What Waymo learning New Orleans' streets means for state business
Why it matters: The move illustrates a strategy shift for how the state is doing business.
The big picture: Under Gov. Jeff Landry appointee Susan Bourgeois, Louisiana Economic Development has been aggressively seeking new logos to enter the Louisiana market.
Part of that work was obvious in January when a massive tent took over part of downtown to showcase the state's business opportunities for Super Bowl LIX visitors.
There were flashy announcements for Meta's new data center and a White House press conference for Hyundai's new steel plant.
And LED produced a new 40-page plan that amounts to a statewide strengths, weaknesses and opportunities analysis for new business.
Zoom in: Waymo's self-driving cars have been learning the streets around New Orleans for weeks now. The backstory of how they ended up here is an interesting case study for the state's perspective shift.
About a month after Josh Fleig took the job of chief innovation officer at LED last summer, he reached out directly to Waymo to ask about testing cars here.
The goal, he said during a recent real estate outlook seminar at UNO, was to figure out what impact the company might have on local rideshare drivers before the cat was already out of the bag.
What he says: "I know that's counterintuitive to say, 'Let me help you displace workers,' but … unless we get involved early with big tech companies trying to figure out these really existential questions, we'll be fully reactive, it'll be too late and the poor will get poorer," he said.
"That is a very simple hypothesis," he said, "and that's how we want to treat automation."
What's next: Waymo's cars, which do have drivers during the testing phase, will be on local streets for about another month, a rep tells Axios New Orleans.
Go deeper
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
Tesla Doesn't Need Permits For Their CA 'Robotaxi,' It May Come Today
You might see a Tesla robotaxi (with safety driver) next to a Waymo in the San Francisco Bay Area ... More this weekend, according to reports Tesla has been stating, since even before their semi-launch in Austin last month, that they would soon deploy their supervised robotaxi service in many other locations, including California. In this week's Q2 earning's call, Elon Musk predicted they would have robotaxis deployed to half the population of the United States. New reports suggest Tesla may deploy such a service as soon as this weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area. But how? The most common reaction to this plan has been that because many states, in particular California, require that companies get permits before deploying robotaxi services, that Tesla would need to get these permits. They take months to get, and Tesla has not yet applied for them. Tesla can't run an autonomous vehicle taxi service. They can probably run a driver-assist based one. These permits are to operate an actual Robotaxi service, namely one that drives without a human in the car responsible for the safety of the vehicle. Tesla stated it would launch such a service back in June, but was unable to make the deadline, so it put out a test service with a human 'safety driver' employee in the vehicle. In Austin, that person is in the right-hand seat, and Tesla calls them a 'Safety Monitor' when there, but calls them a Safety Driver if they switch into the left seat for any complex operations. 'Safety Driver' has been the term of art in the industry for many years, and is a bit of a misnomer as the person does not actually drive the car, but--whatever you call them--the are the responsible driver for legal purposes, overseeing driving and able to intervene for safety. In the passenger seat, like a driving instructor for a teen with a learner's permit, the safety driver can grab the wheel or trigger the brakes. People debate if the seat matters, but the operation of Tesla's 'FSD' system with a human safety driver behind the wheel is of course very common. Indeed, there are people driving for Uber and Lyft in Teslas who turn on the FSD system while giving rides to customers. The FSD system controls most aspects of the car, and the driver supervises and takes legal driving responsibility. This has already been happening for some time, and apparently nothing stops Tesla from doing the same. A request for comment from the California DMV was sent to them a week ago, but they have been unable to respond, claiming more research is needed on the legality of this. What Permits You Need California regulations (whose drafting I had a minor involvement with) lay out 3 different permits for the operation of self-driving vehicles in the state for testing and taxi service. