Self-driving trucks begin mail delivery test for U.S. Postal Service

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tusimple-autonomous-usps/self-driving-trucks-begin-mail-delivery-test-for-u-s-postal-service-idUSKCN1SR0YB

by sonabinu • 7 years ago

126 147 7 years ago

reuters.com

melling• 7 years ago

Solving even limited self-driving truck driving would be a huge win. (Geofenced to certain roads)

There’s an immediate need and it would save companies a lot of money.

ru999gol• 7 years ago

I always wondered why it seems we've get automated trucks pretty soon everywhere, but there is almost no one talking about self driving trains?

ed_balls• 7 years ago

London Underground wants to automate the trains, so there is plenty of "talk".

A freight train labour cost is much smaller comparing to trucking.

zaroth5• 7 years ago

The quoted costs for positive train control just seem astronomical for what is actually being achieved;

Under RSIA08, PTC is required on about 60,000 miles of railroad track. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) estimates full PTC implementation will cost approximately $14 billion. [1]

I understand that everything looks simple from the outside, and these have to be rugged, reliable, redundant, and failsafe, but that’s a lot of dollars per mile for sensors.

PTC uses signals and sensors along the track to communicate train location, speed restrictions, and moving authority. If the locomotive is violating a speed restriction or moving authority, on- board equipment will automatically slow or stop the train. A more expansive version of PTC, called communications-based train control (CBTC), would bring additional safety benefits plus business benefits for railroad operators, such as increased capacity and reduced fuel consumption. However, CBTC is not currently being installed by any U.S. railroad, due to the additional cost and the challenge of meeting implementation deadlines.

So we’re talking about basically AEB (automatic emergency braking) for trains, and it costs $200k per mile to deploy? I don’t get it.

Based on analysis of past PTC-preventable incidents, the FRA estimated in 2009 that $90 million in annual safety benefits will be realized after full implementation of PTC.

Oh good, breakeven without accounting for any time value of money in only 155 years. The only word that comes to mind is boondoggle.

[1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42637.pdf

ambicapter• 7 years ago

we’re talking about basically AEB (automatic emergency braking) for trains

How far ahead does AEB look? Because trains take miles to stop. The system is different to account for that.

gpm• 7 years ago

You need a lot more people to move the same amount of cargo in trucks, so there is a lot more money to be saved.

The consequences of individual crashes is also higher, which changes the perception and consequences of mistakes, even if the number of trucks means the actual scale of the problem might be similar.

Symbiote3• 7 years ago

The consequence of crashes is what led to the earliest implementations of automation on railways, starting in the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_stop

Arguable a mechanical interlocking also counts, as it prevented unsafe routes being set for a train, and made it faster to set the intended route: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking

Waterluvian• 7 years ago

I'm curious what the return looks like for self driving trains.

I'm going to bet for both safety and employment, trains and transport ships are orders of magnitude more efficient already. Trucks are a pretty big source of human inefficiency.

Spooky23• 7 years ago

Trains are super efficient. My uncle is a locomotive engineer. He has one or two conductors with a train that is a couple of miles long. They pay a premium to keep staffing at a minimum -- he can be called with 30 minutes notice to come in and drive a train for a 24 hour period.

You'd probably be able to run more smaller trains with automation, but competing with trucks is tough, because the efficiency gains associated with getting rid of people and adding automation are blown away by the need to cross-dock and do the last mile via local truck.

kaybe• 7 years ago

So I was a bit incredulous at the claim of miles-long trains.

If anyone else is - turns out, there's a wikipedia page which has more information on very long trains (it's true):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains

javagram• 7 years ago

Self driving trains already exist, or at least remote controlled trains which is pretty close https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_control

The cost savings from getting rid of a train driver aren’t nearly as great either since the driver:passenger ratio is different between car and train.

_jal• 7 years ago

I think nobody talks about automated trains because they actually work.

A handy map of projects worldwide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_con...

