Volvo To Test Full-Size Driverless Bus in Singapore (reuters.com)

Speaking of Volvo, the Swedish carmaker announced today that it has partnered with Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and unveiled a full-size autonomous electric bus for testing this year in the city state. From a report: High-density Singapore has been encouraging the development of driverless technology in hopes that its residents will use more shared vehicles and public transport. Tests with one bus on the university campus could begin in a few weeks to months, before moving to public roads after regulatory approvals, NTU President Subra Suresh told reporters. He hoped the tests could be extended to public roads in a year. A second bus will undergo tests at a city bus depot.

The 12-metre (39 ft) vehicle can carry up to 80 passengers and is the world's first full-size, autonomous electric bus, Volvo and NTU said. "This is the type of vehicle that real operators would use and that's why it is a milestone," Hakan Agnevall, president of Volvo Buses, told reporters.

Comments

Different company

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo Bus (owned by the Volvo Group), is a different company than Volvo Cars (owned by Geely).

Re: Different company

[Joe_Dragon]

no 49MPH.

And, following the new Volvo policy, . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . the speed of the bus will be limited to prevent accidents to 0 kph.

(That's 0 mph for the Imperial Units crew).

Re:And, following the new Volvo policy, . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait - don't you still have to add 32?

I am so glad these things aren't in Ashland

[WCMI92]

That way I don't have to ever see these things on the road. Thing is computers are not advanced enough to do this and you had better hope they don't become that advanced.

Why a bus?

[JaredOfEuropa]

The nice thing about autonomous vehicles is that they could provide a comfortable, useful middle ground between public transport and private car ownership: autonomous cars on demand, autonomous taxicabs or minivans where you’ll often share a ride with someone else, but all providing point to pint transport at a reasonable price. Putting an AI driver on a large bus driving a fixed route might drive ticket costs down a little but won’t do much to make public transport more attractive in general.

Re:Why a bus?

[sheramil]

I'd be more impressed if Volvo, the Swedish carmaker, had announced that they were going to test their bus in Sweden.

Re:Why a bus?

[Rick Schumann]

'Public transit' exists primarily for one purpose: so The Poor can get around in some way other than walking or riding a bike. People who can afford their own personal transportation, will afford it, even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else. Even The Poor, riding a bus, dream of the day they can afford their own car, and go where they want, when they want, by themselves. Unless basic human nature changes, 'public transit' isn't going to ever be considered 'attractive'. It's just not how we're wired.

Re:Why a bus?

[Woeful Countenance]

So that when the Robot Uprising occurs, they can Kill All Humans more efficiently. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all: buy a new $800,000 bus to save $30,000 a year paying a driver?

"... point to pint transport" There you go. I could use a pint myself.

Re:Why a bus?

[squiggleslash]

'Public transit' exists primarily for one purpose: so The Poor can get around in some way other than walking or riding a bike

No, it exists so that people can move efficiently through a city. A real city, I mean, not the shitty "100 strip malls and tiny restaurants surrounded by parking spots intermixed with housing-only suburbs" that many in the US call cities. I mean actual cities.

People who can afford their own personal transportation, will afford it, even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else

You've never driven in a city, have you?

The only people who drive in cities are those who have a terror of actually being near other people, or who have very specific one-off tasks to do that require hauling a large amount of stuff from one place to another. Even when my mother had a car when I was brought up in Britain we used the bus for most journeys. Even if you like driving (why? Moreover, why the fuck does every idiot car advocate think that EVERYONE loves driving?), you won't like doing it in cities.

Re:Why a bus?

[SuperKendall]

People who can afford their own personal transportation, will afford it, even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else

Some of the larger metro areas, like SF or NYC, I find it way more beneficial to not have a car in than to have a car. In MYC I can often beat most traffic on foot for just a few blocks, for longer it might be even using the subway...

Or at least that way true, every visit the subway in NYC gets more unreliable and worse.

Anyway, point is that if you are living somewhere in the middle of a few places it still may be more desirable not to own a car, and just rent something really nice when you do need one.

Now me, I do need a person car for what I do. But I would dearly love to have it be autonomous so I could do other things on long drives. My dream would be a kind of small camper van that I could sleep and work in while it drove me overnight to various destinations. That would be amazing.

Re:Why a bus?

[rgmoore]

The reason Singapore is interested in public transportation is because their roads are too crowded. They've already implemented a bunch of measures to reduce individual driving, like limiting the number of cars sold in the country and congestion pricing in the busiest areas of the city. They absolutely do not want to encourage more driving, even by autonomous vehicles.

Re:Why a bus?

[rgmoore]

buy a new $800,000 bus to save $30,000 a year paying a driver?

