Through focus groups with older people and people with mobility constraints, as well as with young employees and students, we explored how different generations imagine automated mobility becoming part of their everyday lives.

The discussions showed some clear differences, but also important common ground. Older participants saw potential particularly in greater independence and accessibility, especially for people who may find driving more difficult. They were interested in solutions that could complement public transport, while emphasising safety, reliability and ease of use. Younger participants were generally more open to the technology and highlighted flexibility, time efficiency and on-demand services as potential benefits.

Despite these differences, both groups saw automated mobility as something that should not be introduced in isolation. Its value would depend on how well it connects with public transport, shared mobility and other sustainable modes of transport.

At the time, many of these questions were still largely hypothetical.

Today, the context is changing.

In September 2026, Slovenia recognised the temporary EU type-approval of Tesla’s FSD Supervised system, allowing its use in Slovenia under the applicable conditions. Slovenia became the sixth EU Member State to recognise this approval. Importantly, this does not mean that fully autonomous vehicles have arrived on Slovenian roads. FSD Supervised is an advanced driver assistance system, and the driver remains responsible for monitoring the vehicle and taking control when necessary.

Nevertheless, the development makes automated driving a little less distant. Technologies that people previously imagined as part of the future are gradually becoming part of the real mobility environment.

For the Ljubljana Urban Region, this makes the questions raised during the CulturalRoad focus groups even more relevant. The region connects 25 municipalities and is characterised by strong daily travel between them. Any future automated mobility service would therefore need to be considered not only as a vehicle technology, but as part of a wider regional transport system.

Would automated mobility improve access for people who currently have fewer transport options? Could it complement public transport and shared mobility? What would make people trust it? And could it contribute to a more sustainable way of moving around the region?

These are questions that cannot be answered by technology alone.

The CulturalRoad activities in the Ljubljana Urban Region are helping to bring the perspectives of residents and stakeholders into this discussion before automated mobility becomes more widespread. The recent development in Slovenia gives these conversations a new and very concrete context.

When we started the discussion, we were asking people to imagine the future of mobility. Now, some of that future is beginning to arrive on our roads.

The challenge for the Ljubljana Urban Region is to make sure that, as technology moves forward, people’s needs remain part of the conversation.

The post From focus groups to the road: When automated mobility becomes real appeared first on Cultural Road.

One of the first aspects to explore was participants’ prior knowledge of autonomous mobility. Some participants may already have experience with autonomous technologies or expect them to be deployed more quickly than other groups, while others may be unfamiliar with the terminology and require a clear explanation of the service. The focus group investigated what participants understand by autonomous mobility, how they imagine such services operating, and whether they consider them realistic, trustworthy, and useful in their local context. Participants’ previous experiences with public transport in their countries of origin were also discussed, as these experiences may influence their expectations of mobility services in Barcelona.

Safety, security, and interaction emerged as decisive topics. Participants expressed concerns not only about the technical reliability of autonomous systems, but also about interactions with the vehicle, the app, the boarding process, and the service staff. The discussion therefore explored whether language barriers, unfamiliar procedures, or cultural differences could affect their confidence in using autonomous mobility. It also considered whether certain groups, including women, may experience different levels of perceived security depending on the service design, the surrounding environment, or the type of journey, compared with the general population for whom these services are typically designed.

The focus group also addressed use cases and travel needs. Participants valued autonomous mobility for daily trips, connections to public transport, and access to specific destinations such as hospitals, residential areas with steep slopes, or places that are difficult to reach using conventional transport. In general, shared and public transport-oriented services were perceived as potentially safer and more affordable than private-use applications. This discussion helped identify whether migrant residents perceive CCAM as a service for everyone or as something more suitable for specific users, trip purposes, or mobility conditions.

Another important topic was service design. Participants were asked what information they would need before and during a journey, including route details, stops, waiting times, and connections. The discussion also covered accessibility, affordability, transparency, and the need for multilingual and user-friendly interfaces. A remote human operator was considered potentially important for this group, as human support could increase trust and help overcome communication barriers. At the same time, the activity explored the role of apps, cameras, sensors, and other technological features in making autonomous services more understandable, accessible, and inclusive.

Finally, the discussion addressed the perceived benefits of CCAM. Participants identified potential benefits including time savings, improved accessibility, reduced congestion, and greater inclusion, provided that the systems are appropriately designed and implemented. They also expressed openness to trying autonomous buses and other fixed-route services once the technology has been sufficiently tested and its operation clearly explained. Their feedback provides valuable insights for designing CCAM services that are culturally sensitive, accessible, and socially acceptable.

The post Focus Group with migrant residents: from safety concerns to service design priorities for CCAM appeared first on Cultural Road.

Eilat faces a significant challenge: a growing tourism city where thousands of visitors move alongside residents, private vehicles, taxis, buses, trucks, and two-wheelers every day. In such an environment, continued reliance on polluting transport can increase congestion and exposure to air pollution.

Eilat’s multi-year plan for reducing transport-related air pollution proposes a broad transformation of the city’s mobility system, which includes the electrification of public transport and taxis, expanded public transport services, the promotion of walking and micromobility, the creation of low-emission areas, and the diversion of heavy truck traffic away from the urban environment.

But for this transformation to succeed, infrastructure and technology alone are not enough. We also need to understand what makes people choose one way of travelling over another. Is public transport accessible and convenient? Can it adapt its service to changing demand? Are cycling routes safe and continuous? Do pedestrians feel comfortable in public spaces? Are taxi drivers ready to switch to electric vehicles? And do residents and visitors feel that the new solutions actually meet their needs?

The public transport of the future

As part of this transformation, it is worth looking one step further ahead. The transition to electric buses is an important step towards cleaner transportation. The next step could be the gradual integration of connected and autonomous public transport – vehicles capable of operating automatically, communicating with infrastructure and other transport systems, and becoming part of a smart, multimodal mobility system.

For a city like Eilat, these possibilities are particularly interesting. Connected and autonomous public transport could, in the future, help connect key destinations across the city, link new neighborhoods with employment centers, connect hotel areas with transport hubs, and address one of the region’s key mobility challenges: the connection between Ramon Airport and Eilat.

This connection represents an opportunity to rethink the concept of the “last mile”. Rather than viewing the journey from Ramon Airport to Eilat and the subsequent journey within the city as separate segments, we can envision one seamless mobility chain – from the moment a passenger lands at Ramon to the moment they reach their final destination in Eilat.

In the future, autonomous public transport could become part of such a system, providing an efficient and flexible connection between Ramon Airport and Eilat while complementing the city’s public transport and micromobility network.

Instead of thinking only about a fixed bus route operating along the same path at the same frequency, we can imagine a more flexible system capable of adapting services to demand, complementing the existing public transport network, and connecting different modes of mobility. But here too, technology is not the goal, and the real challenge is getting people to trust the system and use it. Passengers need to feel safe inside a driverless vehicle.
The system needs to be accessible to people who are not necessarily “tech-savvy”. Information needs to be clear and readily available, and the service needs to integrate naturally with buses, taxis, bicycles, and walking.

Therefore, when we talk about autonomous transport, we should not talk only about autonomy – but also about acceptance, accessibility, safety, and trust.

Technology that serves people

This is also one of the key challenges facing Eilat on its journey toward becoming a low-emission city.

The city’s multi-year plan recognises that transport transformation requires engagement with users and stakeholders. For example, in the field of electric taxis, this includes the development of a fast-charging network and involving stakeholders in determining the locations of charging stations, while addressing drivers’ concerns, including range anxiety.

The promotion of micromobility is also about more than simply adding bicycle lanes. The goal is to create a continuous and safe network that can shift short trips away from private cars and toward active modes of transport.

The same principle should guide autonomous transport. It is not enough for technology to work; it needs to work for people – a key principle at the heart of CulturalRoad’s work. This means planning a system in which residents, passengers, drivers, transport operators, businesses, and local authorities all have a role in shaping the system. The questions we need to ask are not only “What technology can do?” but also “What do users need?”, “What are they concerned about?”, and “What conditions will encourage them to adopt the solution?”

Along the Ramon-Eilat corridor in particular, one of CulturalRoad’s demonstration sites, these questions take on special importance: Who are the users? How do the needs of tourists differ from those of residents? How can the system serve passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility? How do we create a sense of safety and trust in an autonomous vehicle? And how do we ensure that the service complements the existing transport system rather than operating alongside it as a separate solution? These are not merely technological challenges but questions of planning, usability, accessibility, and trust.

From electric buses to a smart mobility system

Eilat’s transition to a low-emission city can therefore be much more than replacing diesel engines with electric ones. It can be an opportunity to rethink the way people move across the city and the wider region. Electric buses can provide the foundation, while autonomous public transport could be the next step.

The connection between Ramon Airport and Eilat could become one of the corridors where this technology is tested and integrated into the wider mobility system. Micromobility and walking can complete shorter journeys, digital systems can connect all these options, and urban and regional planning can ensure that they operate as one integrated system.

Eilat’s multi-year plan estimates that full implementation of the proposed measures could reduce annual emissions by approximately 54.96 tonnes of NOx, 3.49 tonnes of PM2.5, and 2,740 tonnes of CO₂. These are significant numbers, but behind the numbers lies a larger goal: to create a cleaner, more accessible, safer, and more attractive transport system in Eilat – one that people actually want to use.

The city of the future will not simply be a city with fewer emissions. It will be a city where technology, infrastructure, and people work together to create a better way to move – from Ramon to Eilat, and throughout the city itself. And the journey starts with people.

Image has been generated by AI.

The post A clean city starts with people appeared first on Cultural Road.

From the gaming PC to the lab

Fortunately, technologies, originally designed for PC gaming, are now leading a pathway to circumvent this roadblock. Over the last decade, huge strides have been made to make game engines such as Unity or Unreal more accessible to non-programmers through visual scripting interfaces. In addition, companies such as Meta pushed powerful VR development-kits to the market, enabling seamless integration of tools such as hand and gaze tracking. While VR has yet to achieve mainstream commercial success, the technologies developed in its pursuit have proven surprisingly valuable for research applications. Together with the increasingly popular open-source 3D design software Blender and the ever-growing catalogue of available assets, this creates an ecosystem where researchers can rapidly develop and deploy photorealistic worlds to present their ideas in a highly immersive manner.

From first prototype to final interior

Not only does using a 3D modelled VR world significantly lower development costs, but it also speeds up development cycles considerably. This enables real-time adjustments during testing and reduces even extensive redesigns to a matter of days.

Using virtual environments also holds further advantages beyond the cost and speed factors. In many cases it is possible to deploy the testing environment directly on the VR device (or in cases where this is not possible it can be deployed on a modestly powerful laptop) which makes the whole setup highly portable. The entire testing setup can be carried around in a backpack and test sites can be set up with almost no preparation anywhere.

Unity Editor showing the VR interface from a wheelchair user’s perspective

In the case of the Karlsruhe demonstration site, using real automated shuttles was never an option since all the costs associated with such a vehicle would have been unbearable in the scope of this project. Instead, we opted to implement a VR environment in the Unity engine. Relying on available assets, we rapidly deployed an initial test environment and implemented the UI interface for our user tests.

Initial interior of the autonomous bus asset

Upon evaluation we then found that the chosen design had several weaknesses. It was too bulky and during height adjustments it would have collided with the railing, and it was also partly blocking the door. For those reasons it did not fulfil its intended purpose of making the interface more accessible. One display was removed and a second lower one introduced on the opposite side of the door.  In a final design step, upon feedback from our focus group study, a pair of displays was added to the ceiling of the vehicle to provide information about the journey, as is commonly known from buses or trams.

Final interior design

Challenges and Difficulties of using VR for the evaluation of CCAM services

Accessibility is a key topic in the context of CCAM, and, especially in the scope of the CulturalRoad project, VR allows participants with physical impairments to participate in experiments that would otherwise be hardly accessible for them. It also allows an ordinary user to experience an experiment from the perspective of, for example, a wheelchair user.

Furthermore, by implementing hand tracking, users can interact with the UI in a more natural manner without relying on traditional controllers, further lowering the barrier to entry. This was surprisingly straightforward during development, since the hardware manufacturer and the engine developers are now providing out-of-the-box toolkits to implement such features with minimal development effort.

However, VR is also associated with significant drawbacks. For one there is the issue of motion sickness, a condition caused by a mismatch between perceived and felt motion, leading to dizziness and nausea. For the Karlsruhe pilot we therefore took several measures to minimise motion sickness, such as restricting movement to the inside of the shuttle and choosing a high-quality VR device with excellent stabilisation and a very high refresh rate.

There are also obvious issues related to participants with visual or neurological impairments. Unfortunately for those groups VR is often not a viable option in its current state. It is therefore important that researchers take these limitations into consideration when they are implementing VR technology, especially in the context of accessibility or social acceptance.

Democratising research with VR

VR technology has matured to a point where it is no longer the exclusive domain of large industrial players with large budgets. By combining low development costs, rapid iteration cycles and a highly portable setup, it opens the door for research that would previously have been out of reach for smaller projects with limited funding. While VR is not a silver bullet, accessibility constraints remain a real challenge for certain participant groups. Nevertheless, its advantages make it a compelling tool for user experience research in the context of CCAM and beyond. As VR hardware continues to improve and its ecosystem grows, these barriers are likely to diminish further, making it an increasingly attractive option for researchers across disciplines.

Illustration of the initial bus design compared to the result as modelled in Blender

The post Creating a VR Environment for the evaluation of social interaction with autonomous means of transport appeared first on Cultural Road.

In our recent joint paper, From Trials to Transformation? A Local Authority Perspective on Connected Automated Mobility—co-authored by Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) alongside colleagues from Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and the Greater Cambridge Partnership, we laid out an unvarnished view of what it takes to move automated vehicles from ring-fenced pilot schemes to an integrated public transport reality.

For those of us working within the CulturalRoad project, the white paper’s core findings resonate deeply. As the West Midlands/Oxfordshire demo site continues to test and validate CCAM frameworks on the ground, the paper underscores why technical readiness is meaningless without social readiness, local governance, and transport equity.

Moving beyond “tech-push”: automated mobility as a public service

The white paper addresses a central tension in the current ecosystem: while private sector investment is racing to prove technological feasibility, public authorities must ensure that CAM deployment doesn’t simply cater to commercial corridors or duplicate well-served routes.

Instead, the paper argues for a bus-like, mass-transit-first approach, deploying shared, automated public transport services (APTS) that plug connectivity deserts, bridge first-mile/last-mile gaps, and operate under clear civic objectives.

This philosophy mirrors CulturalRoad’s founding premise. Automated mobility is not purely a technological feat; it is a social, structural intervention. If CCAM does not actively improve access for underserved neighbourhoods, it risks exacerbating existing transport inequalities rather than resolving them.

The CulturalRoad Five-Pillar Equity Framework in action

CulturalRoad evaluates automated deployment against a Five-Pointed Star Rating System based on core equity pillars. The local authority white paper effectively articulates the practical, policy-level hurdles that directly map to these pillars:

• Inclusivity & Acceptance:

The paper calls for transparent learning mechanisms and participatory deployment. Without community co-design, CCAM risks alienating the very demographics that stand to gain the most, such as older adults, non-drivers, and lower-income commuters. CulturalRoad’s demonstration site workshops and citizen focus groups are operationalising this exact need by diagnosing public trust and psychological barriers before vehicles hit commercial service.

• Network Optimisation & Public Sector Leadership:

A key recommendation of the paper is the need for coordinated, national-to-local strategic alignment. Local authorities cannot be passive bystanders waiting for private operators to deploy; councils need standardisation, digital infrastructure support, and clear regulatory tools to integrate CAM into wider Urban Traffic Control (UTC) and regional transit networks.

• Safety & Psychological Factors:

Trust is fragile. The white paper highlights that inconsistent reporting, closed testing silos, and fragmented data slow down public acceptance. Establishing institutional accountability is essential to building the long-term confidence required for communities to embrace autonomous transit.

Grounding European research in real-world delivery

As one of CulturalRoad’s active demonstration sites, the West Midlands is using these exact principles to bridge the gap between high-level policy and real-world deployment.

The practical lessons captured in the white paper, drawn from hands-on pilot environments across Solihull and the wider region, feed directly into CulturalRoad’s bottom-up guidelines. By uniting local authority operational realities with European-wide research across partner sites in Catalonia, Karlsruhe, Ljubljana, and Eilat, we can ensure that future regulatory frameworks reflect the messy, complex realities of physical roads and diverse community needs.

The road ahead: collaborative, coordinated, community-led

If we want automated mobility to deliver true public value, we cannot leave adoption to chance. As the white paper concludes, achieving the transition from trials to transformation requires:

1. Strong public sector stewardship to anchor deployments in social and environmental goals.
2. Standardised operational specifications for shared, accessible automated passenger services.
3. Continuous, structured co-creation with citizens to ensure services reflect local cultural and geographic contexts.

Through initiatives like CulturalRoad and the proactive collaboration of forward-thinking local authorities, we are laying the groundwork for an automated mobility landscape that is not just technologically viable, but demonstrably fair, trusted, and inclusive.

The post From trials to transformation: why local authorities and CulturalRoad share the same blueprint for automated mobility appeared first on Cultural Road.

This is one of the key ideas behind CulturalRoad, in which the Regional Development Agency of the Ljubljana Urban Region (RDA LUR) is a partner. The project explores how different cultural, social and geographical contexts influence the acceptance of automated mobility and how innovative mobility solutions can be better adapted to people’s needs.

Technology alone is not enough

Automated mobility has the potential to improve road safety, reduce congestion, optimise transport systems and provide better mobility options for older adults, people with disabilities and residents of areas with limited public transport.

Yet technological excellence alone does not guarantee success. Even the most advanced solution will not achieve its full potential if users do not trust it or if it fails to address their everyday mobility needs.

People have different expectations, habits and experiences when it comes to adopting new technologies. While some may quickly embrace automated mobility, others may remain cautious or sceptical. Understanding these differences is therefore essential for the successful deployment of automated mobility services.

People at the heart of innovation

CulturalRoad is built on the idea that citizens, local communities and stakeholders should actively participate in shaping the future of automated mobility. Rather than developing solutions independently of end users, the project promotes a co-creation approach that brings together public authorities, researchers, businesses and citizens.

This collaborative process helps identify the needs of different user groups, understand concerns and design solutions that are more inclusive, practical and socially acceptable.

It is equally important to recognise that mobility solutions cannot simply be copied from one region to another. What works well in a large metropolitan area may not be suitable for smaller towns or rural regions. For this reason, CulturalRoad includes several demonstration sites across Europe and Israel, where partners test different approaches and exchange experiences in diverse cultural and transport environments.

The role of the Ljubljana Urban Region

The Ljubljana Urban Region is Slovenia’s largest employment and transport hub, attracting a significant number of daily commuters. This creates challenges for the regional transport system and highlights the need for innovative, sustainable and inclusive mobility solutions.

Within the CulturalRoad project, RDA LUR is exploring how automated mobility can contribute to a more accessible and user-centred transport system. As part of the co-creation approach, RDA LUR has already engaged with stakeholders and citizens through workshops, interviews and focus groups to better understand their expectations, concerns and needs regarding future mobility solutions.

The insights gathered will support the development of recommendations for the region and help ensure that automated mobility solutions are designed around the needs of the people who will use them.

Building the future of mobility together

The future of automated mobility is not determined by technology alone. It also depends on trust, collaboration and a deep understanding of people’s needs.

If innovative mobility solutions are to improve everyday life, they must be developed together with the people who will use them. Only then can technological innovation become a safe, inclusive and widely accepted part of everyday mobility.

CulturalRoad reminds us that the future of mobility is shaped not only by algorithms and vehicles, but above all by the people they are designed to serve.

The post Why automated mobility is not only a technological challenge, but above all a social one appeared first on Cultural Road.

The discussions showed that participants were generally familiar with the idea of autonomous mobility, although their level of knowledge varied. Previous experience with Barcelona’s automated metro lines helped some participants relate to the concept, while others required a clearer explanation of how autonomous vehicles operate. A common theme was the need for transparent information about how the vehicles function, how routes are managed, and what happens in the event of an incident. Participants highlighted that understanding the technology is an essential first step towards building trust.

Safety emerged as the main factor influencing acceptance. Participants expressed interest in autonomous mobility but emphasised that its deployment should be gradual and supported by extensive testing. Features such as controlled driving speed, smooth vehicle movements, visible safety features, emergency buttons, and the possibility of contacting a remote human operator were considered essential for building confidence. Most participants also indicated that they would feel more comfortable with autonomous buses or minibuses operating on fixed routes before expanding to more flexible services, such as robotaxis.

Accessibility and comfort were also identified as key requirements. Easy boarding and alighting, sufficient space, comfortable seating, good temperature, clear route information, and inclusive design for people with reduced mobility were considered fundamental. While participants were generally open to using digital tools such as mobile applications, they stressed that these should remain intuitive and complemented by alternative forms of assistance to avoid excluding users with lower digital confidence.

Despite expressing understandable caution, participants were generally willing to try autonomous mobility once the technology has been thoroughly tested and demonstrated to be safe and reliable. They recognised potential benefits, including improved access to healthcare and essential services, safer travel, fewer accidents, and greater transport accessibility. Overall, the discussions highlighted that older adults are not resistant to innovation; rather, they expect autonomous mobility services to be introduced in a transparent, inclusive and trustworthy way that responds to their everyday mobility needs.

The post Focus Group with older adults: Understanding the conditions for accepting Autonomous Mobility appeared first on Cultural Road.

The student perspective was chosen deliberately: Karlsruhe is strongly shaped by universities, research institutions and an international student population. More than one in ten residents are students and almost one in five students at Karlsruhe’s higher education institutions are foreign nationals. Accordingly, participants came from different countries and brought experience from different transport systems and mobility cultures. Some also contributed technical perspectives from their studies, particularly on infrastructure, safety and system reliability. Together, these experiences made the group especially valuable for discussing how autonomous mobility may be understood by future users with diverse cultural and educational backgrounds.

Where perceptions of AVs come from

Participants associated Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) with ideas such as “future,” convenience and innovation, but also with uncertainty and lack of control. Their views were shaped by a wide range of influences, including science-fiction films, social media, news coverage and personal experiences with automated transport systems. Some referred to experiences with automated metro systems such as those in Sofia, while others drew on broader media narratives about electric and autonomous vehicles and their common intertwining. This showed clearly that perceptions of autonomous mobility are shaped not only by direct use, but also by cultural narratives, public debate and own studies. Referring back to the blog post title, they all have one thing in common: shaping perceptions of autonomous vehicles.

Why safety remains the key question

For some participants, safety was one of the main arguments in favor of automated mobility; for others, it was the strongest reason for hesitation. Several participants stressed that even a system described as “99.9% safe” would still not feel sufficient when human lives are involved. A recurring point in the discussion was the perceived importance of some form of human backup, whether through remote intervention, emergency systems or an operator who could step in if something went wrong.

Everyday situations, everyday users

At the same time, the discussion showed that acceptance depends on context. Autonomous shuttles were often perceived more positively than robotaxis, particularly in structured, urban or semi-controlled environments. On the other hand, participants noted that robotaxis could feel safer in certain situations, especially at night.

Participants were more open to autonomous mobility when it was discussed in relation to specific, realistic use cases such as commuting, travelling at night with unfamiliar drivers or fellow passengers, parking in tight spaces or getting around without access to a private vehicle. These examples showed that acceptance increased when automated services were seen as a way to address everyday mobility, insecurities or practical driving challenges. Talking about concrete situations made the technology feel more understandable and, for some, more acceptable.

The group also reflected on who might benefit most from autonomous mobility. Participants suggested that the typical user could include commuters, younger people without a driving license, people with physical disabilities and users who are comfortable with technology.

Tension between technological curiosity and practical caution

This led to a broader question of what kind of skills or knowledge future users may actually need. Participants noted that people with driving experience might in fact be more skeptical, because they are more aware of what can go wrong. By contrast, technical confidence and a basic understanding of how such systems work were often seen as more relevant than driving skills themselves.

Another interesting contribution of this group was that participants often approached the issue not only as everyday users, but also through technical or analytical lenses shaped by their studies. This became particularly visible in the discussion about service design and onboard information. Participants did not simply ask for reassurance in general terms; some wanted greater transparency about how the system works in practice. Suggested features included clear status information, visible safety mechanisms, simple manual controls and even troubleshooting insight during the ride, or some kind of status panel showing sensor outputs and system status, allowing users to better understand what the vehicle is “seeing” and whether all systems are functioning normally. This is a remarkable insight, because it suggests that at least some users may feel more comfortable not when technology is hidden in the background, but when relevant system information is made visible and understandable.

These comments underline that acceptance is shaped not only by engineering performance, but also by interface design, communication, privacy, security and the social experience of travel.

Overall, the focus group showed why the perspective of international students matters in Karlsruhe. Their responses combined openness to innovation with careful attention to safety, usability and inclusion.

The post What do science fiction, Tesla and Bulgaria have in common? appeared first on Cultural Road.

CulturalRoad contributed to the programme with three papers, exploring how automated mobility can be deployed in ways that are equitable for all users. The project was also represented at the ERTICO stand, offering attendees a chance to find out more about CulturalRoad’s approach and methodology.

Peyman Hashemi Baragoori (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) presented the paper “Accessibility as the Objective: An Equity-Focused Framework for CCAM Integration in Public Transport Networks“, co-authored with Margarita Martínez-Díaz and Mohamed Abouelela, during Technical session 5. This study presents a proactive, location-based optimisation framework designed to integrate CCAM shuttles (CS) as first-mile and/or last-mile feeders into existing public transport systems, specifically targeting equitable access to essential destinations. It first identifies those areas in which low accessibility by public transport is coupled with sociodemographic characteristics indicative of (mobility) vulnerability, such as low income or education levels, or low rates of car ownership, among others. The novel KPI Accessibility Gain Ratio (AGR) is introduced with the objective of maximising reachable essential opportunities (such as healthcare and education) while minimising total generalised travel costs (incorporating travel time, transfers, and fares, but also value of time). The application of the framework to the city of Barcelona demonstrates that there is no one-size-fits-all solution; the success of CCAM shuttle integration was showed highly dependent on the chosen fare structure. For example, under distance-based pricing schemes, slower automated CCAM shuttles successfully outperformed manual-driven, quicker shuttles, because their lower perceived value of time offset their lower operating speeds. The paper concludes that strategically planned CCAM integration can significantly boost equitable mobility, provided that public planners carefully design and test fare schemes to match local geographic patterns and demands.

“CulturalRoad: A Five-Pillar Framework for Equitable CCAM Implementation Across Europe“, written by Paraskevi Koliou, Margarita Martínez-Díaz, Guido Cantelmo, Mohamed Abouelela, Sarah Stelter, Ramandeep Singh, George Yannis, and Arantxa Carolina De La Hoz Morris, was presented by Margarita Martínez Díaz (UPC) during a poster session. The paper addresses the critical need to ensure that the deployment of CCAM systems is socially equitable and context-sensitive across diverse cultural and geographical regions. In fact, it summarises the quantitative methodology proposed by CulturalRoad with this goal: the Five-Pointed Star Rating System. This is a novel evaluation framework organised around five core pillars: i) Inclusivity, which includes accessibility, affordability and other aspects such as physical or digital accessibility, ii) Network Optimisation, which accounts for the combination of scheduled-based and frequency-based transport solutions, iii) Safety, both for CCAM users and other actors, iv) Acceptance, which includes considerations about the Value of Time, among others, and v) the role of Psychological Factors such as personality attributes of affinity for technology. The methodological framework is reflected in various KPIs that, once estimated, will make it possible to assess the degree of equity in any design or implementation, as well as to compare different CCAM solutions across different geographical and cultural context. Ultimately, the framework underscores that ensuring equitable deployment requires moving beyond traditional operations-related metrics to actively address underlying psychological barriers, user trust, and cultural attitudes.

“Accounting for Vulnerable Users in Public Transport Optimisation“, by Arantxa De La Hoz, Yu Jiang, Jesper Bláfoss Ingvardson and Guido Cantelmo, was presented during a poster session by Guido Cantelmo (Technical University of Denmark). The paper presents an integrated optimisation framework for public transport networks that explicitly accounts for user heterogeneity and mobility-related vulnerabilities. While most existing public transport optimisation approaches treat schedule-based and frequency-based services separately and assume homogeneous demand, this work incorporates the travel Preferences of People with Mobility Disabilities (PwMD), who are often more sensitive to transfers and accessibility constraints. The proposed model jointly optimises service frequencies and timetables while considering both passenger costs and operational costs, realistic capacity constraints, and route choice behaviour through a Multinomial Logit formulation. A case study based on the Copenhagen metropolitan area demonstrates that including vulnerable users in the optimisation process does not significantly increase system costs or reduce efficiency. The results show that operational performance remains comparable to traditional homogeneous-demand scenarios, while producing more equitable solutions. Overall, the framework highlights the importance of integrating equity considerations into transport planning and provides a practical tool for designing more equitable public transport systems.

Participation in TRA 2026 reinforced CulturalRoad’s connections with the broader CCAM research and policy community and provided a valuable opportunity to exchange with researchers, industry representatives, and policymakers on the challenges and opportunities shaping automated mobility deployment across Europe.

The post CulturalRoad at TRA 2026: Putting equity at the heart of automated mobility appeared first on Cultural Road.

The webinar brought together representatives from the project’s five demonstration sites for a roundtable discussion on their experiences with co-creation. Moderated by Guido Cantelmo (Technical University of Denmark – DTU), the panel included Xavier Sanyer (Barcelona Transport Authority – ATM), Dr. Maximilian Schrapel (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – KIT), Špela Kranjc (Regional Development Agency of Ljubljana Urban Region), Ruth Anderson (Oxfordshire County Council), and Yaniv Shmuel (Eilat Municipality).

The CulturalRoad co-creation framework

CulturalRoad uses a two-step co-creation framework to ensure that Connected, Cooperative and Automated Mobility (CCAM) deployment responds to local needs. In the first step, service providers, technology developers, policy makers, and public authorities come together to provide input on effective and equitable CCAM deployment. Then, local citizens are involved to give stakeholders feedback based on their actual needs and concerns.

This approach is being tested in five demonstration sites in Catalonia, Karlsruhe, Eilat, Ljubljana, and the United Kingdom (Oxfordshire and West Midlands), covering urban, suburban, and rural environments, with a particular focus on underserved user groups including older people, people with disabilities, and those with lower incomes.

Learnings from the CulturalRoad demo sites

A consistent message from all demonstration site representatives was that engaging citizens from the start is essential. Understanding citizens’ needs helps ensure higher adoption rates by bringing diverse perspectives and making sure the technology developed matches local needs. For instance, focus groups held in Catalonia with older residents, people with low digital literacy, and non-native speakers helped identify specific needs that would otherwise have been missed. In Karlsruhe, virtual reality was used to make the technology more tangible for participants unfamiliar with it. A recurring and somewhat unexpected finding was that initial scepticism, particularly among elderly users, tends to turn into genuine curiosity and willingness to try new services, once people better understand how the technology works.

The discussion also addressed where CCAM can add the most value. All speakers agreed that CCAM services should not aim to replace conventional public transport but rather complement it through flexible services where public transport is difficult to operate efficiently. CCAM could help address first- and last-mile connections, support people that don’t have a driving licence, help manage shortage of drivers, and operate in rural and low-density areas not suited for traditional, larger vehicles.

Enabling CCAM deployment

Another point raised was that successful deployment requires more than technology. A shared strategic vision and the right business models are needed to ensure these new services are implemented in an equitable way. For instance, CCAM services can contribute to greater equity by reaching more rural, underserved areas, and deliberate choices about where and how services are introduced can help ensure they deliver broader benefits to users. A shared vision adopted by all relevant stakeholders would also enable the implementation of the physical and digital infrastructure required.

On regulation, speakers emphasised the need for a harmonised regulatory framework to enable deployment beyond local pilots. This includes clear rules on safety, liability, and data exchange, among others. Regulation should enable new services, not act as a barrier to their deployment.

Missed the webinar? The recording is available below.

The post Webinar recap: insights from CulturalRoad’s demonstration sites on engaging local communities appeared first on Cultural Road.