Autonomous transit fails to attract public in North Carolina pilot

[thelakelander]

Another warning sign for JTA and Jacksonville....

But not anything that you haven't already heard on this website:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has released a report summarising the agency's findings on an autonomous shuttle pilot at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNC Charlotte).

The Connected Autonomous Shuttle Supporting Innovation (CASSI) programme was piloted in the second half of 2023 on a 3.5-kilometre, six-stop route that included the main campus's light-rail station.

"The pilot at UNC Charlotte featured the most complex testing environment for the CASSI programme to date," said Sarah Searcy, Senior Advisor for Innovation with NCDOT's Integrated Mobility Division (IMD).

"Through strong partnerships and by collecting feedback from the public through surveys and engagement events, NCDOT has developed robust analyses, findings and lessons learned on low-speed automated shuttles with connected vehicle features that help guide how the technology can best be used now and evolved to better meet the needs of all riders."

Results

Key findings from the report include:

The shuttle's technology needs to advance further to usefully meet the demands of a university campus and the expectations of its community members.

The technology is not ready to be used as a conventional transit service for a variety of reasons, including the lack of full vehicle automation, requirement of an onboard attendant to ensure correct and safe movement of the vehicle and interaction with the environment, and the need for automated accessibility features such as an automatic wheelchair ramp, securement system and/or audible stop announcements and instructions.

While some community members appreciated being able to experience and support new technology through the pilot, most were choosing other options to reach their destinations on campus, whether due to comfort, convenience, reliability, or some other factor.
The shuttle's slow speed or delays contributed to the lower performance of the shuttle compared to conventional transit options. Those delays came about due to times when the attendant needed to troubleshoot problems, manually operate the shuttle, or take the shuttle on a less direct path between destinations.

Next steps

NCDOT also funded a separate research project to study the pilot conducted by UNC Charlotte faculty and students.

During the trial phase, the research team also collected an expanded set of surveys to capture the perceptions of shuttle and non-shuttle riders. Findings from this complementary research will be available in a separate technical report later this summer.

NCDOT's Integrated Mobility Division is currently "exploring new options" for the next set of pilots under the CASSI programme.

Cites Today contacted the shuttle's manufacturer Beep on the reports findings but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Full article: https://cities-today.com/autonomous-transit-fails-to-attract-public-in-north-carolina-pilot/#:~:text=The%20technology%20is%20not%20ready,need%20for%20automated%20accessibility%20features

[marcuscnelson]

Shocker!

So either Beep has so substantively improved in less than a year that these results are no longer relevant (unlikely), or JTA is spending $70 million to essentially repeat these results while attempting to charge fares. While they now have less than a year to start service on Bay Street.

Also seems notable that NC's pilot was based on being a feeder to a light rail line, whereas JTA has repeatedly denigrated rail and claims the U2C is somehow an effective alternative.

[thelakelander]

Using AVs as a feeder to LRT or a real transit line is  something I thought made sense. The NC pilot results suggest it's bad for that as well.

[jaxlongtimer]

This quote says it all... but, fear not, JTA to the rescue.  Jaxson needs to send these postings to City Council members and the Mayor's office on an ongoing basis.  At some point, the steady drip of third party evidence would seem to overwhelm the most obtuse observers and decision makers.

The technology is not ready to be used as a conventional transit service for a variety of reasons, including the lack of full vehicle automation, requirement of an onboard attendant to ensure correct and safe movement of the vehicle and interaction with the environment, and the need for automated accessibility features such as an automatic wheelchair ramp, securement system and/or audible stop announcements and instructions.

[CityLife]

I recently spent some time with the VP of Strategic Growth for Circuit, who specialize in electric shuttles and rideshare. They are in 40 cities around the country, mostly California and South Florida. I asked the VP if they are familiar with JTA's autonomous plans and if they are exploring the possibilities of converting to autonomous in the future. As with every transportation expert I mention this to, he gave a little chuckle about Jax. He said the likelihood of success is slim and that the tech isn't even close enough for them to even make future plans for conversion of their fleet.

He also said they would be interested in bringing Circuit to Jax if there was an interest from the City/JTA. He didn't know all the details of the U2C, but said they could likely offer a more comprehensive network of shuttles than the U2C for a fraction of the cost. They do some fixed routes, but also have a pickup by demand option (within a defined geographic boundary).

Having a few key fixed routes, with a pick up by demand option if you are within a mile or so of downtown could be awesome. I bet Jax could have a pilot program with these puppies driving around by Summer of 2025...but like with the old Landing and everything else in the city, it will be 2032 before JTA has anything functional in operation.

[thelakelander]

There's already a tour company driving those electric vehicles around downtown now. There are so many other options to address the Skyway issue and transit in general. For whatever reason, JTA has been willing to throw the baby out with the bath water for AVs only.

[CityLife]

There's already a tour company driving those electric vehicles around downtown now. There are so many other options to address the Skyway issue and transit in general. For whatever reason, JTA has been willing to throw the baby out with the bath water for AVs only.

