Oct 2017, "This Atlas is the world’s first inventory of how cities around the globe are preparing for the transition to a world with AVs. As cities seek to learn from one another, they can look to this map for up-to-date information on what’s underway worldwide...." Read more Hmmmm... Impressive, but, no Morgantown, no Greensboro, no Masdar, no Mountain View, no Phoenix, no Heathrowe, no Rivium, no... ???
Oct 27, "If you thought Uber was a disruptor, wait until automated vehicles (AVs) backed by smartphone apps for "mobility on demand" begin to eat into taxi and public bus services in the early 2020s, then begin to disrupt car ownership in the late 2020s....According to research by the Goldman Sachs Group, less than 10 per cent of travel in North America is taken in non-personally owned vehicles. However, report author Bern Grush – a systems engineer and futurist – says that by 2030, that percentage may climb to 25 per cent or higher as more people turn to robo-taxis, micro-transit and ride sharing. Why? Because automation will make these systems more reliable and far cheaper than today's taxi and bus services — and even personal ownership, for an increasing number of travellers.'
...Grush encourages governments to prepare for this future by determining now how to influence the role AVs — especially fleets of shared AVs — will have in cities and towns. The key to harnessing this technology is for governments and the private sector to work together to implement a regulatory system that will enhance mobility for all, Grush says. And that's where his concept, the Harmonization Management System (HMS), comes into play. This system would provide the digital tools to incorporate a subsidy and pricing system, and optimize the distribution and social performance of commercial fleets.." Read more Hmmmm... See also video. Read the Report The goal in managing the fleet(s) is to come up with the Pricing/Level-of-Service(LoS)/Marketing that results in a propensity of Ride-Sharing. Using Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) (defined as: sum(real person trip miles) / sum(vehicle miles) as the measure, the desire is for each day's AVO to be as large as possible. A reasonable goal/expectation of say doubling what it is today. Even though today's Ontario AVO for all vehicle trips is not much higher than 1.0 and likely well under 2.0 a doubling of the AVO would have a major impact. Energy, pollution, GHG, noise, ... would be cut in half. Moreover, in order to achieve a daily 2.0 AVO, the peak-hour, peak-direction (where the real opportunity to share rides exists) AVOs would likely be triple or more of what they are now (else you don't get to doubling for the entire day). That means that 2 or more out of three vehicles in today's congested road segments would disappear. Viola...end of congestion!!! However, this occurs only if Ride-Sharing is embraced and attained :-); which may not be easy :-(. Alain
M. Powers,
Oct 20, "A man
pressing his
body too close
on a crowded
train. A
stranger
sitting across
the center
aisle of a
bus,
whispering
obscenities. A
group of men
standing at a
bus stop,
freely sharing
their thoughts
about a woman
waiting a few
feet away.
As women
around the
United States
and across the
world share
their
experiences
with sexual
harassment and
assault as
part of the
“#MeToo”
hashtag
campaign, a
theme is
emerging. Many
of these
experiences
take place on
public
transit.
...Despite the prevalence of public awareness campaigns, Loukaitou-Sideris said transit agencies and transportation planners don’t take the problem of harassment seriously enough...." Read more Hmmmm... Shame on them. All of this is UNACCEPTABLE and MUST stop. Men have to start behaving, else forget about any hope to have ride-sharing aTaxis. What is the #MeToo in elevators? Alain
Press
release, Oct.
24, "Delphi
Automotive PLC
(NYSE: DLPH)
announced
today that it
has signed an
agreement to
acquire
nuTonomy, Inc.
for an upfront
purchase price
of $400
million and
earn-outs
totaling
approximately
$50 million.
The
transaction
brings
together the
leading
start-up and
Tier 1 in
autonomous
driving (AD)
and further
accelerates
Delphi's
commercialization
of AD and
Automated
Mobility
on-Demand
(AMoD)
solutions for
automakers and
new mobility
customers
worldwide...."