A little story about the MTA's experience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMT_Canarsie_Line#Automation_a...

linsomniac• 7 years ago

Back in 1987, at my first job at Hewlett-Packard, they had a little robot that would deliver mail. This was their plant in Loveland, CO, I believe it was the first non-California site HP opened.

Along the main hallways there was some sort of retroreflective tape laid down, and the robot, which looked like and equipment cart, would follow that tape. At every stop it would sound a chime and the secretary for that section would come out and retrieve a bundle of mail and distribute it to their people.

Super simple implementation, but it worked quite well for what it did.

pbhjpbhj2• 7 years ago

IIRC the movie Space Camp (80s?) features a mail-robot, perhaps the kid hides in it?

mrbgty• 7 years ago

Flight of the Navigator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4v-dMfzp3E

ceejayoz2• 7 years ago

There's one in the show The Americans, as well.

alistairSH• 7 years ago

My wife's office (NFCU HQ) still has one of these.

It feels so very 1970s and nostalgic.

gvb• 7 years ago

That was the Lear Siegler -> Bell & Howell -> Litton -> Dematic Mailmobile. It followed a fluorescent path using a blacklight sensor to guide it.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mailmobiles-mail-robot...

PopeDotNinja• 7 years ago

A robot like this was a central plot device in The Americans, too.

https://youtu.be/XEQ5mCMO1a8

michaelbuckbee2• 7 years ago

Similar systems are used in hospitals for delivering pharmaceuticals from the main pharmacy to floors.

c0vfefe4• 7 years ago

What kind of security measures do they afford, to prevent targeting by addicts?

Jun8• 7 years ago

Your comment brought back a memory: My wife was interning at Eli Lilly in their HQ in Indy in the summer of 1999 and they had an office mail robot that fits the exact description you gave.

I think it followed markings on the floor. Zero computer vision, when it came your way you'd better watch out, it nearly squished me against a wall while I was watching it.

noer2• 7 years ago

TuSimple and the USPS declined to disclose the cost of the program, but Frum said no tax dollars were used and the agency relies on revenue from sales of postage and other products.

Really? This is exactly the kind of thing we should be spending tax dollars on. I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of money in the federal budget but they provide a lot of valuable services in addition to steady employment for a lot of Americans.

kevin_b_er2• 7 years ago

Its a common misconception, and it is driven by political interests that want to dismantle public services and replace them with more expensive services that have a profit margin for themselves attached.

Consultant324525• 7 years ago

For me it's not a misconception. 99.99% of things delivered by USPS are spam at my house. I don't even get paper statements for any of my bills. 100% of things delivered by UPS/FedEx/etc are useful things I want to get. Every time I go to the mailbox is an encouragement to get rid of the USPS. My life would literally be better if USPS didn't exist.

zaroth5• 7 years ago

A valuable service which they charge money for, and should generate revenue to cover their costs.

Pension funding politics aside, I want to pay USPS postage fees which cover the cost of the service they provide. There’s no reason to be paying below cost postage to USPS. I find that their rates are extremely competitive, particularly priority mail flat rate compared to UPS or FedEx.

I think the post office could be doing a lot more digital services in 2020 and I’d love to see a lot less junk mail, it would be nice if they could centralize the opt-outs.

joshgachnang• 7 years ago

But isn't the junk mail where they make a ton of their money?

freehunter10• 7 years ago

You can't put aside the pension funding politics but still want to pay the USPS more, since the price of postage fees is set by federal law and must be approved by Congress. The reason you pay below cost to the USPS is because Congress demands it.

freehunter10• 7 years ago

I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of money in the federal budget

A concentrated disinformation campaign funded by people who stand to benefit from privatizing mail delivery. It started with the mandate to pre-fund pension and healthcare benefits for the next 75 years, funding pensions for retired employees who aren't even born yet. That means by federal mandate, the USPS is sitting on $400 billion that they can't touch [1]. That's not all bad in and of itself, but they're also limited by law on what they can charge for stamps, and the federal review board doesn't always let them increase prices to keep up with costs [2].

