Author: Bern Grush
Date: September 15, 2024
While the City has been called our greatest invention [1], it makes for good systems thinking to consider the City as emergent from the conjunction of thousands of inventions. Some of these innovations trace to ancient times: agriculture, aqueducts, sewers, roads, bridges, ramparts, and weapons. Every school child hears about the six millennia before the Industrial Revolution: wheels, axles, writing, metallurgy, coins, glass, paper, and the printing press.
Some consider the steam engine to represent a breakpoint that sped up this slow stream of innovation. Starting a shade over 300 years ago: vaccination, railroad, telegraph, electricity, lightbulb, telephone, automobile, radio, and airplane.
It is easy to describe the post-WWII acceleration of urban re-configuration: computers, the Internet, satellites, nuclear power, shipping containerization, jet aircraft, fibre optics, the pill, integrated circuits, microprocessors, genetic engineering, biotechnology, personal computers, smartphones, the web, renewables, electronic payment, AI, social media, cloud computing, and 3D printing.
Stand back from this and ask whether we are at yet another breakpoint, given the current synergies between computer and mechanical engineering, i.e., AI and robotics. In particular, consider the growing capability of mobile robotics, specifically public-area mobile robots, or PMRs, that barely register on the 2024 technology rollcall.
Comically primitive to the imaginative, commercialized 100-kilogram robots on wheels carrying someone’s pizza or several security cameras at an airport should remind us more of the Wright Flyer or the Stanley Steamer than of the Airbus or Model Y. But maturing AI and robotics engineering capabilities are changing this.
What will it mean when PMRs are highly capable to weave and move among human pedestrians? (And I mean far more capable than the clunky, hesitant boxes and awkward humanoids of today.) And consider that these pedestrians are non-involved, unprotected, and inattentive bystanders. They are untrained to collaborate and understand robotic devices. There is something new here, something without historical or social precedent.
It is not about the technology. That will get remarkably better.
By “collaboration,” I’m not talking about working together as robots and trained human workers do in a factory or warehouse. Consider air-travelers and PMRs sharing an airport concourse, or dog-walkers and PMRs sharing a sidewalk or a crosswalk. To have one PMR navigate among five or six pedestrians on relatively smooth, low-gradient surfaces, in relatively calm weather is a solved problem.
But what about multiple fleets of disparate robots, operated by independent (unconnected) operators, performing a heterogeneous variety of security, maintenance, delivery, and hospitality tasks, each on independent schedules, sharing potentially crowded spaces with human pedestrians possibly some using wheelchairs, blind, or very young. Now imagine that scenario taking place on a crosswalk at road traffic intersection. How will a city manage the size, operation, behaviour of these fleets?
Step back once more and think about the airplane. What is more important to you as a consumer of air travel, the physics of the fixed wing, or the governance of air traffic control?
Of course, you need both to fly from Athens to Beijing, but I submit that air traffic control is the greater innovation. In spite of attention lavished on the remarkable invention that forces air molecules to lift something far heavier than themselves. In 1935, 32 years after the famous but primitive 1903 flight and after multiple mid-air collisions, several carriers created the first air traffic control system. This took multiple deaths and multiple years to accomplish.
It is air traffic control that permitted 40 million annual flights globally in 2024 using some 40,000 airports and landing strips.
We need to do this again, but for PMRs, this time.
There are two major differences between PMR traffic operations and air traffic operations. PMRs are smaller, slower, and seldom carry passengers (autonomous wheelchairs are one exception). PMRs navigate in dynamic, irregularly-structured, weakly-maintained, two-dimensional spaces, versus highly-controlled, three-dimensional spaces. By highly controlled, I mean that the space for flight trajectories is strictly managed. This is far less true for ground-based footways or bikeways. While road intersections use signals, signs and shared rules to prioritize and manage the rights-of-way among motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, these are often flouted and generally weakly enforced. Adding arbitrary fleets of PMRs to footways and crosswalks will require a renewed effort to share access and manage safety in these spaces.
But, for now, let’s rephrase and focus on my earlier question. Will the introduction of robotic devices into the weave and flow of pedestrians and other ground travellers become a fundamental breakpoint in the evolution of the City?
Consider that the use of remotely overseen mobile robots on public travelways is currently an experiment. The largest current operations involve homogeneous fleets from a solitary operator licensed within isolated cities for a uniform task (meal and grocery delivery). Each of these comprise several tens or even a couple hundred remotely-observed robots that involve occasional human intervention. To date, these fleets are generally licensed as “pilots,” as city councils are hesitant to make them permanent for lack of experience with robotic devices.
Calling these “experiments” aligns with the deployments to date being considered as “trials” and “pilots” where they are operating. But the word “experiment,” here, implies issues far deeper than “Do they work?” or “Are they safe?”
As a governance experiment, we need to consider existing regulatory frameworks. How and in what order will new policies will be needed? Which changes will be needed at national, regional, and local levels? Will we need new models for public private partnerships to manage public spaces that require significant infrastructure changes. Perhaps new models of governing shared spaces? [2] It is likely governing machines that have direct and immediate social components will push the boundaries of how we regulate and manage technologies that are increasingly merging with our social spheres and perceptions.
As a traffic experiment, we need to evaluate how PMRs affect pedestrian, wheelchair, micromobility, cycling, and automotive flow and safety. What is the safest way to integrate PMRs into existing traffic systems and regulations? What changes would be needed to city infrastructure, including traffic signal and signage systems? What constraints do we need to apply to the navigation, rights-of-way, access pathways, and access schedules in consideration of other active transportation and vehicle operations?