Read
more Hmmmm... Congratulations Karl and Emilo! Alain
M. DeBord,
Oct. 24, "...
s CEO Mary
Barra
explained on a
conference
call with
analysts after
earnings were
announced, "GM
and Cruise
Automation
recently
deployed our
latest
generation
self-driving
electric test
vehicle." She
added. "We
believe it
will meet the
redundancy and
safety
requirements
necessary to
operate
without a
driver. It is
our third
generation of
AV technology
in just 14
months."
The
third-generation
isn't going to
be around that
long, however.
In response to
a question
from Morgan
Stanley
analysts Adam
Jonas, Barra
said that
"we're working
on our fourth
generation,
that's where
our focus is
right
now."..." Read
more Hmmmm... We now have 'Generations' of "Levels' of
automation".
Is anyone not
confused?
Does Wall
Street really
love confusion
(or is it lipstick
on a pig)
? Alain
A. Gregg,
Oct 19, "Years
after
Detroit’s auto
companies
joined the
race to
develop
self-driving
cars, the
world’s
biggest
plane-makers
now say they
see a coming
revolution in
autonomous,
on-demand
flight.
Chicago-based
aerospace
manufacturer
Boeing has
been stepping
up its
investment in
the
technologies
that enable
autonomous
flight in
recent
months..." Read more Hmmmm... A while ago I postulated the situation in
which
Pilotless
airplanes
might use all
of the many
small airports
dispersed
throughout the
US to provide
affordable
on-demand air
services
between these
many diverse
places. This
could be an
enormously
enhanced
mobility
opportunity.
Think
about it:
Current air
services are
actually worse
that the worse
public transit
services.
Service is
offered
between what
is really a
very few major
airports that
each have a
"last 50, or
even 100 mile
access
challenge";
has
frequencies of
" a couple of
times a day"
except for a
hand-full of
markets;
require you to
show up at
least an hour
before the
"bus" comes;
sardines you
into a narrow
chair, and
then makes you
transfer to
another
"crowded bus"
in
"Charlotte",
the transfer
time measured
in hours. NO
public transit
service is
that bad!
The
reason it is
that bad is
because you
need lots of
people on each
plane to each
pitch in to
pay for the
pilots (why
are there
2???), and the
flight
attendants
(why are there
so many???)
(and, i know,
the cost of
the fuel
because drag
goes up as
V-cubed and
amortizing the
cap-cost is a
challenge.
But the labor
charge is
still
substantial).
Now
consider small
planes,
traveling
on-demand
between small
airports no
more than 10
miles or so
access
challenged
with no pilot
nor flight
attendants,
needing just a
few
ride-sharing
passengers who
have somewhat
common travel
plans.
Revolutionary!?
Alain
F. Fishkin,
Oct 12,
Episode 7.
"....
California to
allow
completely
driverless
vehicle
testing,
advances in
Greenville
County, South
Carolina and
Australia. Is
public ready?
Many Tesla
owners are,
while Intel
hires LeBron
and Waymo
partners with
MADD to push
the technology
forward."
http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/Papers/
A. Martyn,
Oct 20,
"Drivers have
a tendency to
rear end
self-driving
cars on the
road,
according to
early data
from tests
underway in
California....
A total of 19
crashes
involving
self-driving
cars have
been reported
to the state
DMV in
2017,... Dr.
Phil Koopman,
a software
engineer and
Carnegie
Mellon
professor who
works as a
consultant for
self-driving
car companies,
says it’s not
that simple.
He speculates
that people
may be prone
to rear-ending
autonomous
cars because
the “robots”
powering the
cars don’t
quite mimic
the behavior
of human
drivers. ...
Read
more Hmmmm... The more likely explanation is that the
rear-enders
are really par
for the course
and the spread
is because:
the AV
technology
(and competent
& diligent
"test
engineers")
has (have)
precluded a
similar number
of rear-enders
that would
have been the
fault of the
AVs. What is
really
important is
that the score
on crashed so
far in 2017
is: 0 (fault
of AVs) and 19
(fault of non
AVs) whose
best "dog ate
my homework"
excuse is
printed
above. C'Mon
Man!
SmartDrivingCars
are actually
be delivering
fewer
crashes.
