Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
27 USE CASE SCENARIO 3 Urban Chauffeur Fully Automated Tailored Mobility Service Natasha Merat, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom David Agnew, Continental Automotive NA, Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA Robert Denaro, ITS Consultant, Long Grove, Illinois, USA Oliver Carsten, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom Roberto Arditi, SINA Group, Milan, Italy, Richard Bishop, Bishop Consulting, Granite, Maryland, USA Ginger Goodin, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, USA Risto Kulmala, Finnish Transport Agency, Helsinki, Finland Aria Etemad, Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany Steven E. Shladover, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA Keir Fitch, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium Jane Lappin, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Presentation of use Case sCenario 3, urban Chauffeur: fully automateD tailoreD mobility serviCe Natasha Merat and David Agnew Natasha Merat and David Agnew, the planning com- mittee champions for Use Case Scenario 3, described this scenario. They summarized the system concept, the operation, the time frame, and the sectoral perspectives. The full text of the use case is given in Appendix C. Merat reviewed Table 8 and the key characteristics of the urban chauffeur use case. The use case focused on highly automated vehicles (Level 4) that would oper- ate on limited urban routes on which a driver was not required for vehicle control. Users would not own the vehicles. The system concept included vehicles operat- ing on roads shared with other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, all following a designated route or constrained within a designated area, as well as the use of highly accurate mapping and sensing. Merat noted that it was anticipated that the urban chauffeur service would be operated by the public sector and cited the Google vehi- cle and the EU CityMobil2 projects as examples of the anticipated approach. The scenario envisioned vehicles that would provide transportation to local destinations along routes or within designated areas as part of an integrated public transportation system. A user would be able to summon a vehicle on command through a call point or a smart- phone. Transporting a single passenger, multiple pas- sengers, and parcels would all be possible. The system would provide mobility to all age groups and users, as users would not need to have driving capabilities. Agnew suggested that the urban chauffeur use case could be deployed within the next 10 years. The system would provide independent mobility to individuals who did not own a vehicle, those without driving skills, and people with physical limitations for vehicle operation. Users would be able to engage in other tasks during a trip. The system would reduce the need to purchase and maintain a vehicle. He noted that, from a user perspec- tive, potential limitations that might need additional attention included ensuring system availability, the geo- graphic area covered, vehicle speed and wait times, the cost of use, safety, and the overall experience. Agnew noted that potential benefits for cities included a dramatic reduction in the number of parked vehicles, which would free space for other uses. The reduction in private transport might reduce congestion and emissions while
28 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N increasing the use of existing public transportation. Urban areas might become safer and more attractive, especially for vulnerable road users (VRUs). The potential limitations of this use case scenario for cities included ensuring safe com- munication and interaction between all vehicles and user groups and the emergence of adapted VRU behaviors. Agnew also discussed potential benefits and limita- tions of the urban chauffeur scenario for businesses. The potential benefits included opening markets for services and advertising while individuals were in tran- sit and not driving and the possibility that, although the scenario was envisioned as being publically oper- ated, it might also include new urban mobility services offered by the private sector. The potential limitations included reduction in the personal ownership of vehi- cles, changing business models, and different relation- ships between public authorities, data service providers, regulators, and businesses. breaKout grouP a Robert Denaro and Oliver Carsten Oliver Carsten summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group A. He commented that par- ticipants expressed positive reactions to this use case sce- nario and identified numerous opportunities associated with it. A key opportunity cited by some participants was increasing mobility for all members of society, especially youth, the elderly, individuals with special needs, and individuals with limited incomes. Additional opportuni- ties identified were ⢠Enhancing public transport services by making them more environmentally friendly and reducing transit travel times and ⢠Reducing the need for parking, which would allow current parking lots to be used for other purposes and save individuals the cost of parking. Some participants stated that many of the elements in the use case would be beneficial in all parts of urban and rural areas, not just city centers. Barriers suggested by the participants included ⢠The possible perception that the service was for low-income individuals; ⢠Potential opposition from the parking industry; ⢠Concerns about personal security, especially for young and older individuals; and ⢠Reluctance by municipalities to implement auto- mated mobility services because of limited resources and concerns about rapidly evolving technologies making the system outdated. Carsten noted that the group discussed possible incen- tives that would encourage cities and communities to become early adopters of automated mobility services. Carsten reported on six research topics identified by different participants in the breakout group. The two topics that received the strongest support were ⢠Identification and implementation of an urban test case of a fully automated tailored mobility service in one city or a few cities and ⢠Development of a concept of operations plan for operating the automated mobility service in shared spaces on city streets. Other research topics that were suggested were ⢠Legal issues associated with implementation, ⢠Paths to deployment involving both private- and public-sector groups, and ⢠Potential staging approaches. Carsten noted that participants also suggested that devel- oping best practice guidance based on the results of ini- tial tests and deployment would be beneficial. breaKout grouP b Roberto Arditi and Richard Bishop Richard Bishop summarized discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group B. Noting that the partici- TABLE 8 Key Characteristics of Use Case 3: Urban Chauffeur Use Case Level of Automation (SAE) Speed (mph) Dedicated Space Private or Public Examples Available Now (Projects) Interaction with Infrastructurea 1. Freeway Platooning 2â3 High (>70) Possibly both Both Sartre, Peloton 3 2. Automated City Center 3â4 Low (10â40) No Both AdaptIVe 4 3. Urban Chauffeur 4 Low (<30) Both Public Google, CityMobil2 5 a1 = low, 5 = high.
