Inclusive AVs RFI from USDOT Secretary's Office

I am taking a break from reading comments on the NHTSA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) (because there is only one brief comment that I have not yet discussed) to examine the next AV release from somewhere at the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 

Today's glossary

RFI = Request for Information, specifically one released last week related to AVs

AVs = Autonomous Vehicles

Why now?

The RFI related to promoting standards and collaboration for designing accessible AVs for people with disabilities was released last week from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST). Entitled the RFI for the Inclusive Design Reference Hub, one could ask why this RFI is being released now, on the eve of a new Administration and after almost four years of quite respectable lip service and some effort toward improving transportation for people with disabilities and older adults, as much as could be possible within an auto-oriented, national transportation network, and from a Republican Administration. Still, at every opportunity, Sec. Chao of the US Department of Transportation has promoted the idea that AVs hold the promise of independence for people with disabilities and seniors. That's not nothing.

I am imagining elves in the bowels of the USDOT building - or Madam Secretary Chao herself - wondering if now is the time to be bold, when no one but transportation nerds are noticing because of all of the crazy news emanating from the White House and Congress. But here is an RFI, an invitation for ideas about how to ensure that our autonomous vehicle (AV) future is an accessible one for those who have not been included equitably in our current transportation universe.

This is a document one would expect from a moderate Democratic Administration or what was once called a moderate Republican (or an Eisenhower Republican), in the mainstream and fearful of alienating the many normal people who assume driving and free parking are Constitutional rights.

Comments are due on or before Jan. 20, 2021.  As of Dec. 28, 2020, no one has submitted any comments in response to the RFI. Comments to this RFI can be submitted and found at Regulations.gov.

Recognition that people with disabilities and their loved ones are > 50% of US population

Perhaps this RFI is an acknowledgment of the fact that people with disabilities represent a quarter of the US population and, when combined with family members who live with and provide assistance to persons with disabilities, we are now at over half of the population. (R. Brooks, Disability Equity and Inclusion Within Transit - By the Numbers, Comto News in Motion (12/17/20)). Disability rights, therefore, are fast becoming mainstream voter concerns. The question is whether that broad and diverse population recognizes itself as one unit and votes together on its priorities.

RFI - What?

An RFI is generally used when a government agency is not completely certain about how to attain a goal or when it wishes to appear or to actually proceed as if it is open to a range of ideas. The stated purpose of this RFI is to promote the following for AV development:

1. [Encourage an] open and inclusive partnership to develop voluntary, consensus-based technical specifications, best practices, and standards.  
2. Provide a foundation for consistently and comprehensively meeting the needs of people with disabilities 
3. Inform the design of future automated vehicles. 
4. Accelerate the accumulation of knowledge and encourage private sector experimentation. Tracking and sharing less mature, early stage research through technical specifications and best practices—in addition to developing and maintaining published technical standards—can help clarify where technical consensus is emerging and where investment and attention is most needed to fill long-term gaps. 
5. [Compile] a library of technical specifications and best practices for designing accessible vehicle features,  
6. [P]rioritiz[e] development of new resources where there are knowledge gaps, ... including relevant standards development organizations, primarily through existing forums. 
7. [Commit] to an initial investment to launch [an] initiative [that] will seek to establish a process to maintain this resource [- a library] in regular consultation with stakeholders, including relevant standards development organizations, primarily through existing forums. 

The stated role of the USDOT will be to "assess potential approaches in terms of how likely they are to result in a self-sustaining long-term effort that includes active participation from all stakeholders with relevant expertise and perspective."

This RFI, hidden from most people in the Federal Register, and not exactly covered through major media outlets, can claim to be open for public comment, but it is a small subset of advocacy groups, associations, and corporations that will pay attention. Unless disability and senior rights organizations - and individuals - fully embrace the philosophy of "nothing about us without us" and stand up loudly for universal and accessible design, we will have AVs that mirror the mainly inaccessible vehicles that we have today.

Voluntary still

More details in the RFI reveal that under Sec. Chao's USDOT no one is talking actual regulatory requirements; we are still talking about voluntary standards, with a wish for a consensus on "technical specifications, best practices, and standards [that] can provide a foundation for consistently and comprehensively meeting the needs of people with disabilities and inform the design of future automated vehicles."

The RFI places the USDOT, a government agency, in the role of convener to "establish a process to maintain this resource [- a library -] in regular consultation with stakeholders, including relevant standards development organizations, primarily through existing forums. seeking input from its stakeholders and potential partners on defining its scope, the most critical first steps, the necessary qualifications and expertise to support it, and how to ensure long-term ownership and maintenance of the resulting resources. I imagine this is all carefully worded language to the traditional powers in the auto and tech industries and known advocacy groups representing people with disabilities. 