The Go Tuk'n company that is operating in DT Jax seems ok for the tour component they are trying to offer, but have no experience delivering first and last mile transportation and seem to be offering a very limited product in Jax. They are also a new company founded in Jax by people with no transportation/tech background. Circuit has been operating in Santa Monica and Downtown West Palm Beach since 2013 and have since expanded all over the country. 

If I'm reading Go Tuk'n's website right, they are only offering service from 5-9pm Thursday and Friday and Saturday from 5-11pm. The coverage area is only Riverside/Avondale and the riverfront of the northbank to the stadium. If you wanted a ride from FSCJ to Riverside/Avondale, you would have to walk a mile to even get to the coverage area. It's very on brand for Jax to have someone learning how to do their job for the first time, so not surprised that they are partnering with Go Tuk'n.

Circuit's operations are on a different level. Circuit's on demand cars are all 7 days a week and typically run from the early morning until night. They generally have much larger coverage areas and will load up their fleet in a city if there is a lot of demand and are experts at adjusting their fleet or coverage area due to heat mapping user demand. Hollywood was able to replace three buses with 10 circuit cars for instance. They can also adjust their service area and coverage hours on the fly for special events. They will also run a fixed route with electric vans, similar to the U2C. Downtown WPB runs one with 15 minute headways that links Brightline and Tri-Rail with key stops.

As a temporary fix, I'm not sure what could be better than that.  If Jax added fixed routes to tie in with the Skyway and then had on demand coverage to Springfield, Eastside, Riverside/Five Points, San Marco, Southbank, it would be substantially better than what is in place now and would at minimum be a band-aid while the city recovers from the U2C debacle.  I'd love to hear alternative ideas. Especially ones that can be implemented in 6-12 months with minimal capital costs.

[Captain Zissou]

So either Beep has so substantively improved in less than a year that these results are no longer relevant (unlikely), or JTA is spending $70 million to essentially repeat these results while attempting to charge fares.

This whole time I have been assuming that it was going to be a free service for the lower income members of our city.  That was the only reason I had for why we wouldn't just contract with either Waymo, Tesla, or whoever to use Jax as a starter city for when their product is advanced enough to roll out on a large scale. 

Why don't we give one of the leading AV companies $20-50M to use Jax as a test market and then charge a small fee to recoup the investment over a 20-30 year timeline?  They are responsible for infrastructure costs, operational expenses, etc?  That's not enough incentive? Pay them 3 times that.  If there are anti-trust concerns, offer it to 2 or 3 providers.  Still MUCH cheaper than the current path (not calling it a plan or strategy because it's obvious we have neither).

[Jax_Developer]

The problem is & will continue to be liability... on top of the numerous other technology limitations. The current limited applications for AV are usually located at colleges, parks, etc. on closed or nearly closed circuits. The liability in those systems is dramatically reduced compared to an open road application.

The few private ventures which are fully in "live" traffic are testing or have a human to oversee what is going on. In short, these companies need the technology proven, to the 99.999% degree, before integrating these technologies with any municipality. The liability far outweighs the potential market by a 1,000:1 margin.

The trial runs or closed circuit courses are novelties in demonstrating that the technology is 99.7% of the way there. The remaining 0.2% really matters & is the hardest part. I genuinely believe the only two legitimate players in this space are Google's & Tesla's solution.

[Ken_FSU]

So either Beep has so substantively improved in less than a year that these results are no longer relevant (unlikely), or JTA is spending $70 million to essentially repeat these results while attempting to charge fares.

This whole time I have been assuming that it was going to be a free service for the lower income members of our city.  That was the only reason I had for why we wouldn't just contract with either Waymo, Tesla, or whoever to use Jax as a starter city for when their product is advanced enough to roll out on a large scale. 

Why don't we give one of the leading AV companies $20-50M to use Jax as a test market and then charge a small fee to recoup the investment over a 20-30 year timeline?  They are responsible for infrastructure costs, operational expenses, etc?  That's not enough incentive? Pay them 3 times that.  If there are anti-trust concerns, offer it to 2 or 3 providers.  Still MUCH cheaper than the current path (not calling it a plan or strategy because it's obvious we have neither).

^PREACH.

It's the same reason we contract Bird for scooter share, rather than spending $500 million to replicate what the private market has already done and build out all the support infrastructure ourselves.

[marcuscnelson]

So either Beep has so substantively improved in less than a year that these results are no longer relevant (unlikely), or JTA is spending $70 million to essentially repeat these results while attempting to charge fares.

This whole time I have been assuming that it was going to be a free service for the lower income members of our city.  That was the only reason I had for why we wouldn't just contract with either Waymo, Tesla, or whoever to use Jax as a starter city for when their product is advanced enough to roll out on a large scale. 

JTA has claimed a number of times that the promise of the U2C is that one day the technology will be capable enough to make transit service to underserved neighborhoods in the urban core more cost-effective than they would be today. They were very passionate about that the first time I heard it three years ago and they still seem to be today, but of course passion doesn't make up for technical capability. And there was no indication that they would not charge fares in that event anyway, if nothing else because they could not have gotten the BUILD grant on the premise that they would not be charging fares.

