Cruise, Zoox on Road to Nowhere
A colleague of mine sent an email to the team this morning musing as to how Amazon’s Zoox self-driving shuttle might get made or, more importantly, by whom.?The question highlights the reality that, big and profitable as it may be, Amazon, like Apple, lacks vehicle production expertise or capacity.?Such a multi-billion dollar question shines a spotlight on the viability of a four-seat self-driving robotaxi – not unlike General Motors’ Origin itself set for early 2023 production.
My guess is the Zoox vehicle never gets made and the Zoox team focuses, instead, on highway automation for the thousands of Amazon trucks plying U.S. highways.?As for GM’s Cruise Origin vehicle, the company is in a tail-wags-the-dog situation where existing commitments to investors and now the first commercial deal for a robotaxi service in Dubai has GM pot committed.?It’s damn-the-torpedoes time at the Renaissance Center in Detroit.
By now it is crystal clear that there are three scenarios for commercializing autonomous vehicle technology that make sense – and a robotaxi is not one of them.?
Robotaxis are, by definition, confined to operations within the confines of urban areas.?This means their development and deployment is governed by a non-scalable process of city-by-city mapping of streets, driver behavior, and regulatory context before launch can be initiated.
In addition, robotaxis face the business model challenge of competing with human driven taxis and ride hailing services which are highly economical, efficient, familiar, and increasingly integrated with existing consumer-facing smartphone applications – i.e. Uber, Lyft, Moovit, Googlemaps, etc.?Costing billions of dollars to develop, robotaxis are likely to be more expensive, slower, unfamiliar, and possibly even annoying to pedestrians and vehicle drivers of all types.
Low speed self-driving shuttles, meanwhile, are soaking up all the most suitable urban or private road autonomous opportunities.? Shuttles, like those operated by Beep, move more people per trip on fixed routes and offer a sensible alternative or enhancement to public transit.
Better yet, shuttles fit more neatly into a process of deployment supported by government grants or local public-private-partnerships.? Robotaxis thus far are envisioned as independent commercial operators unsupported by public funds and subject to regulation of the vehicles and their right to operate.
There is also the core question of scalability.? Low speed shuttles, high-speed highway-bound commercial vehicles, and autopilot-enhanced mass market vehicles all have the advantage of large volume target markets.? The American Public Transit Association estimates that the U.S. Transit Bus/Shuttle market is $115B, of which $30B is microtransit or shuttle operations ripe for the addition of autonomous vehicles.
Robotaxis??Even the most optimistic scenarios paint a picture of a few thousands of such cars entering the market one city at a time. ?Each deployment will require months, if not years, of testing and adaptation costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
In the end, nothing being developed for robotaxis will be of much use on any other vehicles – with the possible exception of low-speed autonomous shuttles.? By the time robotaxis have any sharable tech that might justify the billions of invested dollars, the shuttle sector will have already found its own solutions.
One scenario for robotaxi adoption makes sense – which is the enhancement of existing vehicles with robotaxi tech a la Waymo.? This approach at least solves the problem of developing an entirely new vehicle with a limited market. ?Others – like Mobileye, Tesla, and Argo – are moving down this path, but the question remains regarding the pointlessness of robotaxis. ?It’s not too late to turn back.
?
Finance at Merrill Lynch
2 年I do not get your skepticism here. Uber and Lyft have been very successful relative to taxis. Driverless Uber or Lyft will dramatically reduce costs and improve the experience for riders not having to worry about who is picking them up. So there is definitely a market here.
The biggest hurdle today is that these vehicles essentially only operate in dedicated right of way and have minimal autonomy if something blocks their path. They need to be able to operate effectively and efficiently in mixed use traffic. Once that happens and once occupant safety is more adequately addressed, cities and transit agencies will have a huge tool they can use to support mobility.
Yaffe Mobility Consulting
3 年Daniel Blais
Leader in economics and finance of transportation and technology
3 年Low-speed shuttles do well in specialized markets: campuses; old age communities; downtown malls. To provide larger economic and social benefits we need medium-speed vehicles that are capable of traveling in mixed traffic and at reasonable speeds. I can think of several names for these -- medium speed shuttles, robo-taxis etc. When driverless, robo-taxis have a low per-mile operating cost, with implications for stimulating demand. Many promoters of robo-taxis assume shared rides. This is unproven, particularly in the time of COVID.
Good article. My lens is slightly skewed due to my company's relationship with May Mobility, however I think we can agree there's a fine line between mobility pollution and solving for inequity in transportation. Throwing parts at a problem (Robotaxis) won't solve for the issues some of the larger companies are bringing to market. There needs to be a commitment to community. May just launched service in Indianapolis - on their route includes three IU Health stops on the route: IU Pediatric Care, IU School of Dentistry and a stop near IU Hospital. For essential workers, the feedback on the service has been one of gratitude. Identifying areas where service is needed vs. redundant to existing solutions is the first step in creating value through first/last mile service. Without purpose, a lot of these solutions simply won't make sense.