Change of Administration

Library - My first question is who gets that sizable contract. This RFI will provide valuable information and ideas to a new Administration that will do what it prefers with the RFI responses. Contrary to words spoken in the heat of the presidential campaign, President-Elect Biden is no progressive. Remember that this is a moderate Democratic Administration with a Congress that lacks a strong majority for either party. There is a limit to what the Biden Administration will do. Do not expect that we are going to make AVs all accessible or get rid of free parking or tear down scores of highways.

Addressed to whom?

To whom is the RFI actually addressed? It is looking for input from parties who are a "coalition of industry, disability advocacy, academia, and government partners [that] can help ensure shared understanding of the needs of individuals with a range of disabilities and corresponding technical specifications and best practices." Such coalitions exist - but separately by industry or advocacy coalitions -  and I wonder if it addressed to such groups to encourage work together, attempting, without the promise of money or the mandate of regulations, to spur AV accessibility.

Such coalitions and industry associations are likely to be:

We Will Ride: A coalition of disability rights and support organizations.

Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Transportation Committee: The committee is made up of a small group of professionals who are very knowledgable about, active, and committed to AV transportation for people with disabilities. CCD is composed of representatives of a range of disability organizations, which represent a range of sensory, physical, and cognitive disabilities. 

Transportation associations, including, but not limited to : 

American Public Transportation Association - APTA represents medium and large transit agencies.

Community Transportation Association of America - CTAA mainly represents medium, small and tiny transit agencies and volunteer and community transportation services, often funded through social, medical, and other service programs. CTAA members often provide transportation for people with disabilities, seniors, students, and low-wage workers. [Note: I am a former employee of CTAA.]

Alliance for Automotive Innovation - Members are auto and tech companies. 

Global Alliance Automotive - Car companies from around the world, though members are not listed.

Auto Alliance - Members are US and international car companies. 

Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets boasts tech, auto, and ridehailing companies as members. There are also a few non-profits, including disability organizations, that are non-voting "partners."

Ridehailing companies, basically Uber and Lyft, have resisted demands for accessible vehicles, mainly providing such service in large cities or per contracts to provide pilots or other service supplemental to transit. There have been quite a few lawsuits demanding accessibility and service for people with disabilities, but these have been settled without any determination that these are transportation companies subject to the ADA. 

Transportation Alliance - This organization was formerly the Taxi, Limousine, and Paratransit Association. It is focuses a great deal on non-emergency medical and paratransit issues, but it has not been active on AV issues.  

Organizations representing seniors or those who provide services to them should also participate. I won't go into these at the moment, but some are active on or pay some attention to AV issues. 

There is no particular organization just representing the AV shuttle manufacturers. They generally work with cities, campuses, and transit agencies - and the small group of companies compete directly with one another. 

Others I am not going to spend time on here, though relevant, are regional and city planning organizations, and pedestrian and biking organizations. Accessibility and safety of the street space for non-drivers will determine whether people with disabilities will be able to access transit or shared-use vehicles (such as microtransit and ridehailing).

What is accessible now?

At the moment, the only mode of transportation that is broadly accessible - by the minimum standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regulations promulgated in furtherance of the ADA - is fixed-route transit (buses, subways and other rail services), with supplemental paratransit for those unable to use conventional transit for whatever reason (such as lack of access to a bus stop because there is no curb cut or it is icy in winter or there is no place to sit or have shelter). Taxis, ridehailing, microtransit and the private vehicle might or might not be accessible. (That would be a whole other blog post to explain the ins and outs of the ADA and the reality that has grown up around it, and around the politics of mobility on demand.) More and more microtransit is partnering with transit and providing accessible transportation.

To summarize, any service partnered with transit, such as subsidized Lyft rides or microtransit to a bus station per a contract to partner with a transit agency, will have to make accessible vehicles available for the rider who is eligible. That would also be included in the whole other blog post to explain.

Again, comments are due on or before Jan. 20, 2021. Click here for the webpage on Regulations.gov where the comments to this RFI can be submitted and found.

AVs Through the Lens of Politics

In the past couple of weeks, political fissures in the autonomous vehicle (AV) world have become crystal clear. Prior to recent statements, representatives and others from vastly separate places on the political spectrum have reached consensus on AVs, but as experience this term in the US Senate demonstrates, loud voices opposing AV policy and legislation as well as current statements from the President's Administration show that consensus is under attack.

