Flying taxis are closer to reality than ever, with companies like Archer Aviation and Joby Aviation targeting 2028 for commercial operations, but an unlikely obstacle threatens to derail the entire industry: state lawmakers are inadvertently banning the public-private partnerships needed to build vertiports. While the technology itself is advancing rapidly, the policy framework governing where these aircraft can land and charge is becoming the real bottleneck .

The promise of electric vertical takeoff-and-landing aircraft, or eVTOLs, has captured imaginations for decades. Unlike traditional helicopters, eVTOLs use multiple small electric motors driving distributed propellers, which dramatically reduces noise and operating costs. Companies such as Archer Aviation, Joby Aviation, and Beta Technologies are developing eVTOL aircraft capable of carrying four or five passengers over distances of less than 200 miles . The appeal is straightforward: quieter, cheaper, and cleaner than helicopters, with the potential to revolutionize urban transportation.

But there is a critical infrastructure problem that few people are discussing. eVTOLs need vertiports, specialized facilities where they can take off, land, charge, and be serviced. Unlike traditional airports, vertiports are relatively small and could be built on rooftops, parking structures, or dedicated sites. The challenge is that most vertiports will need to be publicly accessible to support multiple operators, which means they require careful policy design to balance public access with private investment .

Why Vertiports Matter More Than You Think?

The infrastructure demands are substantial. For eVTOLs to move beyond niche operations, the industry needs high-tempo operations and large fleets. An October 2025 Aviation Week article catalogued the demise of 13 advanced air mobility (AAM) manufacturers over the past two years, including some previously considered market leaders . This sobering reality underscores that without proper infrastructure, the entire industry could collapse before it gets off the ground.

Currently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies vertiports as a type of heliport and has issued interim design guidance. However, state and local governments will likely play the dominant role in approving vertiports' locations, designs, construction, and operations . This is where policy becomes critical. About 90 percent of the 5,633 heliports operating in the United States are privately owned and operated, according to FAA data . Most small vertiports will follow this model with little taxpayer risk. But larger, publicly accessible vertiports in cities require a different approach.

One promising solution involves public-private partnerships where cities lease underused public assets to vertiport developers. Many central business districts still face reduced office occupancy post-pandemic, leaving multistory parking structures with excess capacity. These structures offer exactly what vertiport developers need: obstacle clearance and strong ground transportation connections. Cities could revitalize these underperforming assets while the AAM industry expands its footprint at lower cost .

How to Support Vertiport Development Without Taxpayer Risk

• Concession Model: Allow private developers to finance and build vertiport infrastructure on public property through long-term leases, transferring financial risk from taxpayers to private investors while maintaining public access and oversight.
• Parking Structure Conversion: Leverage vacant or underused parking facilities in downtown areas by leasing rooftop or upper-deck space to vertiport operators, creating dual benefits for cities and the AAM industry.
• Flexible Zoning: Establish clear regulatory pathways for vertiport development that allow exclusive operating agreements while maintaining federal requirements for public access and non-discrimination among competing operators.

Unfortunately, state lawmakers have inadvertently prohibited these beneficial partnerships. Arkansas, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia have enacted "open access" public-use vertiport mandates, and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council has adopted this framework as model legislation . In 2026, variants of this legislation were introduced in Arizona and Iowa . While well-intentioned, these laws create two major problems.

First, they prohibit government agencies from granting exclusive rights to public-use vertiport operators, effectively banning concession contracts. Proponents argue this prevents monopolization, but federal aviation law already solves that problem. Public-use vertiports, by definition, are open to the public and cannot discriminate among competing eVTOL operators . There is no need for an additional layer of "open access" because it is already embedded in the definition of public use.

Second, these state laws generally mandate FAA review of vertiport layout plans in circumstances where the agency lacks the legal authority to conduct such reviews. This creates a Kafkaesque compliance problem where developers must navigate contradictory requirements. The easiest solution would be to fund vertiports with federal grants, which would create an FAA "zone of interest" and trigger formal review . However, federal vertiport grants do not appear to be forthcoming, and limiting public-use vertiport projects to only those subsidized by Congress is a strange way to foster competition.

The irony is stark. State lawmakers are trying to promote competition and spur vertiport development, but their approach is achieving the opposite. By banning the concession model and creating regulatory confusion, they are making it harder for private developers to finance vertiports without public subsidies. This could slow the entire eVTOL industry just as it reaches the critical moment of commercialization .

The 2028 target for commercial eVTOL operations in time for the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games is ambitious but achievable from a technology standpoint. Companies are deep into regulatory certification with the FAA and international counterparts. The real race, however, is not about aircraft development. It is about whether policymakers can fix the vertiport policy framework before well-meaning but counterproductive state laws become entrenched across the country. Without that fix, the flying taxi dream could remain grounded for years to come.