Alain
Washington
DC, Oct 20,
"The U.S.
Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
is committed
to the safe
deployment of
automated
vehicles.
NHTSA hosted a
public
workshop today
to get
feedback on
the Voluntary
Safety
Self-Assessments
discussed in
the Automated
Driving
Systems 2.0: A
Vision for
Safety
guidance
released last
month.
...The
workshop ,
overall, was a
productive,
open forum,
where
manufacturers,
suppliers,
safety
advocates, and
other entities
shared the
types of
information
that could be
made
available, and
opportunities
for making
that
information
public. There
were over 100
attendees
present, and
many more who
participated
via a LIVE
Webcast. A
full
transcript
will be
available in
the coming
weeks. " Read
more Hmmmm... Congratulations Nat, I agree that it was
productive.
The comments
the by Global
Automakers,
AAMVA, MEMA
Waymo and AAM
were positive
and helpful.
The
...opening
remarks by
NHTSA Acting
Administrator
Heidi King:
"... At DOT
and NHTSA, of
course, our
central focus
is always on
safety.
NHTSA’s
mission
remains to
help Americans
drive, ride
and walk
safely..." Given that Safety is central, It is unfortunate that
Automated
Driving
systems 2.0
skips over 'Safe-driving'
(ADAS
or Level1/2 or
whatever) and
jumps right
into
Self-driving
(Level 3/4/5
or whatever)
to address Safety.
Essentially
all of the
Automated
Vehicle Safety
achievements
(crash
avoidance,
lane departure
avoidance,
etc..) will be
achieved by Safe-driving
vehicles that
always
over-ride our
failures and
do the right
thing even if
they don't let
us take our
hands off the
wheel or feet
off the
pedals. These
systems are
beginning to
be made
available
today and it
is not an
understatement
to say that
they don't
work as well
as they
should/could
and there is
essentially
total
confusion in
the
marketplace/showroom
about the
capabilities/consumer-expectations
about these
systems.
NHTSA's
5-Star Safety
Ratings
program
doesn't even
consider any
of these
systems.
Since 'Safe-driving'
has the
greatest and
nearest term
potential
impact on
Safety, why is
it NOT part of
this AV
program?
These systems
are being
tested;
shouldn't
NHTSA be
calling for a
Self-assessment of these systems. Safe-driving systems
are beginning
to be here now
and I contend
the public is
totally
confused.
"...Public
trust is
essential to
the
advancement of
automated
technology...."
I wholeheartedly agree!! That trust needs to be
earned and its
first exposure
is mixed.
Anti-lock
brakes and
Electronic
Stability
Control are automated systems that
have earned
public trust
event though
they automatically detect erroneous driver behavior and
automatically
over-ride
those actions
in order to do
the best that
they can to
keep the
driver safe.
But what about
these Safe-driving
(Level 1/2,
...) systems.
These are automated systems
focused on
Safety, yet NHTSA hasn't even bothered to include any of these
systems in its
5-Star
Safety Ratings
program.
The
public is
totally
confused about
what is being
offered and
there seems to
be no public
trust
evernthough
these systems
are the very
foundations of
Self-driving
and Driverless
systems. It
is necessary
that Safety
and public
trust be
established
first in Safe-driving
systems. This
forms the
basis on which
to expand that
public trust
to the
downstream
systems that
deliver other
societal
benefits,
comfort &
convenience
for
Self-driving
and affordable
mobility for
all for
Driverless,
while
providing very
little, if any
incremental
Safety
benefits over
Safe-driving
technology.
So... NHTSA's
1st order of
business
should be to
ensure that Safe-driving
technology
actually works
and is valued
by car buyers.
A substantial part of the problem here is that the
terminology
that is being
used is
totally
confusing.
