Tallinn-based Starship Technologies accelerates AI-powered robot delivery in Leeds. Source: https://techinformed.com/co-op-rolls-out-robotic-delivery-service-in-leeds/

Let’s step back for a moment. We’ve begun to see what delivery drones, autonomous vehicles, and advanced humanoid robots could do, at least on social media or in the movies. Technically, they have advanced significantly. Unitree’s G1 coordinated robots have overwhelmed audiences with their coordination and agility. They are all over social media, but the general public has had very little direct interaction with robots. Maybe you might have seen them in a mall or airport, but perhaps not yet along a public sidewalk.

For more blog posts like this, subscribe to John G Jung's Substack Newsletter here.

While these are early days for robots integrating with humans in our favorite public spaces, most of us initially chuckle and invoke Arnold Schwarzenegger’s image as the Terminator as the next step for these mechanical things to intrude on our lives. It is not until they actually appear as parts of pilots in cities that we begin to react. Many in fear. What are they, and will they impact our lives for good or bad?

In Andrés Oppenheimer’s book, “The Robots Are Coming!”, the author explores what the future holds for today’s jobs in the foreseeable age of automation. He claims that 47% of existing jobs are at risk from AI and automation, rendering humans obsolete through technological change. Yet, people’s trust and acceptance of the intrusion of PMRs in our public spaces may turn out to have an even larger physical impact on our future daily lives. Good or bad?

Knightscope Robot Roadshow Lands in Columbus, Ohio, encouraging people to become more familiar with PMRs. (Source: Business Wire)

As the Urban Robotics Forum’s whitepaper, Robots in Public Spaces, states: The introduction of automated devices into these spaces raises fundamental questions about the balance between efficiency and humanity, between optimization and serendipity, between designing for “things” and designing for people.

To answer these questions, city decision-makers, along with urban planners, traffic engineers, community and business leaders, and everyone that PMRs may affect, must develop a holistic understanding of the dynamic urban ecosystem that these robots will be part of. But it will be more than physical and spatial determinants that will have to be examined in these pilots. They will need to understand the social, institutional, and even perceptual constraints that they will be dealing with. In other words, it just might be among the most complex considerations that any city planner has ever had to deal with.

Who has control of the curb? What are the rules when no one has ever had to deal with planning for competition of space along a public sidewalk? Who has priority over the use of public space? These and many other questions arise once a pilot is launched in a community. Or - perhaps it would be wiser to have those answers in place before the launch. As the Whitepaper states further: The successful integration of public-area mobile robots (PMRs) into urban environments hinges on a fundamental understanding of their bidirectional relationship with urban planning. While much attention has focused on the technological capabilities of PMRs and the regulatory frameworks governing them, the physical, spatial, and institutional infrastructure of cities ultimately determines where, how, and whether these systems can operate effectively. From the perspective of urban planners, landscape architects, and urban designers, PMR deployment is a complex intersection of infrastructure capacity, land-use policy, and governance coordination.

In the world of smart cities and Intelligent Communities that I am familiar with, I have seen the best results for complex issues when they are developed collaboratively across positive engagement from the public, private, and institutional sectors, as well as the general public, especially those that may be directly impacted (a.k.a the stakeholders). We call it engagement of the triple helix. Or, when including the citizen, we call it the quadruple helix. In considering any activities planned for the public realm, ensuring a human-centric approach has been a key planning construct. Hence, co-designing with the stakeholders is a must.

Even before the launch of a PMR pilot is considered, ask yourself if the governance will be there sufficiently to accommodate their integration in our public spaces. We have handled all sorts of transportation issues over the past century. (Good or bad). We have created rules and designs to accommodate cars, bicycles, and people on streets and in unique settings, in both public and semi-public spaces such as parks, parking lots, and even garages. But the one area where we might see growing conflict is along the public sidewalk. We have setbacks for buildings, minimum widths for bike lanes, rules of engagement among cars, bikes, and people at intersections, but nothing (yet!) about ways to deal with robots as they begin to insert themselves into our public and semi-public spaces, especially sidewalks.

One early question we should consider before the public develops a negative reaction to them: shouldn’t we learn what the benefits of the PMRs’ participation with us could be before we react this way? Another early question: can we reshape the public realm to provide smooth and unimpeded surface materials, access to chargers, and discreetly design spaces for these ground-based robots to roam safely, improve their efficiency, and ensure the least friction between humans and machines? Will we ever truly feel okay around them? Can we find ways to share the sidewalk with them? And so on.