[thelakelander]

Not one proposed route reaches an area in the city that would benefit an underserved neighborhood. This has always been a challenge with that selling point.

[marcuscnelson]

Action News covered this pilot and its concerning results tonight.

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/study-raises-concerns-local-multimillion-dollar-autonomous-vehicle-project/OL2YEBKUFJFBJBUUJZSI4EVWXE/

JTA's statement in response:

Forward-thinking communities across the country are piloting autonomous vehicles. As these are emerging transit technologies, it is important to test and collect feedback which is why dozens of pilot programs are underway across the U.S.

We applaud the University of North Carolina for testing and evaluating this technology and sharing the results of its pilot program with the public. We are aware of these lessons learned from this program and they are being incorporated to develop our program to meet the needs of riders in Jacksonville.

[marcuscnelson]

Not one proposed route reaches an area in the city that would benefit an underserved neighborhood. This has always been a challenge with that selling point.

At best, this would be a long-term Agile Project with a yet-to-be-determined future generation of autonomous vehicle. Nothing within the first three phases of the U2C would accomplish that. Hasn't stopped them from using that hypothetical possibility as a selling point.

[jaxlongtimer]

Just to add, taking AV development as a flavor of AI, consider these reports this week on the huge ($100's of billions) investments by the Magnificent 7 and others and the concerns that AI may never pay off. 

JTA is on a financial and operational suicide mission.  I predict that Ford will ultimately be pushed out over this project and it is just a matter of how long it takes.  In the meantime, he and his C-suite colleagues, at the risk of tainting their careers, appear to hope to milk the cow for as long as they can keep the music going.

....In short, investors' fears can be boiled down to: is all of this actually worth anything? Or is it just another shiny object the industry is chasing to bring back its dreams of endless growth, before it abandons it and moves onto the next big thing?

As Morgan Stanley analyst Keith Weiss put it on Microsoft's earnings call: "Right now, there's an industry debate raging around the (capital expenditure) requirements around generative AI and whether the monetization is actually going to match with that."

UBS analyst Steven Ju asked Google CEO Sundar Pichai how long it would take for AI to "help revenue generation ... (and) create greater value over time, versus just cutting costs?"

And a Goldman Sachs report last week asked if there was "too much spend, too little benefit" on generative AI.

Shares of both Google and Microsoft dipped following their earnings reports, a sign of investors' discontent that their huge AI investments hadn't led to far-better-than-expected results....

....ome investors had even anticipated that this would be the quarter that tech giants would start to signal that they were backing off their AI infrastructure investments since "AI is not delivering the returns that they were expecting," D.A. Davidson analyst Gil Luria told CNN.

The opposite happened — Google, Microsoft and Meta all signaled that they plan to spend even more as they lay the groundwork for what they hope is an AI future. Meta said it now expects full-year capital expenditures to be between $37 and $40 billion, raising the low end of the guidance by $2 billion. Microsoft said it expects to spend more in fiscal 2025 than its $56 billion in capital expenditures from 2024. Google projected capital expenditure spending "at or above" $12 billion for each quarter this year. (Even for extremely rich companies, those are big numbers — for Google, its second quarter capital expenditures amounted to about 17% of its total sales).

And tech leaders have said that what they need is more time — a lot more time.

Microsoft CFO Amy Hood said on the company's earnings call that its data center investments are expected to support monetization of its AI technology "over the next 15 years and beyond."

Meta, similarly, anticipates "returns from generative AI to come in over a longer period of time," CFO Susan Li told analysts. She added: "Gen AI is where we're much earlier ... We don't expect our gen AI products to be a meaningful driver of revenue in '24. But we do expect that they're going to open up new revenue opportunities over time that will enable us to generate a solid return off of our investment."

That time horizon is uncomfortable for many investors, who have grown accustomed to mostly reliable, quarter-after-quarter sales and profit growth from Silicon Valley.

"If you're going to invest now and get returns in 10 to 15 years, that's a venture investment, that's not a public company investment," Luria said. "For public companies, we expect to get return on investment in much shorter time frames. So that's causing discomfort, because we're not seeing the types of applications and revenue from applications that we would need to justify anywhere near these investments right now."

And some investors question whether AI investments will ever pay off. Goldman Sachs analyst Jim Covello argued that "the technology isn't designed to solve the complex problems that would justify the costs" in last week's report.

As an example of just how long it can take AI products to come to fruition, take Tesla's AI-based "full self-driving" technology. Tesla has sold the driver-assist technology as key to the company's business plan since 2015, and consistently promised that it would be fully capable within a short timeframe. But FSD still requires an attentive human driver capable of taking the wheel in case something goes wrong, and is regularly plagued by safety concerns, nearly four years after it was first released to Tesla customers....

"Right now, the game is, 'we all have to signal that we're willing to invest as much as we need because we want to keep this leadership position,' but at some point the investment is going to be so onerous that one of them ... will say, 'maybe next quarter, we won't invest so much,' and then you'll see that happening for the rest of them," Luria said. "Big picture, this level of investment is not sustainable."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/02/tech/wall-street-asks-big-tech-will-ai-ever-make-money/index.html