NHTSA's
decision to
give up on its
original
4-Level
nomenclature
was good, they
just chose to
adopt an even
worse one,
SAE's. It
focuses
entirely on
the details of
the
technology,
rather than on
the value that
is to be
derived from
the
technology. The Levels invoke no
fundamental
cognitive
relationships;
nothing that
would
inspire..."tell
me more". Thus,
engineers
might
eventually pay
attention long
enough to
absorb the
more than 7+/-2
chunks of
cognitive
information
needed to
understand the
differences in
the
"Levels". Unfortunately,
corporate
buyers,
journalists,
planning,
policy and/or
legislative
officials and
the general
public/consumers
remain totally
confused.
I've suggested three categories: Safe-driving...,
Self-driving... and Driverless... Not necessarily perfect,
because the
leader of
Driverless
chose long ago
(~8 years) to
call itself
Self-driving.
Unfortunately,
the term
Self-driving
with human
supervision,
reinforces the
auto
industry's 100-year old business
model
of selling
personal
comfort and
convenience to
consumers.
The auto
industry
doesn't bother
emphasizing
the partial
nature of its
Self-driving.
Waymo has
chosen to add
the prefix
"Fully" in an
effort to
differentiate
itself as
really
Driverless
that is
fundamentally
attractive to
a different
business model
focused on
Fleets
delivering
mobility
services to a
public that
doesn't own
cars. But few
are aware of
the enormous
difference
implied by the
the existence
of the prefix.
In its efforts to engender public trust, NHTSA needs to rethink what it calls these things. An opportunity exists in the re-framing of its Star Ratings, Or maybe, this crash-avoidance technology is so different from the crash-mitigation technology that is NHTSA's sweet-spot, that a new agency or a new division of NHTSA should be created to provide the crash-avoidance safety oversight. Alain
M. Sena,
Vol 4, issue
9,
"UNCERTAINTY
IS TROUBLING
for
businesses,
individuals
and
governments....
In one way or
another, all
businesses,
including and
especially
transport, are
completely
reliant on
four macro
factors:.. I'd add one more: where are children learn and play
.... A United
Nations study
projects world
population to
reach 8.5
billion by
2030, up from
7.5 billion
today, driven
by growth in
developing
countries...India
will have
traded places
with China as
the world’s
most populous
country in
around seven
years...So the
large bulk of
those
additional one
billion
inhabitants of
the planet by
2030 will be
looking for
places to live
in Mumbai, not
in Madrid. The
takeaway from
this is that
the so-called
‘developed’
countries,
with a few
notable
exceptions,
are either
losing
population due
to not
producing
enough
children or
seeing their
populations
staying
basically
stable. In
2030, Tokyo
will still be
the most
populated city
with an
estimated
population of
37.2 million.
Delhi will be
in second
place with
36.1 million,
up from 3.5
million in
1970! (How has
it coped?)
Shanghai will
be in third
place and New
York/Newark
will have
dropped off
the top ten
list. But what
will it be
like to live
in these
cities? The
Economist
Intelligence
Unit ranks
cities as the
most and least
liveable. ...
It ranked
Melbourne,
Australia as
number one,
...
Melbourne’s
density is 460
persons per
km2 compared
to 6,158/km2
for Tokyo and
2,059/km2 for
Shanghai....
None of the
most liveable
cities is
among the top
ten places
where venture
capitalists
have been
placing their
money bets
during the
past
year....These
four city
regions are
ranked below
30th place on
the EIU
Liveability
Index. In
other words,
they may be
successful,
but not that
liveable...
(in US) 50%
live in rural
or less urban
areas
occupying more
than 90% of
the land area.
Is there any
wonder why
over 50% of
the vehicles
sold in the
U.S. are not
passenger cars
but SUVs and
pick-up
trucks?...If
everyone who
lived in the
dense urban
areas stopped
buying cars,
there would
still be over
50% of the
population who
would continue
to be car
purchasers.