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission has a series of permits required for offering taxi-style services to the public, both with human drivers and in self-driving vehicles. Tesla has one self-driving permit, the one required to test such vehicles with a safety driver. It also has the permit from the CPUC to operate a pre-arranged taxi-style service with human drivers. It has not, as of this week according to the CPUC or DMV, applied for any of the other permits. Tesla's self-driving test permit is unusual. Over 50 companies have this permit, and they are required to report every year to the DMV how many vehicles they are testing and how many miles they have been tested. Tesla always reports zero miles, and has for several years. They do this because they declare Tesla Autopilot and Tesla FSD as 'driver assist' systems which simply assist a responsible human driver with the driving task. A bit odd, considering the name 'Full Self Driving" and Tesla is facing lawsuits, including one from the DMV, over the confusion with that name. As long as Tesla can declare its vehicles to be operating only in a driver-assist mode, and not in an autonomous vehicle mode, they can argue the autonomous vehicle related permits do not apply to them. As such, nothing stops Tesla from operating a ride-hail service, like Uber, with human drivers and a driver assist system like FSD. The Blurry Line Uber ATG eventually came to a tragic end after a fatality with one of their vehicles The open question is, when does a system step over the line? In 2016, the DMV reacted very differently when Uber ATG, the now sold-off self-driving unit of Uber, wanted to test their vehicles with safety drivers. They told the DMV they did not need a permit, as they would only test with a safety driver, and thus it would be driver assist. With particular irony, the Uber ATG Chief who declared this was Anthony Levandowski, who had participated in the drafting of the regulations that required the permits. (Later he would be involved in a variety of controversial battles, be ordered jailed, and be pardoned by Donald Trump on his last day of office.) The DMV refused. They said that Uber's vehicles were clearly to be classed as autonomous vehicles being tested, and needed the permits. They told Uber that they would pull the licence plates of the vehicles if they tested them without permits. The DMV has not done this to Tesla. It has allowed Tesla to test Tesla FSD extensively on California roads while having the permit but declaring they are never using it. The DMV has declined to comment on why the two companies were treated differently. Tesla's FSD system is one thing, but their 'robotaxi' version is something more. It still needs a human supervisor for safety reasons, as it is not yet good enough, but it does all the tasks of a taxi service, including remote summoning, pick-up and drop-off and receiving requests from riders. It is indistinguishable from an autonomous vehicle, other than in not yet being safe enough and complete enough to go into commercial operation unsupervised. It is the very archetype of an autonomous vehicle in testing. Some would argue it goes even further when the supervising human is on the right hand side. Since driving school instructors supervise teens safely there, and probably a billion students have been trained in this manner, including myself, one can make the case that there's no big safety difference between the two seats. But going in the right seat does require a system that can do all those other little things a taxi needs to do. However, the reports suggest Tesla will put the responsible safety driver back behind the wheel in California, to avoid pushing things. Supervised vs. Unsupervised That Tesla can do this large deployment tells you what the huge difference between a supervised and unsupervised robotaxi is. You can put a self-driving system on the road with a supervising driver when it is pretty terrible, perhaps 1/1000th of the way to being ready for real deployment. This explains why Tesla could trivially expand their Austin service area, and shape it like a giant upside-down Tesla logo (or whatever shape it intended) while Waymo, which runs a real unsupervised robotaxi, had to take more care in doing an expansion in Austin around the same time. It explains why Tesla could deploy a supervised robotaxi over all of the Bay Area, indeed all of California or the USA, while the companies operating actual robotaxis are growing their services areas at a much slower pace. It has nothing to do with Tesla's approach to driving most streets potentially being more general than the mapped approach other companies use. Tesla can do supervised robotaxi everywhere (as could Waymo and all the other companies) but they can do unsupervised only at the Tesla Factory and on a movie set. At least for now. Tesla's service area