The same group of people who forced the USPS into an precedented fiscal nightmare are the same people going on TV and telling you that the USPS is fiscally irresponsible and a waste of money and should be privatized. Not a big surprise that Rep Tom Davis III was the author of the bill passed in 2006 but in 2004 FedEx was one of his biggest campaign contributors.

[1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/id/39439918

[3] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407

[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...

fjp• 7 years ago

This is happening everywhere with all kinds of government services. "Slash budgets" and by firing full time employees and cutting investment, piecemeal it out to the lowest-bid contractor, the quality of service deteriorates, not much money is actually saved, but someone gets rich(er)!

johnnyb9• 7 years ago

Is a pay-as-you-go pension really a smart option if your #1 product/mandate (first class mail) is at total risk of becoming irrelevant in the near-term?

treis4• 7 years ago

It started with the mandate to pre-fund pension and healthcare benefits for the next 75 years, funding pensions for retired employees who aren't even born yet.

This is wholly inaccurate. All that the USPS is being required to do is set aside money to pay for pension liabilities that they have incurred. Nothing close to funding pensions for employees that have yet to be born.

Besides, this is all hypothetical as the USPS has not actually made the payments they were supposed to.

the_reformation• 7 years ago

We agree that the pension obligations are the reason why the USPS (once one of the most innovative logistics organizations in the world) has degraded so throughly. But pointing to shadowy private interests is backfilling personal politics into the narrative. The obvious culprit of USPS' debilitating pension obligations the pensioners themselves.

rmrfrmrf• 7 years ago

I didn't even know until about a month ago that the USPS is one of the only constitutionally-mandated federal institutions (in school, we focused a lot on the Bill of Rights, not so much on the articles themselves).

0xffff24• 7 years ago

I don't think this is quite right. The Postal Clause give congress the power to establish the USPS. It doesn't mandate that they do so. If Congress decided the USPS was no longer necessary (not a position I advocate), they would be well within their rights to pass a law abolishing it.

skookumchuck3• 7 years ago

The purpose of the mail (or any business) is not employing people.

wnevets2• 7 years ago

I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of money in the federal budget

Because republicans have spent decades trying to kill it. Before the post office was forced to pay pensions fund up front by republicans [1] it was self sustainable.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

Velchronus4• 7 years ago

This is a meme with no basis in reality.

Because republicans have spent decades trying to kill it. Before the post office was forced to pay pensions fund up front by republicans [1] it was self sustainable.

The PAEA was passed unanimously in both chambers of Congress and with the support of two of the employee unions. source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407

The pre-funding period ended in 2017 -- Current retirees are paid from this fund. Since the USPS missed the majority of its payments to the PRHB, the fund is currently running deficits and will be depleted by 2030. source: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694188.pdf

That means that even if it was "Pay As You Go", it would not be self sustainable.

jerkstate• 7 years ago

Headline is misleading IMO. This is for long-haul mail routing from post office to post office, not last mile delivery.

jsnider3• 7 years ago

It's still delivering mail, just from one post office to another.

jsymolon2• 7 years ago

eh, USPS sortation facility would be better.

oldgradstudent2• 7 years ago

The mail delivery part is the least misleading part of the headline. The description of the trucks as self driving is far worse.

nathan_long• 7 years ago

The company making these self-driving trucks - enormously complex products which could kill people if they go wrong - is called "TuSimple"?

Really?

skizm2• 7 years ago

Curious, are these pilot programs sending the trucks out completely driverless? Or are there going to be humans in the "cockpit" sort of managing things and taking occasional naps?

egwynn• 7 years ago

Did you read the first paragraph?