Can we conclude from this that the exodus from city regions to the suburbs of both jobs and families has now stopped and central cities once again will be where people live and work? No, not unless people will be willing to give up everything they have come to value in terms of living standards and will accept being packed into sardine can-sized apartments stacked a mile high.... Living in a central city in the most desirable neighborhoods will continue to be the privilege of the wealthy and very wealthy...They also have homes and dachas in the Hamptons, Vinyard and Vermont, else they couldn't stand it. ... When younger people build families and need more space, preferably with a yard, and that space is too expensive in the city, they find it further out...Visions of young professionals dashing around in robotic cars gobbling up mobility as a service are, to put it kindly, a bit fanciful. Read more Hmmmm...I love it!! So many good one-liners. Alain
D. Hall,
Apr 17, "In
the race to
the autonomous
revolution,
developers
have realized
there aren’t
enough hours
in a day to
clock the
real-world
miles needed
to teach cars
how to drive
themselves.
Which is why
Grand Theft
Auto V is in
the mix.
The
blockbuster
video game is
one of the
simulation
platforms
researchers
and engineers
increasingly
rely on to
test and train
the machines
being primed
to take
control of the
family sedan.
Companies from
Ford Motor Co.
to Alphabet
Inc.’s Waymo
may boast
about putting
no-hands
models on the
market in
three years,
but there’s a
lot still to
learn about
drilling
algorithms in
how to respond
when, say, a
mattress falls
off a truck on
the
freeway....The
idea isn’t
that the
highways and
byways of the
fictional city
of Los Santos
would ever be
a substitute
for bona fide
asphalt. But
the game “is
the richest
virtual
environment
that we could
extract data
from,”
said Alain
Kornhauser..."
Read
More Hmmmm... Well...we have a slightly different
view of
history wrt to
GTA5. The
'Alain view'
is that Chenyi
Chen*16
independently
started
investigating
the use of
virtual
environments
as a source of
Image -
Affordances
data sets to
use as the
training sets
in a 'Direct
Perception'
approach to
creating a
self-driving
algorithm.
Images of the
road ahead are
converted into
the
instantaneous
geometry that
is implied by
those image.
An optimal
controller
then
determines the
the steering,
brake and
throttle
values to best
drive the
car. The
critical
element in
that process
are the Image - Affordances data
sets which
need to be
pristine.
Chenyi
demonstrated
in his PhD
dissertation
, summarized
in the ICCV2015
paper,
that by using
the pristine
Image -
Affordances
data sets from
an open-source
game TORCS
one could have
a virtual car
drive a
virtual race
course without
crashing.
More
importantly,
when tested on
images from
real driving
situations,
the computed
affordances
were close to
correct.
This encouraged us to look for more appropriate
virtual
environments.
For many
reasons,
including:
"wouldn't it
be amazing if
'Grand Theft
Auto 5'
actually
generated some
positive
'redeeming
social value'
by
contributing
to the
development of
algorithms
that actually
made cars
safer; saving
grief,
injuries and
lives".
Consequently,
in the Fall of
2015, Artur
Filipowicz'17
began to
investigate
using GTA5 to
train
Convolutional
Neural
Networks to
perform some
of the Direct
Perception
aspects of
automated
driving. With
Jeremiah Liu,
he continued
his efforts in
this direction
last summer
which were presented
at TRB in
January.
Yesterday, he
and Nyan
Bhat'17
turned in
their Senior
Theses focused
on this topic.
A. Kornhauser, Jan 14, "Orf467F16 Final Project Symposium quantifying implications of such a Nation-wide mobility system on Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO), energy, environment and congestion, including estimates of fleet size, needed empty vehicle repositioning, and ridership implications on existing rail transit systems (west, east, NYC) and Amtrak of a system that would efficiently and effectively perform their '1st mile'/'last-mile' mobility needs. Read more Hmmm... Now linked are 1st Drafts of the chapters and the powerPoint summaries of these elements. Final Report should be available by early February. The major finding is, nationwide there exists sufficient casual ridesharing potential that a well--managed Nationwide Fleet of about 30M aTaxis (in conjunction with the existing air, Amtrak and Urban fixed-rail systems) could serve the vehicular mobility needs of the whole nation with VMT 40% less than today's automobiles while providing a Level-of-Service (LoS) largely equivalent and in many ways superior than is delivered by the personal automobile today. Also interesting are the findings as to the substantial increased patronage opportunities available to Amtrak and each of the fixed rail transit systems around the country because the aTaxis solve the '1st and last mile' problem. While all of this is extremely good news, the challenging news is that since all of these fixed rail systems currently lose money on each passenger served, the additional patronage would likely mean that they'll lose even more money in the future. :-( Alain
September
2016,
"Executive
Summary...For
DOT, the
excitement
around highly
automated
vehicles
(HAVs) starts
with safety.
