Low Speed Automated Shuttles: Passenger Experience in Different Traffic Environments
Author(s): Lau, Harbluk, Burns
Slidedeck Presentation:
Abstract:
Background:
In the past few years, some of the first low speed automated shuttle trials of their kind have been conducted in Ottawa. In August 2019, a low speed automated shuttle demonstration was held on a segregated path where no other traffic was present. The following year, the first Canadian public trial of automated shuttles was conducted in a mixed traffic environment. The trials allowed opportunities to collect data on passenger novel experiences interacting with automated shuttles and perceptions of safety. Automation may offer safe and alternative means of mobility to the public, however their success largely depends on users’ experience and acceptance.
Aims:
The goal of this study was to investigate human factors issues related to low speed automated shuttles. Specifically, passenger perception of safety, acceptance and their experience interacting with this new technology.
Methods:
The methods for the two shuttle trials differed because of the nature of the deployments (segregated vs. public roads). For the automated shuttle route with no traffic, onsite semi-structure interviews were administered to passengers. A total of 76 responses were collected over a course of 3 days. For the route with other traffic, online questionnaires were administered. A total of 182 responses were collected and used for data analyses. Overall, descriptive statistics and counts were applied to the survey data. Thematic analyses were used for the open-ended qualitative data. Questions that address similar topics and categories were combined to facilitate comparisons across the two shuttle trials.
Results:
Although use cases and methods differed, similar patterns were found in the data. Overall, for both types of trials, the majority of the passengers were interested in the automated shuttles for personal and technology interests. Passengers were somewhat familiar with shuttles prior to riding, despite it being their first experience. The majority of the respondents indicated that they would ride the shuttle for convenience and environmental reasons and would ride the shuttle mostly on closed campus, dedicated area and local travel destinations. When asked about riding the shuttle on segregated routes, both trial responses indicated that they would feel safe riding the shuttle with only passengers, a remote assistant and/or an on board assistant. However, for routes with other traffic, both trial responses were more hesitant to ride without an onboard assistant. Passengers felt safest riding the shuttle with an on board assistant and opinions were mixed when it comes to having an assistant in a remote location. Overall, first impressions of the automated shuttles were very positive however, there were concerns on the shuttle’s ability to operate in winter conditions.
Discussion:
The acceptance of new transportation technology highly depends on users’ experience and perceptions of safety. Although the use of automated shuttles was novel to almost all respondents, the overall experience of the shuttles were enthusiastic. Furthermore, we have a better understanding of the reasons why passengers would use shuttles and their perceptions of safety in different use cases.
Conclusions:
The results provide some early insights into what may be needed to deploy automated shuttles in Canada in the future.