29U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 3 : U R B A N C H A U F F E U R pants in the group were generally optimistic about the automated mobility services scenario, he listed the fol- lowing examples of opportunities associated with the scenario that were identified by individual participants: provision of mobility to diverse groups; reduction of the need for vehicle parking, thereby freeing parking facili- ties for other uses; and provision of more usable time for drivers. Some participants noted that this use case shifted vehicle ownership to vehicle usership, which would rep- resent a major change. Potential barriers discussed by breakout group participants included automated vehi- cles interacting with nonautomated vehicles, public acceptance, liability in the case of vehicle malfunctions or crashes, and security concerns. Bishop reviewed 10 of the 24 research topics identi- fied by participants in the breakout group: ⢠Learning computation functions to enable a more robust operation, ⢠The potential for unintended interaction with other users, ⢠Product liability and negligent concerns, ⢠Links to citywide traffic management systems, ⢠Implementation of the urban chauffer concept in small-scale demonstrations, ⢠Implementation of the concept in larger-scale deployments, ⢠Minimum vehicle-to-vehicle requirements for the service, ⢠Gap analysis to identify the technology needs to achieve the most robust operation, ⢠Enhanced traffic modeling techniques to integrate urban chauffeur operations, and ⢠Identification of critical digital infrastructure needs and vulnerabilities. breaKout grouP C Ginger Goodin and Risto Kulmala Ginger Goodin summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group C. Examples of poten- tial benefits suggested by some participants in the group included improving mobility for all groups, enhancing the livability of cities, repurposing parking areas, and improving safety. Some of the possible barriers discussed in the group were public perception and acceptance, technology costs, and security threats. Goodin indicated that different participants discussed both social acceptance of the urban chauffeur scenario and the readiness of technology to operate the service. Developing, testing, and using standards for ensuring that the automated mobility service vehicles and system were safe for all users was one research topic discussed by participants. Participants suggested that an accep- tance testing protocol would include minimum standards and performance requirements. Goodin noted that par- ticipants indicated that an EU-U.S.-developed protocol would be beneficial for all public- and private-sector groups. Another research topic discussed in the group was examining alternative business models and publicâ private partnerships for developing, testing, and deploy- ing fully automated mobility services, including the supporting infrastructure. Goodin reported that some participants suggested that transitional business models might be appropriate in some situations and that field operation tests (FOTs) could be used to gain experience with alternative publicâprivate models. She noted that participants discussed the benefits of learning from the experiences with the different approaches being used in the CitiMobil2 projects, including policies to support various aspects of the demonstrations. Goodin reported that other research topics identi- fied by some participants in the breakout group focused on public acceptance of automated mobility services, liability issues, and privacy concerns. Developing and applying a methodology for assessing the impacts, ben- efits, and costs of automated mobility services and other high-level automation scenarios was also identified as a research topic by some participants. breaKout grouP D Aria Etemad and Steven E. Shladover Steven Shladover summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group D. Opportunities with this use case identified by different participants included improving the economic viability of urban areas, reduc- ing the density of private vehicles in urban centers, and providing mobility options for all groups. Participants also suggested that the automated mobility services sce- nario would allow for the productive use of travel time by individuals and would enhance safety for VRUs. Pos- sible barriers discussed by some breakout group partici- pants were ⢠Necessary infrastructure modifications and main- tenance costs, ⢠Developing and maintaining vehicle storage areas, ⢠Interaction of automated vehicles with other road users, ⢠Public acceptance and trust, ⢠Cost and equity implications, and ⢠Unintended consequences.