San Diego-based startup TuSimple said its self-driving trucks will begin hauling mail between USPS facilities in Phoenix and Dallas to see how the nascent technology might improve delivery times and costs. A safety driver will sit behind the wheel to intervene if necessary and an engineer will ride in the passenger seat.

skizm2• 7 years ago

Oops. I did skim it, but apparently my skimming skills are terrible. My bad.

oldgradstudent2• 7 years ago

Of course not.

A safety driver will sit behind the wheel to intervene if necessary and an engineer will ride in the passenger seat.

There are no self driving cars in existence. At least not ones that are even remotely competitive with human drivers.

BubRoss• 7 years ago

Automating postal workers out of their jobs first is a pretty bold play.

0xffff24• 7 years ago

Does the post office employ long-haul truckers? I was under the impression that this kind of hauling was contracted out.

YeGoblynQueenne• 7 years ago

> A safety driver will sit behind the wheel to intervene if necessary and an engineer will ride in the passenger seat.

This is how you know a vehicle is self-driving: there are two people sat in the front.

esilver9• 7 years ago

The in-vehicle monitor will likely be a standard part of autonomous and semi-autonomous trucking for the foreseeable future.

A monitor can be paid less than a driver, as they’re doing less work, and can respond to onsite issues more promptly and accurately than could a remote one.

mijamo• 7 years ago

I don't think the quantity of work matters at all for salary.

A monitor probably needs more knowledge than a driver (need to know the specifics of the product, how to fix problems etc.), and has the same downsides (long hours, not especially exciting job, bad work hours, sitting all the time etc.). If anything I would think they would be paid more.

jsymolon2• 7 years ago

... can be paid less than a driver, as they’re doing less work ...

Major West: And the monkey flips the switch. -- Lost In Space, 1998

Instructions can be, push the big red button if anything happens.

lm28469• 7 years ago

A monitor can be paid less than a driver, as they’re doing less work

People working full time still need to live you know, even if it's "less work". Last time I checked the "amount" of work doesn't really correlate with the pay too.

You can't tell a professional truck driver "Ok man, you'll be in the same seat, on the same road, for the same amount of time but you get $500 instead of $1500 because it's less work, oh and also if there is a crash and you weren't 100% focused you'll be liable for the damage"

c0vfefe4• 7 years ago

Salary in a free market is not determined by amount of work done, value produced, or credentials, but rather the supply of people who could fill that role.

inglondon• 7 years ago

Reminds me of when I attended an event in Paris, France and they had a robot bartender. I was there during the day when they were setting up and it took a team of 3 engineers ~8 hours to set up vs just paying a bartender for the 3 hours + an hour's setup time that the evening cocktail reception lasted.

I understand they organisers wanted something cool, but it was comical to observe nonetheless.

[Edit: punctuation]

ghaff4• 7 years ago

There's a chain of hotels (Yotel) that is known in part for its robot that will stow luggage the hotel is holding for you. In practice, the staff mostly stows your luggage like every place else because the robot doesn't have anything like the throughput you need at busy times.

strikelaserclaw• 7 years ago

"possible solution to the driver shortage and regulatory constraints faced by freight haulers across the country" - mmm, every industry is facing worker shortage huh -.-

throw20102010• 7 years ago

Unemployment is very low right now. However, the most accurate statement is always, "shortage of people that have the qualifications we want that are willing to work for the payment we're offering."

salawat2• 7 years ago

Note: Unemployment is measured through participation in various workfinding government programs or receipt of unemployment benefits.

It doesn't really paint an accurate picture of how many are out of work, but getting by through alternative or illegal-quasi-legal means.

It also in no way measures the number of jobs a defined unit of work can supply, or whether the job itself creates enough of a return to be economically feasible to the doer.

It also in no way reflects that many jobs mow push for pre-acquired qualifications, which cost money, and lock out potential workforce.