(p5)
...The
development of
advanced
automated
vehicle safety
technologies,
including
fully
self-driving
cars, may
prove to be
the greatest
personal
transportation
revolution
since the
popularization
of the
personal
automobile
nearly a
century ago.
(p5)
...The benefits don’t stop with safety. Innovations have the potential to transform personal mobility and open doors to people and communities. (p5)
...The remarkable speed with which increasingly complex HAVs are evolving challenges DOT to take new approaches that ensure these technologies are safely introduced (i.e., do not introduce significant new safety risks), provide safety benefits today, and achieve their full safety potential in the future. (p6) Hmmm...Fantastic statements and I appreciate that the fundamental basis and motivator is SAFETY. We all have recognized safety as a necessary condition that must be satisfied if this technology is to be successful. (unfortunately it is not a sufficient condition, (in a pure math context)). This policy statement appropriately reaffirms this necessary condition. Alain
"...we
divide the
task of
facilitating
the safe
introduction
and deployment
(...defines
“deployment”
as the
operation of
an HAV by
members of the
public who are
not the
employees or
agents of the
designer,
developer, or
manufacturer
of that HAV.)
of HAVs into
four
sections:(p6)
Hmmm...Perfect!
Alain
"...2.
Model State
Policy (p7)
The Model
State Policy
confirms that
States retain
their
traditional
responsibilities...but... The shared
objective is
to ensure the
establishment
of a
consistent
national
framework
rather than a
patchwork of
incompatible
laws..." Hmmm... Well done. Alain
"...3. NHTSA Current Regulatory Tools (p7) ... This document provides instructions, practical guidance, and assistance to entities seeking to employ those tools. Furthermore, NHTSA has streamlined its review process and is committing to..." Hmmm... Excellent. Alain
"...4. New Tools and Authorities (p7)...The speed with which HAVs are advancing, combined with the complexity and novelty of these innovations, threatens to outpace the Agency’s conventional regulatory processes and capabilities. This challenge requires DOT to examine whether the way DOT has addressed safety for the last 50 years should be expanded to realize the safety potential of automated vehicles over the next 50 years. Therefore, this section identifies potential new tools, authorities and regulatory structures that could aid the safe and appropriately expeditious deployment of new technologies by enabling the Agency to be more nimble and flexible (p8)..." Hmmm... Yes. Alain
"...I.
Vehicle
Performance
Guidance for
Automated
Vehicles
(p11) A.
Guidance: if a
vehicle is
compliant
within the
existing FMVSS
regulatory
framework and
maintains a
conventional
vehicle
design, there
is currently
no specific
federal legal
barrier to an
HAV being
offered for
sale.(footnote
7) However,
manufacturers
and other
entities
designing new
automated
vehicle
systems
are subject to
NHTSA’s
defects,
recall and
enforcement
authority.
(footnote 8)
.
and the "15
Cross-cutting
Areas of
Guidance"
p17)
In sum this is a very good document and displays just
how far DoT
policy has
come from
promoting v2v,
DSRC and
centralized
control,
"connected",
focus to
creating an
environment
focused on
individual
vehicles that
responsibly
take care of
themselves.
Kudos to
Secretary Foxx
for this 180
degree policy
turn focused
on safety.
Once done
correctly, the
HAV will yield
the early
safety
benefits that
will stimulate
continued
improvements
that, in turn,
will yield the
great
mobility,
environmental
and
quality-of-life
benefits
afforded by
driverless
mobility.
What are not addressed are commercial trucking and buses/mass transit. NHTSA is auto focused, so maybe FMCSA is preparing similar guidelines. FTA (Federal Transit Administration) seems nowhere in sight. Alain
Hmmm...What we know now (and don't know):