As an accessibility experiment, we need to examine carefully how robots impact accessibility for people with disabilities. In what ways can we make public spaces more inclusive through PMR assistance, services, and behaviors? We need to exhaustively understand any unintended barriers created by the presence and activities of PMRs.One of the most powerful aspects of the intersection of PMRs with accessibility regulations is that improving infrastructure for either can benefit the other. It will make the most sense to always consider both when considering either.
As a social experiment, we need to understand how humans adapt to sharing public space with mobile machines. Will changes in social norms and etiquette occur or be required when interacting with or moving near robots? What rules for PMR behaviour are required to conserve or even improve the social features of human mobility in shared public space? Will a growing presence and variety of PMRs impact social cohesion and community dynamics?
As a labour experiment, we need to understand, and prepare for, the impact on human jobs, new models of human-robot collaboration in service industries, and explore shifts in skill requirements and job markets. Because robotic innovations are likely to continue for decades, there will be overlapping waves of changes in the evolving relationship between mobile humans and PMRs.
As a livability experiment, we want to understand how to maximize the quality of life in urban environments. How can we ensure or at least maximize equitability? We need to test impacts on noise levels, visual aesthetics, and define new metrics for judging urban ambiance. How will PMR presence influence human perceptions of safety and comfort in public spaces? How will the accumulation of multiple impact like these alter the quality of urban life and public space usage?
As an ethical experiment, the introduction of PMRs will test our ability to weigh ethics within the decision-making behaviours of these machines. How will this challenge to our understanding of responsibility and liability in human-machine interactions be resolved?
As a psychological experiment, we need to know more about how humans react to and collaborate with mobile, autonomous devices in public spaces. How will human trust in these machines and their varying levels of intelligence evolve? Will evolving levels of trust accelerate or inhibit the integration of PMRs throughout our publicly accessible spaces?
As an urban design experiment, how much will we reimagine city layouts and infrastructure to accommodate new levels of human-machine coexistence? Can we shrink our automotive space to create a more collaborative, slower, quieter human-and-machine shared space? Or will we try to squeeze in one more modality into spaces that are already performing poorly?
As an economic experiment, we are already testing new business models based on last-mile delivery robots. So far, this has been a struggle. On the horizon, there are innovations that address delivery drop off, PMR access to stairs and buildings, multi-fleet orchestration, and others which are expected to lead to impacts on local economies and small businesses.
As a legal experiment, we will be required to develop new legal frameworks to govern robot-human interactions, and to address novel questions of robot rights and responsibilities while protecting and enhancing existing human and accessibility rights.
As a security experiment, we are concerned for securing autonomous systems against hacking or malicious use, even while defining and/or limiting new methods of public safety and surveillance.
As a communication experiment, we need to develop clear and understandable modes for human-robot communication in public settings. At a minimum, we need to find clear and understandable ways for a PMR to indicate its intentions to human bystanders even when bystanders are blind, deaf, or cognitively impaired. We need to address this problem with intuitive interfaces understandable by diverse populations.
As a cultural experiment, we must remain aware that humans will adapt to PMRs differently in different cultures. It is likely these devices will challenge norms and expectations about technology in public spaces, which will feed into the governance, accessibility, traffic, and social experiments described above.
As an educational experiment, how will we educate the public about safety, interactions, and communications with PMRs? Of equal importance, how we will we educate ourselves about public concerns, preferences, and fears? This educational experiment will interact with the cultural experiment.
As an environmental experiment, how will large-scale deployments of PMRs improve or degrade sustainability, either directly by delivery systems that reduce environmental damage or surveillance systems that reduce property damage, indirectly with respect to induced impacts on human mobility? Consider also, from an urban waste perspective, the ways these devices are disposed or recycled.
As a cognitive load experiment, how will these devices generate or encourage new forms of human attention or distraction, given additional information and stimuli in public spaces? It is possible for PMRs to impact human situational awareness and decision-making. There are ways to improve or worsen existing human attention problems depending on specific human factors design aspects.
As a social equity experiment, we need to explore how PMRs affect different socioeconomic groups. What are the best ways to ensure equitable access and benefits across diverse communities? Respecting accessibility guidelines may be insufficient. We may need to ensure balancing benefits or services to offset those cases where not all members of a community can participate.
As a privacy experiment, we need to examine all of the dimensions of data collection and how those relate to privacy for bystanders and others in public spaces. We may need to test the tolerance for the increased technological surveillance that will be made possible, and in some cases desirable, by a community.
As a resilience experiment, we will need to test the robustness of PMRs in various environmental conditions and unexpected situations. Will growing deployment of PMRs contribute to, or potentially hinder, urban resilience?
As an interspecies interaction experiment, we need to observe how urban wildlife and pets interact with, disrupt, harm or are harmed by PMRs? One important concern is whether using storage lockers as drop-off points for food or groceries by PMRs will attract pest infestations. (They do.)
Unlike air traffic, PMR traffic navigates complex, dynamic, irregularly-structured, two-dimensional urban environments. This presents unique challenges in managing rights-of-way, shared access, and ensuring safety.
Current PMR deployments are just the beginning. As the associated innovations progress, PMRs will test our ability to adapt our cities, laws, and social norms during this new era of human-machine coexistence. The success of this integration will depend not just on technological advancements, but on our ability to thoughtfully address the myriad social, ethical, and practical considerations that arise.
This civilizational-scale experiment has the potential to fundamentally reshape our urban landscapes and daily lives. As we move forward, it's crucial to approach this transformation with eyes wide open, balancing innovation with the needs and values of diverse urban communities, by supporting the development of standards-based regulatory frameworks. If you and/or your organization are not already members, we invite you to join URF today!
—————————
[1] Glaeser, E. (2011) Triumph of the City
[2] Coombes, A., Grush, B. (2021) Digitization, Automation, Operation, and Monetization: The Changing Management of Sidewalk and Kerb 2000-2025
Comments