No one wants to measure any of that. That leads to awkward questions.

c0vfefe4• 7 years ago

This is why it cracks me up when the tech industry (or any other) publicly whines about not being able to find good employees. Raise rates & publicize it, and you'll see them appear as if by magic!

esilver9• 7 years ago

The driver shortage is a legitimate crisis and was the cause of huge rate increases last year. Driving a truck is a difficult job and fewer people are choosing it as a career path. [0]

“Regulatory constraints” refers to FMCSA’s hours-of-service rules, the legal limit to how many hours a driver may operate a truck in a given day. [1]

[0] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576752327/trucking-industry-s...

[1] https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-...

bluedino2• 7 years ago

A friend of mine has a son (22 years old) who just started driving a semi truck for one of the big 'Dollar' store chains.

Pays $680 a week, he's home every 2 weeks, and as a bonus he gets to unload the truck.

Not a terrible job, but not many people want to work that schedule, and a life on the road isn't probably ideal.

kingnothing2• 7 years ago

Assuming a 50 week year, that's $34k per year, or roughly $17 per hour. No wonder people don't want that job. You work completely alone driving all day for not much more than minimum wage.

ddoolin• 7 years ago

as a bonus he gets to unload the truck.

Literally unload? Does this mean something else? I wouldn't see this as a bonus.

cfarm• 7 years ago

This technology seems like it would do employ less people. Is there really a driver shortage that this wouldn't affect the employed drivers of USPS?

c0vfefe4• 7 years ago

It would mean that they wouldn't have to raise rates to fix the shortage.

skykooler• 7 years ago

How is the package actually delivered if there's no driver?

rement• 7 years ago

Read the article. It's about delivering packages from one USPS facility to another not residential delivery.

OrgNet• 7 years ago

yeah this could have been made clear in the title but they chose the clickbait approach

keanebean86• 7 years ago

Trebuchet?

They could have a notification app or send an email/text that the delivery is there. The person would then waddle out to the delivery truck.

Drone, robot, or mechanical arm thing.

HillaryBriss• 7 years ago

damn. shit is real. guess i'll vote for Andrew Yang.

skookumchuck3• 7 years ago

Inter-city mail should be by rail, which is far more environmental and much less costly. The only reason highways appear to be "cheaper" is the real costs are paid by other people (passenger cars).

0xffff24• 7 years ago

Is it really cheaper? I would expect rail to be somewhat cheaper but an order of magnitude or more slower.

skookumchuck3• 7 years ago

Rail is cheaper in just about every dimension - fuel, track, track maintenance, labor, etc. The downside is it's slower.

rmason• 7 years ago

I think it might be better if the post office went totally to using robots. I've heard too many stories first hand about its toxic culture.

There was a woman who worked in Lansing, Michigan sorting mail. She worked in the back, never had an contact with customers. Every Halloween she'd wear a different costume to work. Three years straight she'd get disciplined for it.

Local TV asked if the employees she worked alongside had a problem with it but they didn't. Only management had a problem with her wearing a costume every Halloween. She said they are determined to stamp out all individuality in the employees. What a horrible place to work.

vital_sol• 7 years ago

I wonder how are they going to fuel up self-driving trucks? You can not drive 2100 miles on a single tank of fuel.

0xffff24• 7 years ago

Trucks follow well-defined routes that are already well served by several truck stop operators. I would expect the first truly self-driving trucks to partner with Pilot or Loves to offer some kind of full service option where the truck pulls in and someone comes out to fill it up and scan a tag to charge the fuel to the right account.

RenRav• 7 years ago

This is exactly the kind of job suited for automated driving. I wonder if there will be automatic-only highways soon spanning these stretches of the countryside, or whether such a thing would even help.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi2• 7 years ago

Mandatory computer-control will happen when a critical threshold of traffic is already operating that way, and risk/liability will make the restriction inevitable.

stubish• 7 years ago

I hope we see an article in two or three weeks about how this trial went. Started on Tuesday, which is kind of exciting, but I'm certain I've seen more articles about trials started than articles about how the trials went.

Self-driving trucks begin mail delivery test for U.S. Postal Service

Related Stories