Transit-Like and Lite - Ford, Olli

Elaine Chao, the US Secretary of Transportation, is saying exactly what other DOT staff and the private sector are saying, that people with disabilities and older adults are going to be big winners with autonomous vehicles (AVs) because it won't matter if they are unable to drive. Hooray for these good intentions, but until now, no one was talking about accessibility and the work to get there. I'm including Ford's big announcement yesterday in this post because shared use, transit, and accessibility go hand in hand to provide independence for those with transportation challenges.

Transportation equity advances

The new Olli autonomous shuttle is as much an achievement as the process that led to the universal design of this AV and its interfaces - designed with and for people with disabilities as much as for the general public. Not only were people with disabilities invited in, listened to, and asked questions, but even more amazing is that the Olli team designed for accessibility for a range of different types of disabilities. Yes! People who use wheelchairs were included, but so were people with visual disabilities and more.

Kudos to Local Motors, the company that manufactures the Olli, for taking the time to find out what people need and want and feels comfortable and actively engaging with people with disabilities, who, for the most part, continue to suffer from terrible transportation challenges even with our best transit systems. (I may be involved with this field professionally, but it was a lesson when I needed to use the DC Metro elevators recently. Not easy to experience a normal trip even when elevators are working, but that is impossible most of the time due to constant elevator breakdowns and maintenance work. It's like SafeTrack all the time for anyone who is unable to use the escalators.)

Ford finds cities to be wonderful towns - where people don't want to drive

It's as if the executives of the Ford Motor Company watched this classic movie snippet, which is very multimodal, by the way, and got religion - the religion of transit, shared use, and mobility as a service (MaaS), and decided to go right for it. They've hung up the 1950s ethos of Detroit and gotten the 2018 bug of Brooklyn, Portland, and San Francisco.

In an amazing display of Ford's commitment to its new philosophy, the company announced yesterday that it is (1) buying - acquiring - TransLoc, a microtransit platform and transit routing software company, which builds upon the acquisition and expansion of Chariot into more cities; (2) acquiring Autonomic (which sounds like a cross between auto technology and off-the-shelf medicine), which can simply be described as a cloud-based MaaS platform; and (3) getting heavily into shared-use modes, MaaS, and non-emergency medical transportation. It's as if Ford is saying it will get into and replace all transit and shared-use modes except for the urban rail systems.

There's more: Because this is corporate America, a reorganization goes along with the news. Seems like Ford's Smart Mobility program is greatly expanding to include a mobility business group, and to integrate the almost-within-reach dream of AVs.

Now that's a big day for AVs. Maybe Ford will acquire Local Motors, the Olli company. Ford seems to be on a buying spree.

AV Ridehailing - Some Actual Announcements, Some Not

Ever since New Year's there's been a deluge of autonomous vehicle (AV) news. Between the broken arm (was a bummer, but not too bad) and the ton of news, it's taken me a while to read through everything and I have yet to sift through the legislative and other developments at the state level.

See my post about the details of the requests for comments from FTA, FHWA, and NHTSA. Submit early and often.  You have until early March to share your thoughts with these agencies and to contribute to the public record.

AV ridehailing shifting to actual AVs and to more cities

Yes, Uber, Lyft, and Waymo have been testing and piloting AVs for a long time. Now announcements are fast and furious that the driver - also known as the AV engineer or attendant - will be ditched altogether for some ridehailing trips in particular locations.

There's also lots of news about geographic expansions to Atlanta, Boston and unnamed cities.

Waymo is heading to Atlanta to supply rides in a car-oriented, congested city with good weather. No word on ditching the drivers - yet. According to the TechCrunch post, Atlanta is thrilled and touting its bona fides as a city with lots of smart people to work for hi-tech firms. Waymo is already in the Phoenix area - the first car-oriented, congested city with good weather to see AVs.

In December, Boston saw more activity with the Lyft-nuTonomy announcement of AV ridehailing, though with a driver in the car. AV rides will only be available in the South Street Seaport area for now. This month Lyft also pushed forward with a partnership with Aptiv to bring AV ridehailing to the CES conference in Las Vegas, the experiment being continued beyond the conference. This partnership is flirting with us by way of a statement about expanding to another city, as yet unnamed.

What? When?

