of Automated Vehicles -...
Transcript of of Automated Vehicles -...
Smart Driving Cars: (remove?)
History and Evolution of
Automated Vehicles
By
Alain L. Kornhauser
Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation
Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Princeton University
Board Chair, Advanced Transit Association (ATRA)
Presented at
September 20, 2013
Outline
• Automated Vehicles: 1939 -> Beyond 2018
– Defining “Automated Vehicles” (aka “SmartDrivingCars”)
– The 1st 75 years: (1939 -> 2014)
• 1939 -> DARPA Challenges
• DARPA Challenges -> Today
– The next 75 years: (2014 -> 2089)
• Today -> 2018 (next 5 years)
• Beyond 2018 (next 70 years)
• Questions/Discussion
• Surface Transportation
Vehicle
+
Running Surface (aka roadway, guideway, railway)
• Questions/Discussion
Scope of Surface Transportation
Scope of “Automated Vehicles”
Rivium 2006 ->
Aichi, Japan, 2005 Expo
Automated Guided Vehicles
Tampa Airport 1st APM 1971
Rio Tinto Automated Truck Tesla Car Transporter
CityMobil2
Copenhagen Metro
Heathrow PodCar
Milton Keynes, UK
Elevator Mercedes Intelligent Drive
Rio Tinto Automated Train
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Level 0 (No automation) The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times.
Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control
Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering
Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car
Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
Smar
tDri
vin
gCar
s &
Tru
cks
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
In the late 60s…
Some thought that: “The automation & computer technology that took us to the moon could now revolutionize mass transit and save our cities from the onslaught of the automobile”
Westinghouse Skybus Late 60’s- Donn Fichter “Individualized Automatic Transit and the City” 1964
APM PRT
Automated Vehicles Operating in their own Exclusive Roadway
Now exist in essentially every Major Airport and a few Major Activity Centers
APM Automated People Movers
Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Long Headway (Large Vehicles)
Starting in the early 70’s: U of Minnesota became the center of PRT research focused on delivering auto-like ubiquitous mobility throughout urban areas
• Since Demand very diffuse (Spatially and Temporally):
– Many stations served by Many small vehicles • (rather than a few large vehicles).
• Many stations – Each off-line with interconnected mainlines
• To minimize intermediate stops and transfers
• Many small vehicles – Require more sophisticated control systems,
• both longitudinal and lateral.
J. Edward Anderson
Alain Kornhauser William Garrard
PRT Personal Rapid Transit
Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Short Headway (Small Vehicles)
Morgantown 1975 Video1 Video2
Remains a critical mobility system today & Planning an expansion
Morgantown 1975
Remains a critical mobility system today & planning an expansion
Today… We can Build and Operate them Safely
Masdar & Heathrow are Operational; Suncheon in testing
Masdar, Abu Dhabi
Heathrow PodCar
Suncheon, Korea
Far-term Opportunities for Driverless, Short Headway, Exclusive Guideway
Transit
• Each Year: My students Design a NJ-wide PRT network
• Objective: to effectively serve essentially all NJ travel demand (all 30x106 daily non-walk trips)
• Locate Stations so that “every” demand point is within “5 minute walk” of a station; “efficiently” interconnect all stations; maintain existing NJ Transit Rail and express bus operations )
• Typically: – ~10,000 stations
– ~10,000 miles of guideway
County Stations Miles County Stations Miles
Atlantic 191 526 Middlesex 444 679
Bergen 1,117 878 Monmouth 335 565
Burlington 597 488 Morris 858 694
Camden 482 355 Ocean 540 1,166
Cape May 976 497 Passaic 1185 1,360
Cumberland 437 1,009 Salem 285 772
Essex 595 295 Somerset 568 433
Gloucester 412 435 Sussex 409 764
Hudson 467 122 Union 577 254
Hunterdon 405 483 Warren 484 437
Mercer 413 403 Total 11,295 12,261
Cost of Far-term Driverless Guideway Transit
• Each Year: students Design a NJ-wide PRT network
• Objective: to effectively serve essentially all NJ travel demand (all 30x106 daily non-walk trips)
• Locate Stations so that “every” demand point is within “5 minute walk” of a station; “efficiently” interconnect all stations; maintain existing NJ Transit Rail and express bus operations )
• Typically: – ~10,000 stations: @ $2.5M/station………….. ~$ 25B
– ~10,000 miles of guideway: @ $10M/mile… ~$ 100B
– ~750,000 PRT vehicles: @ $100K/vehicle … ~$ 75B
– Optimistic Capital Cost: …………………………. ~$ 200B
– NJ’s Personal Expenditures for Mobility: …… ~$ 25B/year
But, Deployment has been Excruciatingly Slow …
•Many years ago…The Executive Director of APTA put his arm around me and said:
– “Alain…
• Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is the ‘System of the Future’,
• And…..