in Austin was suddenly enlarged to look like a giant Tesla logo if you rotate ... More it properly. Or some other shape. They could do that because it's a supervised service. The main reason not to have a giant service area is the cost. The cost of the human supervisors. The cost of all the localization infrastructure. (It's a lot.) You're losing money so the reason to expand territory is because you think you can learn. You will learn, but in fact you'll learn more than you can handle with just a modest territory, so there is minimal virtue in big expansion of a supervised service, and that's why nobody has ever let one get very big. Indeed, Tesla said in their earnings call that it has only operated the Austin service a small amount, in the area of 7,000 to 10,000 miles, which is just 20-25 miles, or a handful of rides, per day per car. It's not clear what the goal of a large expansion is. Tesla's CPUC permit does not let them operate an Uber-like service where contractors drive their own cars. The supervising driver has to be a Tesla employee. As such, Tesla is, as employer, vicariously liable for all events. In fact, the permit Tesla applied for said they would only carry other Tesla employees but they may not be bound to that. (The CPUC did not respond to questions about this latter point.) Tesla's goal, like everybody else, is to make a vehicle safe enough to operate without supervision. Musk has said he wants it to be 'much safer than a human driver' which means going at least a million miles between significant crashes. Tesla's very far away from that at present, perhaps only Waymo and Baidu Apollo have reached it. Operating a supervised service helps in learning what problems are out there, but mostly it offers publicity. The California DMV and CPUC may change their views on just what is allowed under their permits. To run an actual unsupervised taxi service, Tesla will need a DMV permit for vehicles to operate with no responsible driver in the car, and a DMV permit for such vehicles to take passengers. It will also need a CPUC permit to offer rides in such vehicles, first without charging money, and later to charge for rides. It hasn't yet done any of that. The DMV might decide to treat Tesla like Uber ATG, and say, 'No, that's an autonomous vehicle, even with a safety driver, so you need all the permits.' Time will tell.
Tom's Guide
12 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I've been using this budget-friendly cordless vacuum to suck up my dog's hair — and now it's discounted by 40% post Prime Day
Having a furry companion comes with some serious pros and cons. As a dog mum to my five-year-old rescue pup, I've been blessed with both sides of the coin. I receive endless cuddles, sloppy smooches and literal puppy-dog eyes, but at the same time, my beige couch is constantly covered in thick black fur. Thankfully, in the past month, I invested in a budget-friendly cordless vacuum that's rescued me from having to work too hard every day cleaning up the fluff — and now it's more affordable than ever. Dreame, a lesser-known brand here in Australia, has a great line of wet-dry, robot and cordless vacuum cleaners, but my saving grace is the Dreame U20. It's already remarkably affordable at AU$399.99 when at full price, but it's now discounted by 40% on Amazon, bringing it down to just AU$239.99. That's AU$160 off RRP and even more affordable than the very popular Shark IZ102 right now. Available in a gorgeous gold and beige colourway, the Dreame U20 is everything pet parents need and more, especially if you're constantly sucking up fur from your hard floors and furniture. You'd better act fast if you want to suck up these savings (pun absolutely intended) — this deal is only available on Dreame's Amazon storefront while stocks last. Knock a massive 40% off at checkout on this Dreame U20 cordless vacuum. Complete with a 100,000RPM high-speed motor, LED blue-light optic tech and up to 60 minutes runtime, this vacuum can tackle hardwood floors with ease. Plus, if you have pets, the U20 specialises in sucking up pet hair thanks to a tangle-free V-shaped brush. The Dreame U20 comes with a range of great accessories, including a combination crevice tool, a wall dock/charger and a multi-surface brush with LED blue lights that reveal hidden dust and debris. This particular attachment is paired with the extension rod for easy floor cleaning, flexible cleaning on blinds and walls, or hard-to-reach places. That's excellent value for money, even if you bought it at its RRP. My favourite attachment — and the main intrigue to the U20 — is the motorised mini brush, which clips into the main motor of the vacuum for handheld use. I particularly enjoy using this brush on my couch and decorative pillows, as it easily picks up pet hair and is extremely