A few points:

1) Buses have a limited lifespan, so they'll need to be replaced eventually anyway. As long as they're only buying the new buses as part of their regular fleet replacement, you need to look at the difference in cost between an autonomous bus and a conventional bus. Since even a diesel bus can cost over $500,000, paying $800,000 for a driverless bus is much less of a stretch.

2) The amount you're suggesting for driver pay would only cover a single driver working a conventional workweek. Most bus routes run way more than 8 hours a day 5 days a week. You'd need at least 2 full time drivers to cover a route that's 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and more like 3 drivers if it's 18 hours a day.

3) Drivers need more than just their hourly wage. You'll also need to pay for benefits, a manager to oversee them, HR overhead, etc. That's going to add considerably to the cost of hiring them.

Add it all up, and an autonomous bus can pay for itself pretty quickly in reduced driving costs.

And that's also assuming they're intending to maintain existing service levels. As it is, a metro system needs to buy enough buses to serve its peak service levels, but it takes many of those buses out of service during off-peak periods to save on driver costs. If they eliminate the need to pay for more drivers, they can improve their off-peak service levels cheaply, which makes the service more attractive.

Re:Why a bus?

[religionofpeas]

I own a car, but I rarely use it within the (european) city I live in. Streets are narrow, mostly one way only, it's busy, and there's no place to park. I walk or take the bike when I need to be in town.

Re:Why a bus?

[angel'o'sphere]

even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else.
In your country perhaps. In Germany no. I hardly manage to drive my car 10,000km a year ... In the town it is close to useless, longer distances in my country for work I do in a train, where I can either work on my laptop or read a book and enjoy a beer in the restaurant wagon.

Unless basic human nature changes, 'public transit' isn't going to ever be considered 'attractive'.
Again: in your country perhaps. I'm not driving 12h in my own car when I can take a bus/train over night, or have a plane that only takes an hour. And then there are situations where you are simply lost with your own car or a rented one ... look at Bangkok. Why the funk would I have a car when I can go EVERYWHERE for close to no money with public transport? Or Paris ... or Copenhagen?

Sure: your answer will be, you are farmer and need a car ... rofl.

Re:Why a bus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does every car hater insist that everyone else also truly hates driving and only does it "because they have no other option?"

Maybe because everyone who claims to love driving is always angry and spends all their time complaining about other drivers?

If everyone else would stay off the road then I would also love to drive, but as it is now I prefer to walk when I have the option.

Re:Why a bus?

[Rick Schumann]

I disagree EXCEPT in the case of a huge city. Otherwise it's for The Working Poor. People who can afford a car, will have a car.

Re:Why a bus?

[Rick Schumann]

Nope.

Re:Excellent.

[jellomizer]

I think the biggest problem is Tesla'a Autopilot isn't the same as a self driving car.
The Autopilot is a tool to reduce driving strain, where it will keep you in your lane, and avoid collisions. Most of the Autopilot accidents is because some idiot thinks the car is a self driving car, and just lets it drive on its own, especially in situations where the road is non normal (bad conditions, road work, work men, traffic)

This is good if you are on the Highway you have picked your lane, and need to refocus your eyes a bit.

Ahead of his time

[ArhcAngel]

Stephen King might have been a little prescient.

Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

[Rick Schumann]

Before the SDC fanboys go apeshit over this, let's put it in perspective.
An 'driverless bus' will operate on a set route, on a set schedule, making pre-determined stops at pre-determined locations. Compared to a so-called 'self driving car', this is closer to an elevator or a train than it is a 'driverless car'. The requirements placed on the so-called 'AI' running it are small in comparison. Furthermore I'm sure it'll run at a slow speed. The most complex thing it'll be asked to do is stop when something is in it's path. Overall this is nothing to get excited about, is not anything I'd consider a 'milestone'.

Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

[religionofpeas]

If it's not been done before, I would call it a milestone.

Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

[Rick Schumann]

If it's stupid or unimpressive then it devalues the word 'milestone'.

Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

[91degrees]

It will be a self driving vehicle being used on public roads for genuine transport purposes. Dealing with potential unpredictable hazards on the road is still a problem that needs to be dealt with. If they believe this is adequately solved, then this is a milestone.

Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

[Rick Schumann]

But the so-called 'AI' in this case is CRAP and everyone is starting to realize that, so it's stupid and doesn't deserve the word 'milestone'.

Self-driving and public transport

[hfox]

I keep seeing this connection being made between self-driving vehicles and public transport as though you need one to have the other. "High-density Singapore has been encouraging the development of driverless technology in hopes that its residents will use more shared vehicles and public transport." Do they really think that their residents won't use public transport unless it's driverless? Or can Singapore not afford bus drivers?

route

[fluffernutter]

I'm curious to know how they would deal with a construction detour on the bus route.