Connect with us

News

A Giant Game of Telephone: The Revel Tesla Model Y Taxi Situation Explained

Credit: Revel

Published

on

This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.


Earlier this week, there was plenty of talk about the Revel taxi fleet in New York City, comprised of 50 Tesla Model Y all-electric crossovers that would contribute to the ride-sharing services that the Big Apple has long been accustomed to over the past century. As the automotive sector has transitioned to a more sustainable look and feel, taxi companies are also putting their hand in the cookie jar, adding sustainable vehicles to their fleets, and taking gas-powered machines off the road.

Revel is an independent company attempting to make this happen. The company has 50 Model Y taxis ready to take on the streets of Manhattan and the other boroughs of New York. However, reports circulated earlier this week that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission blocked this possibility overwhelmingly with a five-to-one vote.

New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission: A Giant Game of Telephone

While the reports from various media outlets, including our own, highlighted the spectacle, which seemed to be an incredible chance of corruption, there was actually a huge misunderstanding. New York City TLC’s Deputy Chief of Public Affairs, Allan Fromberg, took some time out of a busy Thursday to talk to me, clarifying the situation that has been misconstrued since its original report.

Advertisement

Tesla Model Y taxi fleet successfully blocked by NY commission

After getting in touch with Mr. Fromberg on Thursday, we talked about the initial reports. “The whole narrative that Revel would have to buy 50 gas cars to then convert to EVs is just a giant game of telephone. In fact, for Revel to bring on its 50 BEVs, they would have to replace 50 existing, already-licensed vehicles, and not new vehicles.”

Initial reports indicated that TLC Commissioner Aloysee Heredia Jarmoszuk stated that congestion was why Revel wasn’t granted licenses. In fact, this is true. Revel was never required to purchase 50 gas vehicles, which didn’t make much sense from the get-go. In my initial communication to Mr. Fromberg, I stated that the contradictory nature of the TLC’s implied decision to block Revel’s Model Y fleet because of congestion, but then suggest 50 additional gas-powered vehicles needed to be purchased didn’t make much sense.

Fromberg agreed and said that this misconception was due to the aggregation of media reports looking to push out this controversial angle of the story quickly.

Advertisement

Mr. Fromberg then explained what the vote on Tuesday evening entailed, straight from the TLC Commissioner’s mouth.

2018 Legislation: The Taxi Cab “Cap”

Ms. Jarmoszuk said:

“First and foremost, no one and no entity has been blocked. The public meeting/vote was neither about electric vehicles nor about any particular company nor about car models. Rather, the public meeting was about vehicle licenses, which are presently capped since the market is saturated and distressed, with low performance as a result of the pandemic and previous market stressors. Presently, there are nearly 100K vehicle licenses, which is too large a supply for current passenger demand. The public meeting was about ensuring mechanisms to properly manage applications for new/additional licenses against current ridership numbers/needs.”

This is actually in reference to series of five pieces of legislation that were passed in 2018. According to the New York City Office of the Mayo, on August 14th, 2018, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the following pieces:

Advertisement

144-B: Requiring the TLC to stop issuing for-hire vehicle licenses for 12 months, to study congestion and various aspects of the industry, and after the study, allows the TLC to establish vehicle utilization standards and regulate the number of for-hire vehicle licenses;

634-B: Waiving licensing fees for accessible taxi-cabs and for-hire vehicles;

838-C: Pertaining to the licensing and regulation of high-volume for-hire vehicle services;

890-B: Directs the TLC to establish rules to provide minimum payments to high-volume for-hire vehicle drivers;

Advertisement

958-A: Reducing penalties for unauthorized street hails.

Really, 144-B, 634-B, 838-C, and 890-B are the four pieces that are relevant to this story. In 2018, 144-B halted the licensing of any additional “For-Hire” vehicles, meaning taxis or ride-hailing vehicles. Simply put, there was an incredible number of vehicles on the streets of New York, and congestion was becoming a real issue there. The “cap” limit on the number of vehicles was enforced in 2018 and was set to last one year. Mr. Fromberg informed me that this legislation has been extended and renewed several times and is still effective to this day. Therefore, the City still will not license any additional vehicles. When one fails or loses its license, a new vehicle takes its place.

There are several other reasons for this, including fair wages for drivers and affordability for taxi companies. But, unfortunately, drivers were suffering and still are due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While many of the economic negativities are finally beginning to subside, 2020 was an ugly year for the NYC taxi sector. Many drivers weren’t making enough money to afford loan payments on medallions. Unfortunately, some of these drivers took their own lives, and it is an absolute tragedy that this occurred.

