The robots are coming. Well, the sidewalk delivery robots are actually already here, in some wards. After a resounding anti-delivery robot poll result, Ald. Daniel La Spata, 1st, chose not to expand the delivery robot pilot to his Northwest Side ward, but robots are operating on sidewalks in several West and North Side wards. Most recently, Ald. William Hall, 6th, approved them for his ward and promoted them at an event last month. With that approval, service is anticipated in some parts of the South Side this fall.
I can’t help but agree with Laura Washington in her Tribune column in early April — there are more pressing and consequential issues. Still, I find myself frustrated when I see the robots crowding our sidewalks or read about them crashing into our bus shelters. The city of Chicago has an easy opportunity to rethink their existence on our shared sidewalks. If they are permitted after the pilot ends in May, we deserve a better deal.
Perhaps others like me are annoyed by them in part because the delivery robots represent another intrusion of a shiny technology in search of a problem. With backing from Open AI’s CEO, the leadership at Coco, one of the two delivery robot firms operating in Chicago, has explicitly stated its aim to replace a sustainable means of delivery we already have: bicycle couriers. We don’t, however, currently have sufficiently safe streets for bicycle couriers, perhaps triggering frustration among sustainable transportation advocates that robots are getting attention and space when human street safety is a crisis. This was exemplified by the tragic death of Damian Gomez, a bicyclist killed in a traffic crash while Gomez was working food delivery on the Southwest Side. This sustainable mode of delivery made safer would have shared collective benefits for all, as protected bicycle infrastructure is associated with improved safety for all road users. More safe, sustainable options would be a benefit for all Chicago residents.
On the other hand, the second firm operating in Chicago, Serve, claims its sustainability aim is to replace delivery car trips. Yet for short-distance deliveries, safer streets open up other options, such as couriers on bicycles (including e-bikes) and on foot. Whether Serve moves the needle on sustainability is an open question.
I’ve tried to think of important, guaranteed benefits or equity use cases for robots over people. For me, food and retail delivery is an unnecessary luxury, whereas busy caregivers may have more constraints, as might individuals with disabilities. For individuals who might have barriers to social interaction, couriers can already leave items at the door. For those with mobility challenges, human couriers are better able to navigate entryways and last steps. And, of course, I’d rather see delivery fees going to workers than Silicon Valley and venture capitalists, although perhaps the workers would benefit from collective bargaining like ride-share drivers.
Beyond being a technology in search of a problem, delivery robots can cause problems. They block movement on sidewalks. Their presence is especially challenging to navigate for people using mobility devices or pushing strollers. And we’ve seen they sometimes crash into bus shelters. Finally, pedestrians already have a small slice of our public right of way.
So, if there aren’t inherent compelling benefits and there are downsides, it should be an open question whether we permit sidewalk delivery robots beyond the pilot. And, if we do, the residents of Chicago should get a better deal. The most compelling potential benefit I’ve come across is robots collecting sidewalk conditions data and potentially funding sidewalk improvements. We’d still need to learn more about downsides for those with disabilities and/or using mobility devices. Could we tack on a fee to support gig workers? Or something else? Can we regulate away their downsides? Businesses sometimes complain that fees and regulations make their business unviable. In this case, so what? We don’t need them.
The city of Chicago should rethink our approach and, at a minimum, guarantee more collective benefits.
More Top Picks Runners Outdoors
Kate Lowe is an associate professor in urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois Chicago.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].