– Always Will Be!!!
What he was saying was…
• Final Region-wide system would be really great,
but… • Any great Final System MUST evolve from some great
(feasible) initial system and MUST be great (feasible) at every step along the way, otherwise…
• It will always be “a system of the future”. • The dedicated grade-separated guideway infrastructure
requirement of PRT may simply be too onerous and risky for it to be feasible let alone great at any point except at the ultimate nirvana which is unreachable. Yipes!
• GM Futurama @ 1939 World’s Fair
• Zworykin & Flory @ RCA-Sarnoff in Princeton, Late 50s* * VK Zworykin & L Flory “Electronic Control of Motor Vehicles on Highways” Proc. 37th Annual Mtg Highway Research Board, 1958
Cruise Control (1958)
1945 Invented by Ralph Teetor 1958 Chrysler Imperial 1st intorduction GM first offered on the 1959 model year Cadillac.
Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges Focused on Creating New Roadways
To be used Exclusively by Automated Vehicles
• Robert E Fenton @ OSU, Early 70s* * “A Headway Safety Policy for Automated Highway Operations” R.E. Fenton 1979
Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges
• Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) (1971) (wikipedia)
– Chrysler & Bendix Corporation, introduced a computerized, three-channel, four-sensor all-wheel[6] ABS called "Sure Brake" for its 1971 Imperial.
– Ford added an antilock braking system called "Sure-track" to the rear wheels of Lincoln Continentals as a standard option
– General Motors :"Trackmaster" rear-wheel only ABS . An option on rear-wheel drive Cadillac models and the Oldsmobile Toronado.
• “Wire Sniffing” Cars
• 1990s – National Automated Highway System Research Program
(NAHSRP) (1994-97) • Goal to develop specifications for a fully automated highway system • Benefits:
– #1. Roadway capacity (led to focus on platooning) – #2. Safety – #3…. Robust to Weather, Mobility, Energy, Land Use, Commercial efficiency, travel time
• Focused on automated roadways serving only fully automated vehicles. • References
– The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was; – TRB Special Report 253 “National Automated Highway System Research
Program: A Review” – Cheon, Sanghyun “An overview of Automated Highway Systems (AHS) and
the Social and Institutional Challenges they Face” (Excellent critique, well worth reading)
– Video Summary of NAHSRP (compare the tone to what Mercedes did in Frankfurt. We’ve come a very long way!)
• Program Cancelled! No Feasible Initial Condition – No reason to build Automated Highway If there are no Automated Cars & visa versa.
Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges
DARPA Grand Challenge Created in response to a Congressional and DoD mandate:
a field test intended to accelerate R&D in autonomous ground vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield.
2004
CMU “Red Team”
2005
StanfordRacing Team
2007
CMU “Tartan Team”
DARPA Challenges
2005 2007
Link to Presentation Not Easy 2007 2005 Old House
Slide 49
Constraints
• Very little budget
• Simplicity
Guiding Principles
Objective
• Enrich the academic experience of the students
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=1489&a=161569&po=2,00.asp
Homemade “Unlike the fancy “drive by wire” system employed by Stanford and VW, Princeton’s students built
a homemade set of gears to drive their pickup. I could see from the electronics textbook they were using that they were learning as they went.”
