More Pilots and Actual Game Changer Possibilities

Columbus, Ohio - a city sorely in need of better schools, land use and a boost in economic development. The city, which has limited walkable neighborhoods and is currently split by highways and areas of true urban blight, is banking on its smart city plans, which now include an AV pilot. Lots of high hopes: "'This is just the beginning," said Jim Barna, the executive director of Drive Ohio. "We envision this really transforming us from a state that's known for agriculture and manufacturing to a state that's known for its advancements in technology.'"

The Columbus AV shuttle pilot, fare free for riders, will operate downtown near the COSI science museum (a great place for kids) and it will operate everyday for a year, traveling at speeds of up to 15 mph. Yet to be determined is whether service will continue once the year is up. Transit bus drivers are pissed and they are already protesting. The pilot will be using May Mobility AV shuttles. May Mobility is located in Ann Arbor, MI. One report states that passenger service will begin in December 2018.

Photo by Mechelle S. on Foursquare.

Maybe Columbus should bank instead on Graeter's ice cream, a homegrown business that has served its customers well since 1870 and has expanded way beyond the Midwest. The photo is from the Bexley location.

Bryan, Texas - A city in Southeast Texas with a walkable downtown and roadways that are controlled by the city rather than the state's department of transportation, TXDOT, Bryan will be launching an AV trolley - no tracks - with room for only six passengers (really four after the two staff per vehicle). The AVs will operate for"two hours each day between the hours of 10 AM and 4 PM, Monday through Friday. After these first 30 days, there is an opportunity for the schedule to be modified."

The AV program is a partnership between Bryan and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Service will begin next month.

Some More Slow Shuttles in Europe

Luxembourg has launched two pilots this week, one in Luxembourg City and the other in Contern, both in time for Europe's Mobility Week (see video below). These use Navya vehicles.

Cheap AV pod

Is the AV DragonFly pod a harbinger of a game changer that will replace utopian visions of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) with more of the auto-centric landscape we have now? Yes, it is only meant for private or quiet roadways; yes, it only travels at speeds of up to a meagre 20 mph. BUT the DragonFly only costs $40,000 - quite affordable for individuals who live in retirement or closed communities, and affordable for colleges and universities, for office parks, and places like airports. The DragonFly is manufactured by a company called PerceptIn, which has offices in California and China.

Renault is expanding on its EZ-Go AV concept design with adaptable truck/pop-up shop pods that could operate solo or in Brio-like convoys. Yes, it has been pointed out that the Renault announcement comes on the heels of last week's Ikea AV adaptable pods that can be used as mobile offices, medical clinics, or hotel rooms, among other uses.

Pretty soon, we'll be living and traveling in AV tiny house/offices and eating at pop-up food truck parks.

Rant - 2nd Part

As we, well I, wait for the USDOT to issue its AV Guidelines 3.0, I am thinking a lot about the momentum that has built up in the roll out of AV pilots. These are mostly AV shuttles, but some are taxi-like ridehailing services. At the same time, organizations are pushing the ideal of urbanist utopias of livable cities and suburbs, with multi-modal choices, on-demand availability of transportation, and a walking paradise.

This vision is being somewhat differently articulated by the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO), the American Planning Association (APA), and AARP, among others.  For AARP, this means universal MaaS, designed to maximize mobility for the one-third of Americans - including many seniors - who do not drive. For NACTO, it means prioritizing pedestrians, transit, and biking.

These dreams do not actually have anything to do with AVs in particular, but with the hopes that:

• AVs will be expensive to own, will be operated in fleets, and will mostly provide shared rides, whether on a route or on demand. Thus, it is hoped, there will be an environment ripe for fostering more local and regional transit-based or transit-like transportation systems. Yes, but - While we might not have to pay for a driver, there will be other costs, and those should not be ignored. We also do not know whether prices to own AVs will come down quickly to levels that mimic our current auto-based transportation system.
• AVs will promote better cities. When one looks around the world, there are wonderful examples of vibrant cities with fabulous networks of pedestrian infrastructure, public spaces, transit, and supplementary taxi and ridehailing services. There are also examples of the opposite. The political will and public support to achieve urban transportation vibrancy has nothing to do with whether a human being or software is doing the driving.
• AVs will promote Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Just as likely at this point are a continuation of a transportation network that relies mainly on privately owned automobiles OR a frequent-flyer-type system where transportation companies, including transit - offering one or more modes - offer loyalty rewards. Yes, we might end up with a world of nice integrated, coordinated, and transportation-mode-enhancing MaaS packages of multi-modal choices, but this is NOT guaranteed.

