In the US, more medium-sized cities and suburbs have taken the lead on AV shuttles, notably ones without what this native New Yorker would call robust transit systems. That trend continues.
Providence, RI: Providence will be using cute AV shuttles from May Mobility for its AV pilot program, set to start in the spring of 2019. This is a Rhode Island DOT project. The shuttles will seat six passengers and will travel in a place that does not currently have a fixed route bus "and is being eyed for new development."
Columbus, OH: Columbus, Ohio, a pretty car-centric city with pockets of walkability, is working hard to become and to tout itself as a smart city. Now it has a cute AV shuttle for its downtown, where most people are driving to, that has a fixed route with four stops. This is another May Mobility coup and the vehicle is different than the usual cute shuttle. It looks like a cross between a car, which it is often called, and a shuttle. There's a separate driver area and then a passenger area with four seats that face each other.
True ambition lies elsewhere
Forget limiting AV thoughts to ridehailing and cute shuttle vehicles, Japan is thinking AV transit, as in BRT - bus rapid transit. After all, fixed route seems to make for easier AV programming and operations than even geofenced AV transportation. Also, why limit to 4, 10, or 15 passengers on a route that is better suited for 60 to get on board? Japan's Mobility Innovation Consortium, which includes several partners, the national railway company among them, is ready to test AV buses "to evaluate self-driving technologies for bus transit applications, including automated lane-maintenance control, speed control, parking assist, and alternating passage tests on JR East’s Bus Rapid Transit lines."
It's a long story, but suffice it to say that the 2011 earthquake and tsunami had a role in shifting from a rail line to BRT in the area being discussed.
Proceeding with caution is wise PR move
I've seen criticism of the decision to hold onto backup drivers. What's wrong with proceeding with caution? As a critic of companies that seek to innovate without taking responsibility for safety, I am glad to see Waymo continue to take baby steps.
Now in California, where Waymo is the only company allowed to operate AVs without a backup driver, Waymo has hosted public meetings in Silicon Valley, where it plans to expand testing of its AV cars. People with disabilities are showing up, actually the blind community, and so are seemingly affluent neighbors, some of whom are supportive of the technology and the company, while others remain skeptical. Honestly, it is difficult to tell from the news coverage where the local public opinion percentages fall on the spectrum from support to total NIMBY (not in my backyard).
Senate still mulling over recipe for safety vs innovation, as if they are opposite sides of the coin
An Uber internal memo warned of insufficient safety training, procedures, incentives, and enforcement right before the Arizona crash that killed Elaine Herzberg. The Uber employee who penned the memo sent it to top Uber executives and company lawyers. Perhaps a complaint to the bar of whatever states where those lawyers are licensed to practice law is in order. [Editor's note: Since I do not pay for The Information, which published the Uber memo, I have not read the actual words about the Uber employee's concerns.]
This leads me to chat for a moment about the AV START Act negotiations to make the bill palatable to its longtime opponents so that it can quickly pass by the end of the month, when the current Congress finishes its session. A major theme of the opposition is that government's role - in this case NHTSA - is to create an even and safe playing field for partially and fully AV technology. Proponents of the legislation do not want laws or regulations standing in the way of corporate and startup innovation.
Tell that to the family of Elaine Herzberg and the people who have perished in their expensive Teslas. The fact that Elon Musk can get away with his misleading statements about what is required of drivers operating one of his Autopilot cars is beyond me. Lawyers take note: That 60 Minutes interview of Musk is just one good piece of evidence against Tesla.
Watch at 12 minutes, 30 seconds into the interview to see Musk in the driver's seat - his hands are not on the wheel. He's having a conversation and his hands are resting in his lap.
Tesla and Elon Musk represent a perfect example of why we need government regulation. No one wants a corporation testing them in a potentially deadly game that involves a machine not designed to comport with human nature. Tesla owners might be willing to be test subjects, but not the rest of us. After the fact is too late, no matter how big the settlement. I much prefer having a government that makes sure that safety is assessed prior to sale and operation on public roads. We can't guarantee safety, but we can do way better than the roadway violence numbers we see on roads around the world.