Boston will soon add another AV operation: Optimus Ride has received approval to transport passengers in AVs and will soon do so in the Marine Park area. Optimus Ride is a local startup out of MIT. Date unspecified and actual type of operation unspecified as well.

“There are places people definitely need to go, and there’s definitely a first- and last-mile problem,” said Ryan Chin, chief executive officer of Optimus Ride. “The Silver Line isn’t really cutting it at many times of the day. I think there’s an opportunity to rethink that.”

No hands, no feet, no human, no dates

Uber announced it is nearing - no date declared - AV ridehailing "without human backup drivers." Really like a pre-engagment: Are you intending to marry, in which case you are actually engaged, or are you just thinking about  it? The same Denver Post article reported that GM made the same vague statement, also without a clue of a date or location.

Waymo, however, is already testing - sans driver - in the Phoenix area. Apparently Waymo has been operating without a human in some AVs since October. At an as yet unspecified date, the company will invite normal people to ride.

Submit Your Comments - Early and Often (Long post)

The USDOT, through its administrative agencies of NHTSA, FTA and FHWA has announced requests for comments about how it will arrive at a world of autonomous vehicles (AVs), incorporating shared rides, and cybersecurity. I concentrated recently on FTA's STAR plan, but the USDOT has more in mind than transit and shared rides and labor issues.

FTA's two documents were published in the Federal Register on Jan. 16 and the comment deadline is March 2, 2018. FHWA and NHTSA's were published on Jan. 19 and the comment deadline is March 5, 2018.

US transportation agency acronym recap

By the way, FTA = Federal Transit Administration and FHWA = Federal Highway Administration. NHTSA, as the vast majority of you know, is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, which already has AV guidelines and which issues the US federal motor vehicle safety standards or FMVSS.

Important comment detail!
The USDOT agencies are requesting that comments "indicate the level(s) of automation impacted by the statute, regulation, or policy." Don't forget! You want your comments to be considered and taken seriously.

Documents published in the Federal Register

FHWA's published request for comments with a March 5, 2018 deadline:

Automated Driving Systems

FTA's published request for comments with March 2 deadline:

Removing Barriers to Transit Bus Automation

Research Program: Automated Transit Buses  

NHTSA published request for comments with a March 5, 2018 deadline:

Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems

FTA research program request

Remember, FTA is not seeking comments pertaining to systems without an automated driving aspect (driver warnings and alerts), unless the system is evolving to include automation in the foreseeable future. So feel free to comment about AV ridehailing services - sans drivers or engineers - that have been recently announced by Uber, Lyft, Waymo and other companies that will begin in the next year or so.

The goal, from FTA's perspective is to "better inform FTA of existing transit bus automation technology, and to assist FTA in identifying potential areas of future research. ... Each response should indicate which level of automation the technology or process addresses. Inclusion of existing supplemental information is welcomed and encouraged. This supplemental information could include reports, presentations, specifications, or other documentation."

In case you were thinking of transit in terms of big, long buses, think again. FTA is redefining transit for an almost universal definition that includes different kinds of vehicles and anything from fixed route to mobility-on-demand (MOD) kinds of service. Bus = "defined broadly to consider a range of sizes, vehicle platforms and configurations, and passenger capacities, and could include both traditional and novel vehicle designs (full-size city buses, articulated buses, small shuttles, etc.). “Bus” includes bus rapid transit."

FTA removing barriers request

Again, Bus = "defined broadly to consider a range of sizes, vehicle platforms and configurations, and passenger capacities, and could include both traditional and novel vehicle designs (full-size city buses, articulated buses, small shuttles, etc.). “Bus” includes bus rapid transit."

This is a wide-ranging request for comments in that it seeks "public comment regarding current or potential regulatory or other policy barriers to the development, demonstration, deployment, and evaluation of automated transit buses and related technologies for" level 3-5 - fully AVs. Lots of folks are invited to express themselves, including "stakeholders, including the disability community, to better understand regulatory and policy barriers and challenges to development, demonstration, deployment, and evaluation of automation systems in the transit industry."

Chime in about statutory "regulatory, policy, or legislative challenges or barriers ... which may impede development, demonstration, deployment, or evaluation of automated transit buses."

Long post - here's an entertainment break

Watch the video about the Lyft/Aptiv "robotaxi" demonstration project that ferried hundreds during the CES conference earlier this month. It's going to continue in Las Vegas and be expanded to an - as yet - unnamed city. Not sure I want to replace those sweet, friendly Lyft drivers, but I am guilty of enjoying the low prices. Thank you venture capitalists for the nice subsidies. Could you expand that to public transportation?

Back to the long post -
If you ever want to cross a street again, comment!

FHWA published request for comments with a March 5, 2018 deadline:

Automated Driving Systems - FHWA's thoughts and questions will affect every person in the US, whether they drive or not. Anyone who crosses the street, gets on a bus, or takes Uber or Lyft exclusively will want to comment. Planners and anyone involved with equity and accessibility should comment. "FHWA seeks comments more broadly on planning, development, maintenance, and operations of the roadway infrastructure necessary for supporting ADS, including any information detailing the costs associated with implementation."

The question for FHWA regarding pedestrians, bikers, and transit users is how will the human roadway user safely travel when automated systems will be "driving" instead of other humans, with whom eye contact has been the system for knowing when to stop or walk across a driveway or cross a street when there is an oncoming vehicle. Will we need to carry or have embedded chips? There should be some signal on an AV, be it a car or a bus or something in between, to indicate to the walking or biking human that now is a time when it is safe or unsafe to cross a street.

Traffic signals unecessary for AVs, but for humans ...

AVs will not need traffic signals, but humans might prefer them to a Rome-like system where vehicles instantly stop and one feels as if one is putting one's life on the line by crossing the street. On the other hand, for smaller intersections, we could have a California-like situation everywhere so that even in the middle of Brooklyn, the pedestrian's foot in the roadway would be enough to signal an AV to stop. That one change could do a lot for mode equity.

In terms of equity for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with one-to-seven year olds, meaning those individuals need more time to cross a street than most traffic signals currently allow, AVs could present a vast improvement. They need freedom from right on red (the one way in which New York City is superior) and they need more pedestrian crossings, not just one every half mile or so.

Every half mile or so pedestrian leads to what I witnessed in Columbus, OH: An 80-year-old woman getting off a bus at a broken sidewalk and no pedestrian crossing; she crossed anyway at the six-lane road with cars moving along at about 45 miles per hour. That is not safe; it is not equity; it is a recipe for death and injury. But it happens frequently at bus stops and shopping centers and schools across the country.

Lane markings

Since FHWA is asking for comments, which I will interpret as an interest in my personal and professional opinion, one message must be clearly articulated and stated out loud: We cannot rely on lane markings for safe AV transportation. I do not know of any city or county that is uniformly or even mostly good about keeping those lane lines freshly painted. A few are not bad about keeping the roads well lit, but far, far from a majority. (As a New York City kid, I was shocked to see unlit roads when we went out to the "country" for vacations.)

AVs must be able to see which lane(s) is (are) for which direction without sensors that have to be maintained or markings that must be repainted frequently.

Words FHWA needs to hear

FHWA's request for comments does not include any of these words: Accessibility, pedestrian, walk (or variation thereof), bike (or variation thereof), equity, sidewalk, intersection, crossing, transit, wheelchair, blind, deaf, ... I could go on and on. People use our roadways to do things other than to drive and currently all of those people are second-class users of our transportation network. Let's make sure they can be safe and equal when the AV revolution comes instead of sliding down to third class and greater isolation and inequity.

FHWA needs to think not only about the roadway, but about all of the people who use it. Think of the five year old who foolishly runs into the street after a ball; think of the person who is blind; think of the old person pushing a shopping cart; think of the grad student riding a bike.

NHTSA focuses on safety standards

NHTSA published request for comments with a March 5, 2018 deadline:

Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems - NHSTA is focusing on removing FMVSS that have to do with drivers, whether involving steering wheels, dashboards, or testing vehicles. On the other hand, NHTSA declares that it wishes to retain other safety standards so that - in my words - we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. "The existing FMVSS can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR part 571. NHTSA has over 60 FMVSS today."

Opportunities for comments to suggest ways in which vehicles can become accessible for people with disabilities - Why not?

NHTSA states that the FMVSS will no longer have to assume the presence of a driver or even a passenger, therefore no longer needing displays or equipment that require a driver's attention. But if the person whose attention is needed, either when ordering, waiting for, or being present in the vehicle, has a disability - cognitive, visual, auditory - then this moment is the perfect time for NHTSA to think in terms of equity for all AV passengers and require accessible interfaces.

NHTSA asks, as one example, "Would occupants still need warning telltales and other displays to be viewable if they did not have any means of driving their vehicles?" If one's suggested answer is yes, then why not take this perfect moment of billion-dollar investments and a clean slate to require accessibility with those new interfaces?

In a catch-all invitation for comment, NHTSA poses the question:

There may be other existing performance requirements and test procedures that would fail to accommodate unconventional designs. If there are, the Agency will need to identify them and determine how the Agency should amend them in ways maintain the current level of effectiveness.

Why not now impose a physical accessibility requirement that allows for wheelchairs, double strollers, shopping carts, and luggage to be wheeled directly on to EVERY AV? Again, if we are investing and experimenting, why not require and figure out universal design?

Perhaps stretching the meaning of safety

I'll bet there is a good percentage of caretakers, people with disabilities, people with small children, and people who travel a lot who have fantasized about not having to awkwardly lift packages, bags, luggage, and children who rapidly gain weight. Think of all of the back conditions we could prevent all while serving people with disabilities. (When my older daughter was little, but getting too heavy to carry a lot, I would make sure to have a book with me whenever I drove because she would wake up and not go back to her nap if I lifted her out of the car. You see what I mean?)

I might be stretching NHTSA's mandate vis a vis the FMVSS: "[T]he FMVSS need to be “objective, practicable, and meet the need for safety" when initially issued and must remain so after being amended."Safety" being the operative word, but we should consider safety for everyone. Isn't preventing long-term injury of lifting kids, packages, and luggage part of safety? Isn't preventing the social isolation of persons with disabilities with few or no transportation options part of safety?

Maybe not, but whether it's via NHTSA, USDOT, or Congress, the current transportation system that blatantly discriminates against anyone who is unable to drive puts many of our colleagues, friends, and family members at a huge disadvantage.

Back to NHTSA's concerns

NHTSA is also rightfully interested in certification and testing, meaning a reliable and credible performance testing system for whatever AV equipment or software is produced. NHTSA is already pursuing this.

There are other mundane, but important, questions. Will passengers still have a way to turn on windshield wipers or lights? Will such options be needed or wanted? What about the option of stopping a vehicle? What about mirrors?

What about emergency controls - and making sure emergency controls are accessible? If we have regulators and legislators touting the freedom that AVs will provide for older adults and people with disabilities, then surely they must be provided with accessible emergency controls.

Modes between cars and transit - all of USDOT should pay attention

In the shared-use, slugging, ridehailing, microtransit world of strangers sharing rides and often (but not always) money being in some way exchanged,  NHTSA and FHWA have an obligation to acknowledge that the private car and van are being employed as a kind of public transportation. The safety of those occupants, and the accessibility of those vehicles, should be on FHWA's and NHTSA's radar as they ponder and handout research dollars to ensure a smooth and safe transition to AVs. Kudos to FTA for already making this transition and for studying and otherwise staying in the forefront regarding these changes.

AVs Appear Close for GM, Via, Navya, Buses, and Roving Corner Stores

Forget 2021 for large legacy auto companies to debut autonomous vehicles (AVs): GM is planning on 2019 to launch a car-like AV that will NOT include a steering wheel or brakes. Still looks eerily the same as current sedan, however, with normal seats, interior design, and many cupholders. No imagination there.

Very interesting is GM's strategy vis a vis the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to avoid steering- and brake-related regulatory requirements. According to nice article from myStatesman, which quotes from other sources, GM is seeking to avoid the safety standards, but (if I'm reading this correctly) meet safety objectives.

Digressing for a moment

Spoiler alert - Next post to address DOT AV-related requests. Lots of activity and room for comments.

Don't ask my opinion about DOT car safety standards - FMVSS - because, with upwards of 35,000 deaths in US alone, not to mention injuries, we do not have actual standards that are producing safety as that word is understood by all normal people.

Back to GM

Notable tea leaves from the GM announcement: (1) Influence GM has with Congress and DOT means that by well before the company's launch date, we will see AV-friendly changes in terms of regulation and legislation; (2) GM is serious about beating Ford and other auto companies as well as being truly competitive with Waymo, Uber, and the like. Nice to see this from a company that not so long ago predicted we would not see AVs on our roads for at least another generation.