Pimp My Ride
(a video presentation)
Achievements in the
2005
Prospect12_TestRun
Today.. • Continuing to work on Prospect 12
• Vision remains our focus for depth
mapping, object recognition and
tracking
• Objective is to pass NJ Driver’s Test.
Fundamental Contribution of DARPA:
Change the mind set to: focus on the Individual Vehicle Make it “Autonomous”:
Able to “Drive” without any outside help, behavior modification of conventional roadway users and,
physical changes in existing roadways.
2004
CMU “Red Team”
2005
StanfordRacing Team
2007
CMU “Tartan Team”
• CityMobil (2008 -> 2012)
– Low speed (< 25 kph),
– Lidar pedestrian detection
– Non-exclusive simple roadway – just lane markings
– Includes pedestrians & low speed vehicles
• La Rochelle (CyberCars/Cybus/INRIA
• CityMobil2 (2012->…)
• Slated for 5 city deployments + Singapore + ???
Automated Vehicles: Post-DARPA Challenges (2007 -> today)
Driverless (Level 4); Non-Exclusive Roadway; Low Speed (< 25kph)
Current State of Automated Cars • Much of the Public Interest has been induced by the Self-Driving Car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
– It is not driverless… • Not yet
– What did they do? • Adopted the DARPA “mind Set” ( & Sebastian Thrun from Stanford DARPA Team + others) • Bought “Standard Lexus” (w/ electronically controlled Brakes, Throttle & Steering (BTS)) • “Straped on”
– Sensors: LIDAR’s “depth point cloud”, GPS, Radars & Cameras (on the expensive side)
– Communications: to access 3D digital map data – Software & Computer: Converts Sensor Output into BTS Inputs
• Developed a self-driving vehicle that can operate in the existing environment. • Stated Motivation: >90% of road traffic accidents involve human error.
– So… remove the human from the loop.
• Have Self-Driven over 500,000 miles on Existing Roads in Existing Traffic Conditions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
• VisLab.it (U. of Parma, Italy) – Had assisted Oshkosh in DARPA Challenges
– Stereo vision + radars
SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges (2010-today)
(Video has no sound)
• University Efforts:
– CMU + GM
– Stanford + VW
– Va Tech + Google?
– Oxford + Nissan
– Parma + Fiat
– Princeton (PAVE)
– …
SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges (2010-today)
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
• Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research
• Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
• Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
$475/yr are “Pass-through” Dollars
$450/yr Discount for Me
$25/yr for Flo or the Gecko or ??? To enhance “Combined Ratio”
Could Discount Finance:
Assume: Emergence of “Price Leaders”
??
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
Google has “shown”: “We can build it!”
What is salient the “Value Proposition”?
What will Consumers Buy?
Don Draper (Mad Man) Has Done a Great Job
Convincing Us that We Love to Drive! (Or, do we?? Are we any good at it?)
Safety Hasn’t Been Great at Selling Cars
The Automobile’s 1st 125 Years
(1886-2011)
Benz patent 1886 1st Automobile Benz Circa 2011
Delivered: Enormous Personal Freedom & Mobility
But…Safe Operation Requires Continuous Vigilance
In In 717 out of 723 accidents ((99%)
http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/NHTSA_Hendricks2001_UnsafeDrivingActs.pdf
“In 717 out of 723 crashes (99%), a driver behavioral error caused or contributed to the crash”
Crash Mitigation (air bags, seat belts, crash worthiness, …)
Good News: Effective in reducing Deaths and Accident Severity
Bad News: Ineffective in reducing Expected Accident Liability & Ineffective in reducing Insurance Rates
Up to today: The Primary Purview of
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
Extending its vehicle safety standards from Crash Mitigation to Crash Avoidance with Aim at Full Self-Driving Automation
Level 0 (No automation) The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times.
Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control
Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering
Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car
Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What the Levels Deliver:
Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort & Convenience
Where Are We Now? Available in ShowRooms for Consumers
“Level 2- Combined Automation wit Constant Vigilance ”
What’s in the Showroom Today? • A number of car companies have been offering active
Forward Collision Avoidance Systems for several years
– Volvo
– Acura
– Mercedes
– Subaru
– …
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/47/5/1
Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB)
Systems
Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB)
Systems
Model Score: City
Rating: City
Score: Inter-Urban
Rating: Inter-Urban
Mercedes-Benz E-Class
3.0 points Good (video)
2.7 points Good
Volvo V40 2.1 points Good (video) 2.2 points Good
Mitsubishi Outlander 2.1 points Good (video) 1.9 points Adequate
Volvo XC60 1.9 points Adequate (video)
- - - - - -
Fiat 500L 1.8 points Adequate (video)
- - - - - -
Ford Focus 1.7 points Adequate (video)
- - - - - -
Volkswagen Golf - - - - - - 2.2 points Good (video)
Honda Civic - - - - - - 0.44 points Marginal (video)
However, It seems that some manufacturers are finally ….
And Serious about using it sell cars
Getting Serious about Collision Avoidance
And Serious about having it work
Intelligent Drive (active steering )
Volvo Truck Emergency braking
Click images to view videos
S-Class WW Launch May ‘13 MB @ Frankfurt Auto Show Sept ‘13
MB Demo Sept ‘13
History and Development of DISTRONIC:
Price reduction, intelligent packaging and availability cross-carline
MY 2000
Introduce DISTRONIC Adaptive Cruise Control In package for +$3,700 Only available on S/CL
DISTRONIC PLUS Autonomous Braking Intervention
In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist $2,950
Available Cross-Carline on almost every model
Enhancements to Driver Asst. Package •Steering Assist •BAS with Cross-Traffic Assist •PRE-SAFE Brake with Pedestrian Detection •PRE-SAFE PLUS – protection during rear collisions In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot
Assist/Lane Keeping Assist +$2,800 Only available on S/E
MY 2014 - Future MY 2006 - Current
Near Term Opportunities
DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research
$475 are Pass-through Dollars
May well Deliver 2/3rds the safety of Google Car
$300/yr to Mercedes
$20/yr for Flo or the Gecko
Could “Pass-through” Finance Mercedes Intelligent Drive??
(Available in ‘14 S-Class)
$475 Pass-through becomes: $320
Therefore: I get Intelligent Drive for Free (thank you Google) !! Plus: •Prob. of my car killing me is reduced factor: 2/3*.81= 0.54 (half) •Prob. of my car injuring me is reduced factor: 2/3*.65= 0.44 •I “Save” my expected “deductible self-insurance”: $247/yr •I have more Comfort •I have more Convenience •I have “Anxiety” relief
What a great Business Case! I’m a Buyer!
With Mercedes as the Market Leader offering “Level 2-” SmartDriving Technology at an incremental price tag that can be absorbed by a “Price Leading” Insurance Company, should lead to:
• Viral adoption by the car buying public
• “Moore’s Law type of price/performance improvement
• Market-driven Transition to “Level 2” and “Level 3” at same or even lower price structure
• Adoption and enhancement rates that are comparable to that enjoyed by airbags may be likely
Expected Implications…
• Other automakers will be enticed to follow (race seems to have already started)
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What the Levels Deliver:
Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort & Convenience
Level 4 (Driverless Opportunity) : Mobility, Efficiency, Equity Revolutionizes “Mass Transit” by Greatly Extending the Trips that can be served @ “zero” cost of Labor.
