Experiences from Chalmers Johanneberg

Jacob WollbrinkBirger Löfgren

the future of the city

Phase 1 May 2017 – Dec 2018

Budget: 9.6 MSEK (Part of The Swedish Government’s Innovation Partnership Program)

Project lead: RISE Viktoria

Partners:

A short history● Who are we:

- Background- Vision- Mission- My role

Autonomous MobilityPart of Semler Group - a 101 year old family owned company, imports, sells and services VAG cars.

70%

Means of transportation

in Denmark

Cars

30%Other means

71%

Share of imported

cars

Others

29%SemlerCar

importer revenue

11.982 (mio dkk)

6.076

Semler Closest competitor

Autonomous Mobility A/SImports and operates autonomous vehicles in Scandinavia and the Baltics

Developing mobility solutions of the future - rethinking how we get from A to B

Mobility solutions that are autonomous, sustainable and shared

Partnership with Local Motors, USA

Partnership with Navya, France

Chalmers Johanneberg 2018

Experiences from operating in mixed traffic

● Proven that it works - Route complexity (Pedestrians, cyclists, trucks, cars, bus routes and construction work)

● We drive with an AV that follows the traffic rules 100% of the time, whereas our surroundings disregards them more often than not.

• Adaptation - The shuttle, the surroundings and a combination of both.

• Challenges - technology, communication, mutual understanding.

• Feedback from the passengers: It feels safe, its cool, forget the fact that it is autonomous, the future is here, ”I guess I want need a drivers license in a few years.”

Questions from passengers: How much does it cost, how fast can it go, when will this be implemented ?

• Students, employees, visitors• 144 pre-ride questionnaires

107 user questionnaires (so far)• Interviews with• 20 Shuttle bus riders• 21 Pedestrians• 17 Bicyclists• 8 Bus drivers (line 55)

Age Gender

Why use it?

“It’s fun/exciting to try”

“It’s better/more practical than other solutions”

“It takes less effort”

Why would you use the shuttle service?pre-service

actual use

Theme Pre-service Actual use Description (summary)

Hedonic motivations 40% 40% “It’s fun/exciting to try”

Perceived usefulness 20% 20% “It’s better/more practical than other solutions”

Effort expectancy 10% 16% “It takes less effort”

Weather protection 9% 6% “It shields me from bad weather”

Environmental concerns 4% 7% “It’s environmentally friendly”

Support development 7% 4% “I want to support the development”

Safety reasons 2% 4% “It is/will be safer than what we have today”

Price value 5% 2% “It’s free to use”

Social influence 2% 1% “Because my friend wanted to ride”

Why NOT use it?

“Not practical enough”

“The route is not for me”

“Crowded and requires timing”

Why would you not use the shuttle service?pre-service

actual use

Theme Pre-service Actual use Description (summary)

Perceived usefulness 38% 44% “Not practical enough”

Route reasons 19% 12% “The route is not for me”

Effort expectancy 8% 17% “Crowded and requires timing”

Safety/security reasons 14% 5% “Something could go wrong”

Prefer walking/biking 8% 5% “Better to walk or bike”

Facilitating conditions 5% 9% “There is no timetable”

Weather reasons - 3% “If it’s nice outside”

Save jobs 2% - “What about the drivers?”

Hedonic motivations 1% 2% “Would have to be social”

Price value 1% - “If it would cost money”

What if you’re outside?

“Feels safe, drives slow”

“It stops for the right-turn rule, no one else does that here”

“It stops and makes a ‘plinging’ sound at you!”

“I can tell that it reacts to things… when something gets in the way ”

“It’s about adaptation to the traffic flow… I think you need to do some more research”

“I don’t trust it but I’ve seen that someone is in control”

“Looks like a giant toy-car, makes me happy”

“Still a bit scary, takes getting used to”

“It has a different driving pattern, guess it must be due to safety”

With other passengers?

With safety steward?

Prepared to pay?

Lindholmen 2018/2019

Lindholmen tomorrow