Navya cuddles up to Via

In a sweet marriage that reflects the couplings and menage a trois (or more) partnerings, Navya has committed its Autonom Cab - I refuse to use the all caps in actual name - to Via's fleet management system. Via, for those outside of the shared-use transportation world, is a kind of hybrid of microtransit and taxi service. It is app-based, but shared ride, and can require a short walk to meet the vehicle. Via is currently in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Chicago, and DC; but a look at its jobs page shows the many cities where it is expanding or in some way otherwise operating.

Here's the Navya Autonom Cab video, which, curiously, shows no interior shots and a Paris magically sans congestion.

Another AV bus project

Just a month after the EasyMile announcement of an AV bus development project, Volvo and a university in Singapore have publicized their "cooperation agreement on a research and development program for autonomous, all-electric buses. According to the company, the program is part of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore’s drive to create new solutions for tomorrow’s sustainable public transport."

What is notable is that this project marks a departure, really more of a branching out, from Volvo's previous AV-as-conventional-car initiatives.

Roving convenience store - why stop there?

A California company, Robomart, has fitted out an AV as a mobile small convenience store. The video (on the boring side) shows a supposedly upscale, McMansion exurb with a contemporary reimagining of the corner store - but without people, candy, long pretzel sticks, friendly person behind the counter, and nine year olds.

As I wrote yesterday regarding the e-Pallete concept, why stop the imagination? Why not roving offices, coffee places, meeting rooms, tiny houses?

Pizza and AVs? And other tales of delveries

1. Pizza rant

Image from Yelp of Freddy & Peppers.

As a native New Yorker, I'm outraged. Should I start an advocacy effort or PR campaign to halt the spread of bad pizza? And what is it anyway with bad pizza and autonomous vehicles (AVs) for delivery? Doesn't everyone know a local dive with a good oven is where you get decent pizza?

But your typical neighborhood pizzeria doesn't have big bucks for AV investment. In the city - by which I mean Manhattan, Brooklyn, and parts of Queens - your local pizza place has a bicycle or a delivery person with a bike.  Beyond the Island, New Haven and New Jersey, there is some, but little, good pizza, Sorry, that's reality.

2. Back to AVs and pizza

Dominoes and Pizza Hut are investing in AVs, presumably to get rid of delivery gig workers, who, I'm guessing, show as much loyalty to those companies as these companies show to them. But these deals demonstrate a new round of musical chairs, with large retail and food corporations lining up to integrate service and get rid of drivers - and vehicle manufacturers playing both producer of AVs and future fleet managers,

Ford’s early partners for its AV service platform include Domino’s, Lyft, and, as of today, Postmates. The idea is that Ford will eventually launch and operate its fleet of autonomous vehicles, and that partners including those listed above will be able to essentially plug into the fleet and use it as they would their current delivery drivers and vehicles, with communications protocols and intelligent dispatch built into Ford’s vehicle management system.

Only Postmates is a new partner. Ford is touting the technology as a universal operating system as well as bragging about the impressive partnerships. The legacy auto manufacturer is wisely making its bets to diversify its car-(or truck)-in-every-driveway business model.

Toyota, on the other hand, is partnering with Pizza Hut. More below about the vehicle. Apparently, Toyota has no teens or 20-something dystopian fans in its design shop because the AV with the Hut logo brought to many minds a TV show episode's negative connotations. Much freaking out was reported.

E-Pallette concept

Image from theverge.com

Toyota's technology is not out in front, but I like the design idea. I actually had this idea, but it was coffee talk. Toyota introduced the AV design of the empty vessel that can be tailored for different purposes. "Called e-Palette, the concept vehicle has no windshield and no fixed seats but is designed for use as a passenger-carrying minivan, a parcel-delivery truck, or even a mobile office or hotel room."

Getting close to my personal AV tiny house fantasy.

More than pizza

Screenshot from Udelv.com

A California start up is working on the first-mile/last-mile piece for deliveries. "Udelv plans to unveil Jan. 30. Its self-driving van will bring consumers food and kitchen goods from the high-end Draeger’s Market chain in the Bay Area city of San Mateo."

One can ask why. Who can beat Amazon in this space? Amazon is investing big time. Chutzpah and a wish to cash in when Amazon or some other company snatches it up?

As a Trucks.com post wisely points out, no word on the delivery vehicle-to-front-door piece. The whole point of ordering delivery of bad pizza is to not go outside one's door. More so for deliveries of consumer goods. No one even wants to be home for that.