manoeuvrable. The aforementioned motor is also so powerful that it makes pet hair vanish in one stroke — cleaning up after my beloved pooch has never been easier. The 60-minute runtime on the device is great for most homes, and I can easily vacuum my living area, two bedrooms and two bathrooms within that time. I do find that my U20 performs better on hardwood floors and tiles compared to carpets, so do keep this in mind if you're making this purchase. It's also worth noting that the U20 doesn't have an LCD screen to show battery life or time remaining before the next charge. Instead, the battery life is displayed by a small vertical light on the back of the motor, which flashes when it needs charging. The motor is capable of running at three different speed modes, indicated by three lights on the top of the vacuum. So, if you're after a budget-friendly stick vacuum, I promise you that the Dreame U20 sure is dreamy.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lucid's Level 2 Hands-Free Driver Assist Is Finally Coming This Month
When it comes to fully self-driving cars, we're dealing with a two-horse race: Waymo vs. Tesla. And in that competition, Waymo has a huge lead, thanks to a heavy investment in Lidar, or laser radars. Tesla is relying on cameras and computing power to play catch up. Importantly, both companies are aiming to establish profitable robotaxi services. Meanwhile, other automakers simply want to enhance their driver-assist features, and Lucid is now doing just that, adding hands-free capability to its DreamDrive Pro system. A lot of carmakers are content to improve their driver-assist suite without taking the plunge on full autonomy. They aren't in the robotaxi game, and their objective is basically to stay competitive. For Lucid, its luxurious Air sedan and Gravity SUV need a hands-free option, as well as a lane-change assist feature. According to Lucid, owners of the Air will have access to the improvements as an over-the-air update on July 30, and it's coming to the Gravity later this year. Read more: These Are The Worst New Car And SUV Deals Right Now, According To Consumer Reports Driver-Assist Is Nowhere Near Self-Driving These types of Level 2 driver-assist technologies are pitched as stress-relievers rather than driver-eliminators. It's best to consider them as a form of advanced adaptive cruise control that allows the driver to take their hands off the wheel, change lanes without actively steering, and subject themselves to attention monitoring. Let your eyes wander, and the vehicle will prompt you to get those hands back on the wheel. Cool stuff, but not cheap. DreamDrive Premium is standard on all Air trims; going to Pro is $2,500 more (the exception being the fully kitted $250,000 Air Sapphire). Tesla's "Autopilot" with "Full-Self-Driving" (FSD) is an $8,000 add-on at purchase, or a $99-per-month subscription if you want it later, and it doesn't actually permit hands-free driving. I've always been on the fence about whether these systems are worth it. In a General Motors vehicle equipped with Super Cruise, I've definitely de-stressed while feeling entirely safe. In a Tesla, I've had more uneven experiences, although it's been a while since I sampled the latest and greatest that "Autopilot"/FSD delivers. Lucid's system is certainly comprehensive, including lidar, radar, visible-light cameras, surround-view cameras, and ultrasonic sensors, according to the company. Less Stressful For The Driver, More Stressful For The Automaker A startup like Lucid is under immense pressure to keep pace with the rest of the industry while also presenting itself as an EV innovator. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are becoming ubiquitous and are a marker of how cars are becoming more futuristic. They aren't a last-century industrial technology. So Lucid's customers expect that an EV costing more than $100,000 (for the Air Grand Touring trim) is going to be state-of-the-art, even if the company needs to manage the numerous challenges of creating a carmaker from scratch. Do customers think their Lucid needs to do everything a Tesla can? Maybe not. But as the company noted in its press release announcing the new features, it wants to push the story of its vehicles being "software defined." It also wants to retain an autonomous-mobility subplot. On the other hand, it's great to see Lucid continuing to go after Tesla at every opportunity and striving to maintain technological parity. The cheapest Gravity SUV is $80,000, so Lucid isn't encumbered by having to make every decision based on affordability. What we have here are unabashedly premium EVs. They actually should have every available high-tech bell and whistle, even if full autonomy isn't quite yet in the picture. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