(That was always the biggest “value” of PRT; zero labor cost for even zero-occupant trips)
Primarily a Consumer Play
Primarily a Fleet Play
Initial Deployment…
• Needs to be Driverless – With Excellent Pedestrian Recognition
• Doesn’t Need To Be… – Fast
– Everywhere
• Let’s start Slow and Narrow: – Like CityMobile2…
– Say 10-15 mph • Along a Corridor, or
• Throughout one of Florida’s Retirement Communities
Slide 98
What About……
Driverless electric shuttle to be trialled in Singapore
(video of Luxembourg Demonstration) Slide 84
NJ_PersonTrip file
• 9,054,849 records
– One for each person in
NJ_Resident file
• Specifying 32,862,668 Daily Person Trips
– Each characterized by a precise
• Origination, Destination and Departure Time
All Trips Home County
Trips TripMiles AverageTM
# Miles Miles
ATL 936,585 27,723,931 29.6
BER 3,075,434 40,006,145 13.0
BUC 250,006 9,725,080 38.9
BUR 1,525,713 37,274,682 24.4
CAM 1,746,906 27,523,679 15.8
CAP 333,690 11,026,874 33.0
CUM 532,897 18,766,986 35.2
ESS 2,663,517 29,307,439 11.0
GLO 980,302 23,790,798 24.3
HUD 2,153,677 18,580,585 8.6
HUN 437,598 13,044,440 29.8
MER 1,248,183 22,410,297 18.0
MID 2,753,142 47,579,551 17.3
MON 2,144,477 50,862,651 23.7
MOR 1,677,161 33,746,360 20.1
NOR 12,534 900,434 71.8
NYC 215,915 4,131,764 19.1
OCE 1,964,014 63,174,466 32.2
PAS 1,704,184 22,641,201 13.3
PHL 46,468 1,367,405 29.4 ROC 81,740 2,163,311 26.5
SAL 225,725 8,239,593 36.5
SOM 1,099,927 21,799,647 19.8
SOU 34,493 2,468,016 71.6
SUS 508,674 16,572,792 32.6
UNI 1,824,093 21,860,031 12.0
WAR 371,169 13,012,489 35.1 WES 16,304 477,950 29.3
Total 32,862,668 590,178,597 19.3
“Pixelated” New Jersey (“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2)
aTaxi “PRT” Concept • During peak demand aTaxis
operate between aTaxiStands • Autonomous vehicles wait
for walk-up customers • Located in “center” of each
pixel (< ~ ¼ mile walk)
• Departure is Delayed to facilitate ride-sharing
• Focus of Analysis: • what is the ride-share
potential? • Ridesharing delivers:
• Congestion relief • Energy savings • Reduced costs/passenger • Environmental sustainability
“Pixelated” New Jersey (“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2)
aTaxi Concept – SPT Model Smart Para Transit Transit Model
aTaxi Concept – (PRT) Model Personal Rapid Transit Model
Ref: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/Theses/2013/Brownell,%20Chris%20Final%20Thesis.pdf
New Jersey Summary Data
Item Value
Area (mi2) 8,061
# of Pixels Generating at Least One O_Trip 21,643
Area of Pixels (mi2) 5,411
% of Open Space 32.9%
# of Pixels Generating 95% of O_Trips 9,519
# of Pixels Generating 50% of O_Trips 1,310
# of Intra-Pixel Trips 447,102
# of O_Walk Trips 1,943,803
# of All O_Trips 32,862,668
Avg. All O_TripLength (miles) 19.6
# of O_aTaxi Trips 30,471,763
Avg. O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 20.7
Median O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 12.5
95% O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 38.0
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day)
• Shared ridership potential:
Slide 98
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day)
• Shared ridership potential:
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Abel to serve essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day)
• Shared ridership allows
– Peak hour; peak direction: Av. vehicle occupancies to can reach ~ 3 p/v and eliminate much of the congestion
– Essentially all congestion disappears with appropriate implications on the environment
– Required fleet-size under 2M aTaxis (about half) • (3.71 registered automobiles in NJ (2009)
Thank You
www.SmartDrivingCar.com
Discussion!