With that being said, taxi drivers are hard-working, and they deserve to make enough money to feed their families. In the 2018 passing of these legislative pieces, De Blasio said, “We’re putting hardworking New Yorkers ahead of corporations. We are taking immediate action for the benefit of more than 100,000 hard-working New Yorkers who deserve a fair wage and halting the flood of new cars, grinding our streets to a halt.” The changes increased take-home pay for drivers by approximately 20 percent on average — more than $6,000 per year.

Advertisement

With all of that being said, New York City is operating with a substantial number of taxis, and the TLC has granted nearly 100,000 vehicle licenses. Before any more vehicles can obtain one of these licenses, some of the current vehicles must lose their licenses through expiration or vehicle removal in a company’s fleet. When 50 licenses open up, Revel will have the ability to obtain them, giving the company full rights to operate as a ride-sharing service, just as it aims to do.

To Mr. Fromberg’s knowledge, there would be no cost for Revel to go through the normal administrative procedure to obtain the licenses.

Revel’s Response: EV Taxis are a necessity to NYC

Revel CEO Frank Reig is under the impression that the TLC is operating under “shortsighted bureaucracy and entrenched interests,” according to a Tweet from Wednesday night.

After the Tuesday hearing, Reig said:

Advertisement

“At today’s hearing, the Taxi and Limousine Commission offered no evidence or analysis to support ending the EV exemption. The Commissioners sat through almost 3 hours of testimony on all sides yet asked zero questions and spent zero time deliberating before making a policy decision with profound consequences. The TLC never intended to consider what drivers and New Yorkers had to say, and only cared about jamming through this vote on Primary Day with as little scrutiny as possible. This decision doesn’t change the fact that New York City needs an alternative to the predatory leasing system that exploits drivers and pollutes our environment, and Revel is exploring ways to accomplish that.” 

Revel told Teslarati earlier today that it is aware that the TLC is not recommending the purchase of 50 gas-powered cars. The company is also aware that the TLC has capped the number of licenses it would issue. In order to encourage the adoption of electric cars, Revel spokespeople said that additional licenses would be given to wheelchair-accessible vehicles and EVs. A few hundred EVs have been added to the NYC Taxi fleet in the past two years, but these cars only account for .5% of the total number of For-Hire vehicles on NYC’s streets.

Tesla Model 3 wins hearts as famed NYC Taxi, picks up where Nissan Leaf couldn’t

This rule is brought up every six months and was last addressed and subsequently renewed in February. That means that it was due for review in August. However, the TLC brought the issue to light early and revoked the rule. The TLC says that if Reval wants to operate a rideshare service with its fleet of 50 Model Ys, they will have to obtain the licenses from displaced and no-longer-active taxis in the city.

Advertisement

Revel states that it would take two to three additional vehicles off of the street because the company will hire TLC-licensed drivers, who will no longer lease gas-powered vehicles. In addition, revel owns the vehicles, and different drivers will use the same car through different shifts, which could become a long-term advantage for the TLC as fewer cars will be on the street.

This would also line up with the Legislature items 634-B and 890-B, which would alleviate short-term leases and provide drivers with guaranteed wages, benefits, and vacation time.

The Bottom Line

The issue is this: Congestion is a real issue in the city. And while EVs only making up .5% of the total taxi fleet in the Big Apple, there is evidently no room for more vehicles, of any kind, in the City. Over time, the concentration of EV Taxis in the City that Never Sleeps will surely rise, but the existing vehicles need to be removed from the licensing pool before Revel can unleash its 50 all-electric Model Y taxis.

To summarize it easily, Fromberg said: “The TLC is fully committed to a 100% electrified future, just not at the cost of additional congestion.”

Advertisement

A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.

I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!

-Joey


On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!

Advertisement

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead

The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.

Published

on

By

The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.

On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.

Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption

Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.

Advertisement

The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.

The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.

The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

Published

on

elon musk
Ministério Das Comunicações, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.

The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.

The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.

Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package

Advertisement

The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”

The New York Post initially reported the story.

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”

Advertisement

The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.

McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.

The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.

Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.

Advertisement

After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.

Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.

The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.

Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.

Advertisement

A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison

The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | X

The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.

The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.

Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.

Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature

Advertisement

In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.

Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.

That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.

Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.

Advertisement

The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.

Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.

Advertisement

Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.

It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.

It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.

In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.

Advertisement

At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.

The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading