnetar Capital and AMD Ventures with participation from Prosperity7 Ventures, Nexus Venture Partners, and Maverick Silicon.

April

  • SandboxAQ closed a $450 million Series E round on April 4 that valued the AI model company at $5.7 billion. The round included Nvidia, Google, and Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio among other investors.
  • Runway, which creates AI models for media production, raised a $308 million Series D round that was announced on April 3, valuing the company at $3 billion. It was led by General Atlantic. SoftBank, Nvidia, and Fidelity also participated.

March

  • AI behemoth OpenAI raised a record-breaking $40 billion funding round that valued the startup at $300 billion. This round, which closed on March 31, was led by SoftBank with participation from Thrive Capital, Microsoft, and Coatue, among others.
  • On March 25, Nexthop AI, an AI infrastructure company, announced that it had raised a Series A round led by Lightspeed Venture Partners. The $110 million round also included Kleiner Perkins, Battery Ventures, and Emergent Ventures, among others.
  • Cambridge Massachusetts-based Insilico Medicine raised $110 million for its generative AI-powered drug discovery platform as announced on March 13. This Series E round valued the company at $1 billion and was co-led by Value Partners and Pudong Chuangtou.
  • AI infrastructure company Celestial AI raised a $250 million Series C round that valued the company at $2.5 billion. The March 11 round was led by Fidelity with participation from Tiger Global, BlackRock, and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, among others.
  • Lila Sciences raised a $200 million seed round as it looks to create a science superintelligence platform. The round was led by Flagship Pioneering. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company also received funding from March Capital, General Catalyst, and ARK Venture Fund, among others.
  • Brooklyn-based Reflection.Ai, which looks to build superintelligent autonomous systems, raised a $130 million Series A round that values the 1-year-old company at $580 million. The round was led by Lightspeed Venture Partners and CRV.
  • AI coding startup Turing closed a Series E round on March 7 that valued the startup, which partners with LLM companies, at $2.2 billion. The $111 million round was led by Khazanah Nasional with participation from WestBridge Capital, Gaingels, and Sozo Ventures, among others.
  • Shield AI, an AI defense tech startup, raised $240 million in a Series F round that closed on March 6. This round was co-led by L3Harris Technologies and Hanwha Aerospace, with participation from Andreessen Horowitz and the US Innovative Technology Fund, among others. The round valued the company at $5.3 billion
  • AI research and large language model company Anthropic raised $3.5 billion in a Series E round that valued the startup at $61.5 billion. The round was announced on March 3 and was led by Lightspeed with participation from Salesforce Ventures, Menlo Ventures, and General Catalyst, among others.

February

  • Together AI, which creates open source generative AI and AI model development infrastructure, raised a $305 million Series B round that valued the company at $3.3 billion. The February 20 round was co-led by Prosperity7 and General Catalyst with participation from Salesforce Ventures, Nvidia, Lux Capital, and others.
  • AI infrastructure company Lambda raised a $480 million Series D round that was announced on February 19. The round valued the startup at nearly $2.5 billion and was co-led by SGW and Andra Capital. Nvidia, G Squared, ARK Invest, and others also participated.
  • Abridge, an AI platform that transcribes patient-clinician conversations, was valued at $2.75 billion in a Series D round that was announced on February 17. The $250 million round was co-led by IVP and Elad Gil. Lightspeed, Redpoint, and Spark Capital also participated, among others.
  • Eudia, an AI legal tech company, raised $105 million in a Series A round led by General Catalyst. Floodgate, Defy Ventures, and Everywhere Ventures also participated in the round in addition to other VC firms and numerous angel investors. The round closed on February 13.
  • AI hardware startup EnCharge AI raised a $100 million Series B round that also closed on February 13. The round was led by Tiger Global with participation from Scout Ventures, Samsung Ventures, and RTX Ventures, among others. The Santa Clara-based business was founded in 2022.
  • AI legal tech company Harvey raised a $300 million Series D round that valued the 3-year-old company at $3 billion. The round was led by Sequoia and announced on February 12. OpenAI Startup Fund, Kleiner Perkins, Elad Gil, and others also participated in the raise.

January

  • Synthetic voice startup ElevenLabs raised a $180 million Series C round that valued the company at more than $3 billion. It was announced on January 30. The round was co-led by ICONIQ Growth and Andreessen Horowitz. Sequoia, NEA, Salesforce Ventures, and others also participated in the round.
  • Hippocratic AI, which develops large language models for the healthcare industry, announced a $141 million Series B round on January 9. This round valued the company at more than $1.6 billion and was led by Kleiner Perkins. Andreessen Horowitz, Nvidia, and General Catalyst also participated, among others.

This piece was updated on April 23, June 18, August 27 and November 26 to include more deals.

This piece has been updated to remove that Abridge is based in Pittsburgh; the company was founded there.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026

Source link
#startups #raised #100M #TechCrunch

Tag

Related Posts

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon SAVE 0: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just ,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or 0 off its list price of ,199. ,499 at Amazon ,199 Save 0 *with on-page coupon* If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X. As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just ,499 from its usual ,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s 0 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price. #Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space researchThe Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary SocietyFor more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”— Casey DreierThis is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Georgina TorbetCloseGeorgina TorbetPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Georgina TorbetNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceSpaceCloseSpacePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Space#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space research

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space
It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill. Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people. In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter. The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.” Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident. Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic. TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds. Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there. San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel. But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC. Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software. Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district. Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.” When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch

It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

Post Comment