USDOT stands out of the way of business

The US Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, and her cadre of modal agency leaders at the US Department of Transportation, are all on the same page in their hopes for autonomous vehicles (AVs) and their attitude about government's role. They all did a nice job a couple of weeks ago at the public show of friendly solidarity at a large gathering in the USDOT building.

The USDOT Secretary, who is also the Senate Majority Leader's wife, and her modal agency leaders all declare that government should stay out of the way of the private sector to develop new technology and improved technology as well as reconfigured vehicles and business models. One point of caution that each USDOT official made, however, was the importance of safety - but without any word that government should take a particularly active role.

Lip service to people with disabilities and older adults

Every USDOT official uttered the magical, but quite general, incantation that AVs will bring freedom and independence to people with disabilities and older adults. But the devil is in the details and I did not hear anything about encouraging or requiring multiple and redundant interfaces that take into account different types of disabilities (or even preferences for interfaces). I heard zero about finally extending the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or otherwise mandating universal accessibility for all - or even a healthy percentage - of AVs sold, leased, or placed on the street for service within the United States. Nada. 

The same goes for the presumption of improved mobility for those on the low end of the economic spectrum. Vague comments about the magic of AVs, but without any details.

But USDOT invited in interesting voices

Though USDOT modal officials all spoke from the same playbook, the invited voices did talk about encouragement of shared-use modes, reduction in VMT (vehicle miles traveled), the need for additional technology to manage roads, the importance of parking policy and fees, and the question of what will happen in rural areas. The trucking association in the US also appeared on the dais, though it remained with its old trope about how we will be employing drivers for decades to come. 

R Street versus letter to Senate leaders

Two diametrically opposed documents were released in the last couple of weeks that demonstrate how far apart advocacy is on AV policy. One document is from the R Street Policy Study No. 134, spouting the wise alignments that the private sector preternaturally produces, versus the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill, spouting a bunch of safety and consumer protection reasons for waiting on national AV legislation. Both come to some wrong conclusions.

R Street's report mostly examines ridehailing and it is almost uniformly against all regulation by way of examining the shared-use transportation industry issues of safety, labor, fees, licensing, and insurance, among others. It does not address people on the margins of the current transportation system who need policy and legal encouragement, even subsidies, to achieve transportation equity. It does not examine issues of public health when criticizing ridehailing companies for declaring that cities should discourage car ownership (self-serving as such statements are when uttered by the expected beneficiaries of such policies). 

The AV issues that R Street takes the most time with regarding AVs are privacy and cybersecurity. It's knee-jerk reaction throughout the report and in this context is to say that "we should be careful not to overreact and impose stringent new regulations that could harm responsible business practices." R Street may be correct in saying that we already have legal protections in laws and regulations, but it does not discuss whether those have been enforced sufficiently and whether they have been effective.

Letter brought to you by the word "no"

How advocates for safety can write the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill with a straight face is beyond me. I'll be the first to say that the federal government has a role - a substantial role - in ensuring that AVs will be safe, BUT for safety and consumer advocates to conveniently forget that human-operated vehicles cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries each year detracts from the credibility of their arguments - in my opinion.

These signers of the letter include advocates from the fields of public health, biking and walking, law enforcement, environmentalists, consumer advocacy, and road safety. What is interesting is that the signers do not represent a broad coalition from any of those particular fields. In fact, proponents of national legislation include many groups representing people with disabilities and advocates against human driving while under the influence of intoxicants.

In terms of the letter, the message is that we should not have untested vehicles operating on public roads. (Again, with car companies self-certifying FMVSS compliance, we pretty much already have that system.) The letter is against the lack of performance standards as part of the House and Senate bills - or requiring their development and implementation at the USDOT. The lack of performance standards includes not even the equivalent - my words - of the driving test that 16 year olds are required to take before being licensed to drive or even your average DMV vision test.

The letter seems to back, without explicitly saying so, California's regulatory approach, while stating expressly that providing consumers with information is not a substitute for federal safety standards. The letter is against preemption of state and local regulation and in favor of encouraging vehicle designs that are accessible for people with disabilities. And the letter actually spells that out, though only in terms of physical accessibility and not in terms of accessibility and redundancy of interfaces.

What I like

 I am fully on board with the letter's stand on extending federal AV legislation to cover SAE level 2 - Telsa equivalent - vehicles. There are more and more distracted drivers in those vehicles every day who are not ready in a split second to take over operation of their vehicles. And there are more and more of these vehicles on our roads with every new car purchase.