Example of potential sidewalk zones: Frontage Zone next to the building where entrances and cafes are accommodated; the Pedestrian Through Zone where it is always kept clear for pedestrians and people with challenges (Wheelchairs, Blind); the Street Furniture Zone for trees, EV Chargers, bus stops, and benches, and the curb, beyond which the enhancement Buffer Zone is used for bicycles. Source: NACTO: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/sidewalk-zones/

From an urban design perspective, I began to think creatively about how to integrate PMR’s within existing sidewalk setbacks. The literature speaks to several zones. The first zone, called the frontage zone, is next to the building where the entrance to the building is located. Here too can be opportunities for cafes and outdoor grocery stalls. The next zone is the pedestrian zone. For instance, Toronto requires pedestrian space on sidewalks to be kept clear at all times and sets a minimum width of 2.1 meters for it. The next zone, adjacent to the curb, is called the furnishing, or street furniture, zone, where trees may be planted, but also many other items such as street furniture, bike racks, and rentals may be accommodated. The curb, parking, and bicycle lane are other zones to be considered.

PMRs could follow lines or other guidance at grade similar to the tactile tiles used by people with low vision abilities. Perhaps instructions on accessibility and other navigation prompts could be embedded into the paint or tiles, further assisting the PMRs. The lines are also cues for the general public that this sidewalk allows PMRs to make deliveries. Source: https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/01/10/the-rise-of-public-mobile-robots-in-our-daily-lives/

Not usually noted in the literature was the tiling incorporated at the ramped curb and across the length of the sidewalk for people with low or no vision. I immediately saw this as an opportunity for PMRs as well. People using the sidewalk could immediately see these tiles as a cue that this sidewalk may be used by a blind person. These tiles or a similar concept may also be used by PMRs for directional guidance. They would also provide visual cues for pedestrians that PMRs may be operating along this sidewalk. Further experiments may embed technology into the tiles or paint to instruct PMRs in understanding the street and sidewalk ecosystem that they are in, helping to provide navigation for the PMR along the sidewalk.

Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Intelligent Community Forum (ICF) and the Urban Robotics Foundation (URF) formed a partnership to share best practices on robot integration in communities by local governments around the world, including collaborating on programs and exchanging content, expertise, and communication resources with each other’s networks. The ICF–URF partnership makes clear that not all 200+ ICF cities are PMR-ready, but that PMR integration is becoming a core expectation for Intelligent Communities.

My take: Bern Grush and his colleagues at the Urban Robotics Forum have taken a very sensitive and strategic, yet nuanced approach to dealing with the integration of PMRs into the public realm. We are not dealing with controlled environments like the factory floor or segregated environments of any kind. We are talking about having AI-empowered mechanical things mingling and traversing in front of you as you might walk, ride, or drive on a city street or lane. This gets to be even more difficult if you happen to be challenged with sight, hearing, or mobility difficulties. Many cities have been reluctant to permit this integration, fearing conflict with people, cars, and bicycles. Some have engaged in pilots to test the unique circumstances of specific sites. Others have been more eager to see how the PMRs might be able to be more fully integrated into their communities. Citing density, ground-plane issues, concerns about traffic and privacy, among a host of other reasons to quash pilots even before they might be tested, city officials would benefit from reading the URF’s recent White Paper, Robots in Public- Building the Governance Framework for Shared Human-Robot Spaces. The White Paper states: “The successful integration of robots into public environments will depend on more than technical capability. It will require governance frameworks that balance innovation with public trust, safety, and accountability.”

Source: Urban Robotics Foundation Whitepaper: Robots In Public- Building the Governance Framework for Shared Human-Robot Spaces https://www.urbanroboticsfoundation.org/event-details/executive-update-preparing-your-city-for-robots-in-public-spaces

The White Paper is an excellent resource for practitioners and advocates alike who are exploring the issues and opportunities regarding PMRs human interaction as they are increasingly sharing public spaces with people. The Paper argues for transparency, clear rules of operation, and predictable behavior as essential foundations for public acceptance. It goes further to indicate that standards, measurement science, and practical policy frameworks are necessary in shaping public acceptance.

“The goal is not simply to allow robots to operate, but to ensure they operate in ways that respect the needs and expectations of the people around them. With thoughtful governance and continued collaboration across sectors, robots can become reliable tools that enhance public life while preserving the safety, accessibility, and openness of the environments they enter”.

Obtain your copy of this White Paper at: https://www.urbanroboticsfoundation.org