Not a legal brief

In a legal brief it is advisable to address the other's side's argument and why it does not work. But in the utopian visions that have been rolled out in the last couple of years, we only see the world through urbanist rose-colored glasses. Since the US in particular is not, on the whole, a particularly urbanist place, unlike much of Europe and limited parts of Asia and the UK, it is quite possible that we will see something different than a rational, equitable, accessible, blah, blah, blah, transportation system.

On the road now

How do AV pilots square with the urbanist utopias being dreamed up for livable cities and suburbs of multi-modal choices, on-demand availability of transportation, and a walking paradise?

In the US, we are seeing mainly suburban first-mile/last-mile shuttles, such as those in California and Texas. True center city use is only happening in Las Vegas. We are seeing university campus shuttles in Michigan and plans for a Delaware campus. Yes, and lots of demos here and there. We are seeing AV-as-private-taxi for single rider use in Arizona by Waymo, but also in Village retirement communities in Florida and California.

It is way too early to assume that those one-third of Americans whom AARP states do not drive, whether because of young or old age, disability, license revocation, illness, expensive parking, or preference, will have good affordable, accessible, frequent, and reliable transportation options when AVs arrive en masse.

Beyond the rant

If we want the urbanist dream, and I am partial to it, then it cannot only be argued for, but also shaped with private companies that are designing vehicles and software. Politicians in places beyond a relatively few transit-rich cities will need public support and dedicated advocacy for us to realize a better transportation system than we have now. And, really, this has nothing to do with whether there is a human driver or an AV. AV is the excuse for change, but we could change right now. (Yes, there are some changes now and in many places, but I don't see huge percentage modal shifts yet.)

AVs ≠ Fulfilling Every Hope and Dream for Better Transit, Shared-Use Utopias, and Livable Cities

Lately, I am seeing lots of conflation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) - or should I shift to the term automated vehicles? - with every wish for a better passenger transportation system and improvements to city infrastructure relating to livability.

AVs do NOT equal - 

Reliable, convenient, frequent, affordable and/or on-demand transportation anywhere and everywhere.

Note to society: AVs will cost money to produce, maintain, and repair. They will not be free. Therefore, whether we stick with a transportation system of mostly privately owned vehicles or we shift to shared-use and transit services, we will still have to invest resources. AND if we truly want the kind of quality transit enjoyed in major cities (and some smaller ones) in several other countries around the world, then more than wishful thinking will be required.

Accessible transportation for people with disabilities, people with strollers, people with luggage or athletic gear, or people with grocery carts. 

Accessibility of vehicles and interfaces to communicate with vehicles or request systems have nothing to do with whether a human driver or some kind of artificial intelligence software is operating a vehicle. We did not accomplish transportation equity with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) almost 30 years ago and we will not automatically accomplish it if all we do is convert conventional vehicle designs to AVs.

There are some promising signs when I look at the Local Motors' latest iteration of its Olli AV shuttle, which was designed with people who have a range of different disabilities, and the Renault EZ-Go concept AV, which shows people getting onto the vehicle with wheelchairs, strollers and luggage.

Increasing and improving rural transportation options.

Again, AVs will not be free AND profit for private operators, whether these are car companies or tech startups, will require either a certain density of population or high fares per ride. Rural communities, regions, and states will be compelled to find a different business model. Broadband is critical for AVs and for any kind of rural economic development outside of yoga or other monastic retreats. Adapting the rural cooperative model for AV shared and transit services would be a good idea - though still requiring public investment.

Rural land use decisions will also have to change. It is unsustainable for any fleet to provide separate rides to every destination for every person. The school should be located next to the supermarket, which would be next to healthcare facilities, which would be next to employment hubs, etc.

Otherwise few AVs will be seen in rural areas and those will be for long-distance tourist journeys and affluent owners of second homes.

More livable cities.

AVs have little to do with better, more livable cities, which, in terms of my transportation mind, means better pedestrian infrastructure, biking access, and public spaces. Those can be, and, in some places, are being implemented now. One aspect of the AV livability goal for urbanists is avoiding the huge mistakes of the auto revolution, which decimated most US cities.

But the true transportation livability vision with MaaS (mobility as a service) and great transit and shared-use modes, and lovely walkable streets, and pretty public spaces has absolutely nothing to do with who or what is driving the vehicles.