Congress: Magical Time for Autonomous Vehicles

The Republicans are in general agreement and the Democrats I've seen appear to be on board for major changes to vehicular regulation in the US - for autonomous vehicles. NHTSA will be the big winner and states will lose much of their authority via federal preemption. The US Constitution permits Congress to use its enumerated powers, in this case the Commerce Clause, to bar states from interfering by passing laws or issuing regulations that interfere with federal law.

The time is near at hand and legislation may move quickly with so much bipartisan agreement on this issue, which is relatively under the radar. With the Russia investigation, healthcare, taxes, and infrastructure sparking controversy both among Republicans and with Democrats, it will be magical to see the House and the Senate come together on regulation of autonomous vehicles.

Note that I am not writing about anything with only Democratic support.

Not just cars and adorable shuttles

We have yet to see the big 16-bill package reported on by Reuters and in the Eno Center for Transportation blog post. Legislation submitted thus far in the US House of Representatives offers absolutely nothing but a glimpse into politics that shows how at least one interested party has found a sympathetic congressperson. H.R. 2120 , the Buses United for Safety, Regulatory Reform, and Enhanced Growth for the 21st Century Act, has a provision (Section 12) that requires the Secretary of Transportation to:

include and consult with the motorcoach and school bus industries through its representatives, including motorcoach and school bus manufacturers, companies operating mo­tor­coaches and school buses, and motorcoach and school bus industry associations, in all phases of development of vehicle policy and proposed regulations.

This is a nice directive, but it has no teeth. Conversations will take place, some of which will be taken seriously, but the Department of Transportation and its relevant divisions, particularly NHTSA, which issues standards that regulate bus safety, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will not be compelled to listen.

Innovation Act 

Senate bill 1225, the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2017, comes with a nice title and authorizes  - but does not appropriate - funding for energy-related research related to energy, specifically to "(A) improve the fuel efficiency and emissions of all vehicles produced in the United States and (B) reduce vehicle reliance on petroleum-based fuels." Yes, those italicized words are actually included in legislation that could become law in the US - with a highly conservative Congress.

I will not bore you with too many details, just ones that pop out of this multi-page, multi-agency-related bill. I do love reading through the details because that's where the gold of what's happening can be located.

Through the Department of Energy (DOE), for fiscal years 2018-2022, over $300 million each year is authorized for research. This means that in separate legislation, Congress may - but does not have to - appropriate - meaning spend - UP TO the amount authorized. The research portions of the bill mention batteries, efficiency, waste heat recovery, aerodynamics, natural gas, and more. (I like the batteries part because one offspring is in grad school in that field.)

It's a long list, and toward the end comes vehicle to vehicle technology (V2V) and "other research areas as determined by the Secretary." Talk about leeway.

DOE vs. DOT

Remember, all of the above goes through DOE. It's quite interesting that the industry consultation requirement, which specifically refers to manufacturers of vehicles, only refers to DOE and not to the Department of Transportation (DOT). This list of players who should be consulted "to the maximum extent practicable" specifically mentions transit and transit, among other heavy vehicle-related industries, gets its own section of the bill in terms of research that mimics what is mentioned above.

Parallel universe bills on cybersecurity

Two pieces of legislation with similar, but somewhat conflicting visions have been submitted. The Security and Privacy in Your (SPY) Car Act, S. 680, introduced in the Senate thus far has only Democratic support, so it will not go far. It's a suggestion, an opening gambit, a way of staying in the game, in my opinion. It goes into detail about setting privacy standards, preventing hacking, and data storage and access. It addresses the roles of both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA) roles.

In the House of Representatives, a Republican from South Carolina has introduced a somewhat different SPY Act, with one Democrat so-sponsoring. This bill, HR 701, officially called the Security and Privacy in Your Car Study Act of 2017, or the SPY Car Study Act, directs NHTSA to study cybersecurity standards for vehicles "in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Defense, the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center, SAE International, manufacturers of motor vehicles, manufacturers of original motor vehicle equipment, and relevant academic institutions."

You can tell whose lobbyists have been successful and which entities are perceived as established and trusted players. Again, that word "consultation" is broad enough to drive a truck through and it does not mandate equal consultation or coordination.

What will the study do? It will lead to a - wait for it - report. This is DC, a place that loves nerdy reports as much as action.

Plan to repeal

A House bill, HR 1623, would repeal the Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program, a loan fund program enshrined in 42 USC 17013.

