Breakout Session #12

Life in the Slow Lane: Automated Low-Speed Shuttles

Monday, July 9, 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
Room: Yosemite C

Organizers:

  • Josh Cregger, U.S. DOT
  • Margo Dawes, U.S. DOT
  • Kevin Dopart, U.S. DOT
  • Matt Lesh, Mobility e3
  • Elizabeth Machek, Community Planner, U.S. DOT
  • Richard Mudge, Compass Transportation and Technology, Inc
  • Eetu Pilli-Sihvola, Finnish Transport Safety Agency
  • James Sproul, The Sproul Company
  • Sarah Swigart, AAA
  • Mohammed Yousuf, U.S. DOT

Session Description

Low-speed automated shuttles refers to a loosely-defined category that includes vehicles with common features such as fully automated driving (SAE Level 4), restricted Operational Design Domain (ODD), low speeds (limited to 25 mph or less), and shared service (6-15 passengers). There has been rapidly increasing activity in the development and demonstration of these vehicles and associated services.

This session will include an overview of the work going on with these shuttles around the world; a panel discussion with researchers, project sponsors, and industry; and a group exercise to discuss the use cases and research needs for this relatively new mode.

Goals/Objectives/Outputs

  • Share emerging best practices and lessons learned.
  • Convene discussion around the outlook for low-speed automated shuttles.
  • Identify range of opinions on key use cases and research questions.

Agenda

1:30 PM – 1:40 PM
Welcome and Discussion Starter Exercise

  • Participants will be shown a series of statements regarding low-speed automated shuttles and asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree.

1:40 PM – 2:40 PM
Panel: State of the Practice in Low-Speed Automated Shuttles

Description
Moderator:

  • Elizabeth Machek, Community Planner, U.S. DOT Volpe Center

Panelists:

  • Kristen Fernandez Medina, TRL
  • Harri Santamala, Sensible 4
  • Jay Hietpas, MnDOT
  • Sharad Agarwal, EasyMile
  • Sarah Swigart, AAA
  • Jürg Michel, PostAuto

2:40 PM – 3:00 PM
Small Group Exercise
Each table will be assigned one “agree/disagree” statement and asked to identify the top three arguments in its favor, and against it. Results will be summarized for the report-out during the plenary.