30 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N Shladover reported that the participants discussed sev- eral research topics and identified four priority research projects: ⢠Development of system performance requirements for higher-speed operation, ⢠FOTs to examine different vehicle and infrastruc- ture needs, ⢠Examination of behavioral norms to guide auto- mated vehicle development, and ⢠Alternative business models, including those pro- viding land development opportunities. Shladover noted that some participants suggested that FOTs could provide a focal point for developing public under- standing and acceptance of automated mobility services and road transport automation in general. He suggested that FOTs also provide valuable insight into vehicle and infra- structure needs as well as interaction with other road users. breaKout grouP e David Agnew and Keir Fitch Keir Fitch summarized the discussion of the use case sce- nario for Breakout Group E. Opportunities the participants associated with the scenario included managing congestion, enhancing transit, and improving mobility for diverse user groups. Some participants suggested that the urban chauffer concept could be part of an overall smart cities approach. Possible barriers discussed by participants focused on deployment costs, ensuring safe pickup and drop-off areas, and regulating government vehicle safety features. Fitch summarized the research topics identified and discussed by individual breakout group participants, as follows: ⢠The humanâmachine interface and automated chauffeur for the first and last mile; ⢠Achievement of a balance between mass transit and personal transit or mobility; ⢠Identification of where automated vehicles would be most appropriate; ⢠Design of safe pickup and drop-off areas; ⢠Investigation and development of different business models for deployment, as well as alternate approaches for urban, suburban, and rural areas; ⢠Vehicle and infrastructure design criteria to enhance access by individuals with special needs; ⢠Use of automated mobility services to replace exist- ing paratransit services; ⢠How to balance escort trips, such as taking children to school, with the positioning of empty vehicles; and ⢠The business case for automation. David Agnew noted that some participants also discussed potential safety concerns and technical challenges, as well as possible links between the urban chauffeur sce- nario, global vehicles, and urban planning. breaKout grouP f Natasha Merat and Jane Lappin Natasha Merat summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Break Group F. She noted that much of the discussion focused on conducting FOTs, although other potential research topics were also identified. Merat reported that different breakout group participants dis- cussed the FOTs under way in the EU. Some participants suggested that FOTs provide a mechanism to obtain real- world experience with different road transport automa- tion scenarios, including automated mobility services. It was noted that the information obtained from the FOTs on user experiences, customer acceptance, technology, business models, legal issues, and other topics was impor- tant for accelerating deployment of automated vehicles. Merat reported that some participants noted that there were more FOTs and demonstration projects under way in the European Union than in the United States. Partici- pants suggested that developing a business case for more FOTs in the United States would be beneficial. Merat noted that many participants suggested that conducting FOTs focused on different automated mobility service applications in different geographical settings in the European Union and in the United States would be benefi- cial. The FOTs could address different levels, such as fully separated systems, interaction with other vehicles, and interaction with VRUs, as well as different user needs. Par- ticipants suggested that sharing the results of these FOTs and developing best case practices between the European Union and the United States would be beneficial. There was also discussion of the need to include customers in the development of automated mobil- ity services and discussion of technology options and deployment alternatives. Participants suggested that identifying common needs and common barriers associ- ated with the development and use of automated mobil- ity services in the European Union and the United States would be beneficial. oPen DisCussion In the open session, individual symposium participants provided additional comments on the merits, opportuni- ties, barriers, and possible research topics associated with the urban chauffeur use case scenario. Much time was spent discussing the FOTs, demonstrations, and pilot proj-
31U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 3 : U R B A N C H A U F F E U R ects that were suggested as research topics in the urban chauffeur use case and the other two use case scenarios. It was suggested that demonstrations involving a few vehi- cles were much different from demonstrations involving 1,000 vehicles and that large-scale demonstrations involv- ing 10,000 vehicles were even more complex. It was noted that large-scale projects may be moving forward in China. Some participants suggested the importance of FOTs as learning tools but also stressed that it was important to clearly define the goals and objectives of projects, the evaluation measures being used, and the elements being tested. Participants also discussed the potential differences between FOTs, demonstrations, pilot projects, and deploy- ments. It was suggested that the use of the term âFOTâ implied a rigorous pre- and postevaluation process. Other participants said that the exact terms should not stand in the way of moving forward with testing different technolo- gies, services, and delivery methods. It was noted that out- lining the basic elements of an evaluation plan that could be shared among all groups would be beneficial. Different participants discussed the need for both smaller and larger FOTs or demonstrations, noting that lessons can be learned from projects of all sizes. The time it takes to develop political and public support for projects was dis- cussed, and sharing examples of successful approaches for building support was suggested. Other suggestions included review of the demonstrations the military is conducting for transporting injured soldiers on bases and consideration of Google vehicles in demonstrations. Symposium participants suggested that while FOTs and demonstrations should be pursued, research is also needed on several topics to help advance the urban chauffeur scenario. Expanding on the breakout group summaries, participants suggested research focused on policy and legal issues, human factors, and benefits to cities from the urban chauffeur use case scenario. Other research needs discussed by participants included model- ing the traffic impacts of different types of services, exam- ining the interaction with existing public transit services, and assessing approaches to build public acceptance.