Interesting tidbit on preemption vis a vis autonomous vehicles

This brief from the University of Washington School of Law's Technology Law and Policy Clinic, Autonomous Vehicles Team,  offers a view of preemption in terms of NHTSA regulation and tort liability in state courts during the Bush W's and Obama's years.

Musical Chairs and Hiring Sprees

I'm just going to put links here. This is not my area of interest, but the hiring back and forth - hence the musical chairs - and the fevered pairings/takeovers, in my opinion, come out of a sense of desperation that no matter how much money one puts into driverless technology and manufacturing, there will be winners and losers. And no one knows whom that will be. 

Nvidia and NYU partner. (Scroll down.)

Partnership of Renault, the Israeli the Alternative Fuels Administration, and Tel Aviv University.

GM invests in Canada and starts hiring engineers. Reportedly this is all about driverless.

Long article about musical chairs among car companies, start ups, and Silicon Valley as they vy for talent and eat up smaller entities with tons of cash.

Two Steps Closer to Driverless Transit

Santa Clara University's three-month driverless shuttle pilot - an intra-campus transit system, from my perspective - will look at which model works best for satisfying travel demand, the choices being (1) the conventional fixed-route transit model, or (2) a demand-response, you-call/we-pick-up model. However, it will be a while before any data is produced because university students will not be allowed to ride the golf-cart vehicles for at least the first month. Something about safety; I'm sure the parents appreciate that.

Driverless bus in China

Yutong Bus, a Chinese transit vehicle manufacturer, has successfully tested a driverless bus. The manufacturer exports to 120 different countries and sells over 60,000 buses a year. This was just one successful drive, but it is nice to see a vehicle manufacturer aiming to bring driverless technology to the transit market.

Google monthly report

Nice tidbits and tea leaves in the Google monthly report on its driverless comings, goings, and progress. Google is emphasizing the safety of its vehicles in California and Texas traffic, doing well by pedestrians, not crashing into deer (or visa versa), and continuing to rack up driverless miles - over two million and counting, according to Google. Next up will be pod cars in Austin (just the old models are there now) and figuring out the venue riders will want use to enter destination information. Smartphones are a likely choice. A question I've not seen Google mention is whether it will produce shared-ride or transit driverless vehicles. Those pods are cute, in a smurf kind of way, but do we really want to exchange current congestion for a sea of adorable pods and endless parking lots with identical G-cars?

Speaking of pods, two-seater, driverless prototype cars will soon be on the road in a city in Germany. The birthplace of Frederick Engels (Karl Marx's pal), Wuppertal, now a down-on-its-heels former rust belt manufacturing center, will host the mini-cars on a test track on a stretch of city street that offers a diversity of driving challenges, including the presence of pedestrians.

Laser focus - cheaper and lighter

As with most innovations, the prototypes and early models are expensive. Now, the expensive technology that Google is using as the eyes of its driverless pods, called LIDAR (a mix of light and radar), is being manipulated, if you will (let's be clear: this technology is beyond me and I rely on others to explain it), by other companies and universities.

The University of California at Berkeley has come up with - or worked hard to develop - a cheaper, lighter version of LIDAR technology and hardware. Seems that this team has gotten the cost reduced from about $80k to $10. And they are aiming even lower.

And on the long route

Toyota continues to bank on a slow road to driverless and a long phase of partially autonomous vehicles. The company is putting its money where its mouth is - $50 million of it - by funding MIT and Stanford as joint research centers. An impressive robotics guy, Gill Pratt, has been hired to oversee the effort.

Lobbying and Policy Bedfellows

Detroit and Silicon Valley are partnering, at least as far as lobbying and policy development in DC goes. And at least for now. The auto makers, the Intelligent Car Coalition, and the Information Technology Industry Council, among others, have teamed up to create the Smart Transportation Innovation Coalition. So far, there's nothing on the coalition website, which seems to be a WordPress blog. There's enough money in these pockets that they can afford a nice webpage if the coalition is actually a partnership.

Hyundai joins pack

It's a herd of car manufacturers rushing to produce driverless vehicles. Hyundai now declares its car will be built as a concept car by 2020, according to a post on CarScoops.com. Due to the manufacturer's fear of litigation, or being in the lead, the car is not expected to actually go on sale until 2030. Right now, like most other traditional automakers, Hyundai is concentrating on making conventional cars a little better, rather than truly committing to the driverless revolution. Its goal isn't to "make a car like Google's. The goal is to implement autonomous driving technologies into our cars to keep customers safe. Safety is the biggest issue."