A few days ago, Tesla finally unveiled a concept of its proposed robotaxi along with a 20-passenger robovan. There is rarely a shortage of things to criticize about a Tesla announcement, and this event was no exception. While there is plenty of well justified doubt about Tesla’s ability to produce a reliable and safe, camera-only automated driving system, I do have to take some issue with the complaints about a two-door, two-seat taxi. The basic premise is not fundamentally flawed, although the specific form factor of the Cybercab is less than ideal.
The argument is that a two-seat coupe is too small or limited to serve as a taxi and this couldn’t be further from the truth. It certainly isn’t suitable for every single trip, but for the majority of trips, it is exactly the right number of seats. Look in the back seat of any taxi, Uber or Lyft in any city and more often than not, you will find exactly one or two passengers.
One of the main rationales that was given in the early days of ride hailing was that most individually owned cars sit idle up to 95% of the time. Getting people out of their own cars into shared rides would help reduce traffic congestion. While the actual implementation of ride-hailing has actually had the opposite effect in most city by incentivizing drivers to get on the road when there is the most demand for rides, the basic principle is still sound if it were implemented correctly.
Another component that leads to congestion is parking. Individual drivers spend an inordinate amount of time in cities driving around, looking for a spot to park. That leads to congestion as people are driving slowly, looking for available spaces. Strangely enough, this probably shouldn’t be an issue because there are in fact about eight parking spaces for every car in the U.S. In most urban centers, parking for idle vehicles takes up 25-30% of the land mass, space that would be far better utilized for applications like housing, thus bringing down that cost.
Unfortunately, these are distributed widely and there is not always a surplus at the locations where drivers are in the highest concentrations at any one time. Thus reducing use of personal vehicles, at least in cities, would be beneficial in many ways.
So why does a two-seat cab make sense? The Ford Crown Victorias that served as yellow cabs in days gone by and the Nissan Altimas that heavily populate current ride-hailing fleets take up a considerable amount of area on the road. Removing the driver and one row of seats, allows for a vehicle with a smaller physical footprint on the road. Assuming the number of vehicles stays constant, that leaves more space or space for more vehicles to move more people. Since these are shared vehicles that don’t need to park, that would free up much of that dedicated parking space to also be repurposed.
Ok, the two-seat cab makes sense, but does the Cybercab?
Just because a two-seat cab makes sense, it doesn’t mean the Cybercab is actually the right shape or form factor. It’s a low-slung, relatively long coupe that doesn’t appear to actually save much space compared to a mid-size, four-door, sedan so you haven’t done much to address the footprint.
A more upright two-seater would actually be a lot more logical. Back in 2010, General Motors unveiled a concept called the Electric Networked Vehicle or EN-V at the Beijing motor show. This two-seat pod was built on a self-balancing two-wheel platform developed with Segway. It had a very small footprint, perhaps too small. But it was automated and could turn on its own axis. Since it incorporated vehicle-to-vehicle communications, if a larger group needed a ride, you could just summon however many EN-Vs were required and they would platoon together to a destination.
In 2013, GM unveiled an updated four version without the Segway chassis that was far more practical but still had a very compact footprint. A fleet of these were tested for a time on a university campus in Shanghai, but the program was eventually canceled as GM shifted its automated driving efforts over to Cruise.. However, the premise of an upright two-seat transporter makes sense. For older passengers with mobility issues, this form-factor is far easier to get in and out of than a low-slung coupe. For anyone in a wheelchair, the Cybercab is a non-starter. Sure, it’s not sexy and doesn’t grab the attention of techno-bros, but neither is a yellow Crown Vic. But it is functional and well suited to the job.
For larger groups or families that need to travel together, it’s easy to extend the same concept to a four-seater which would leave you with something not unlike a Chevrolet Bolt which coincidentally is exactly what Cruise has used since 2017. Alternatively, a smaller box like the Cruise Origin, Zoox Robotaxi or Zeekr eCM1 that Waymo has been planning to transition to provides excellent packaging for four to six passengers and a relatively modest footprint on the road. We don’t have dimensions on the Tesla Cybercab but it certainly looks longer than the mere 143-inch length of the Zoox Robotaxi.
Part of a Mobility Ecosystem?
What was surprising during the Tesla event was the unveiling of the Robovan which is a 20-seat, art deco styled minibus. I actually really like the design although any production version would clearly have to change to allow for things like a suspension and ground clearance for uneven roads. But this was all on the Warner Brothers studio backlot so none of that actually matters for the show. Nonetheless, this form factor actually makes a huge amount of sense as do buses and mass transit in general.
Mass transit like buses, subways and surface trains are by far the most efficient and cost effective way to move large numbers of people. The problem is, to make it efficient, you need large numbers of people going in the same direction. While this can be found on many urban routes, it leaves out providing service to many other areas of a city. On those high density routes, the operational cost per passenger-mile can be extraordinarily low.
Nationally, the average passenger mile cost of a bus is about $1 per mile, but that’s with an average of 11-18 passengers, well below capacity. When a 40-60 passenger bus only has three-people on it, the costs skyrocket. Thus it’s economically impossible to provide robust traditional transit services to many parts of many cities.
However, if cities had a multi-modal transit system that included robotaxi or van service in lower density areas that fed into the high density routes, more people might be enticed to forego personal vehicles and use these services. Smaller robobuses or taxis that got passengers to the high density bus or train lines at a reasonable fare and operating cost could see increased utilization, lower congestion and faster overall service. With fewer cars on the road and more passengers using transit, frequencies could be increased leading to a positive feedback loop.
The key however, is a robust ecosystem that utilizes the right mix of vehicles for every trip rather than a one size fits all approach. Bring on the two, four, twelve and twenty passenger automated transit vehicles along with the traditional modes and micro mobility. We need it all, to make mobility work for everyone. Basic transportation doesn’t to be sexy, people will use it if it works reliably and is cost-effective.
