Auto Alliance AV Regulatory Recommendations: Exploring the Details

The AV Roadmap: A Four-Year Plan to Revolutionize Transportation is a set of recommendations that the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the association of major automobile manufacturers and their tech counterparts, have issued as their wish list for the next four years. The Alliance's membership includes all of the big, established players - with the notable exception of Tesla. 

Four-Year Plan, But No Dates or Details

Though the Alliance is touting this document as a four-year plan, it is not a plan, but rather a set of recommendations that would enable them to maintain dominance and discourage regulation. Though no one could disagree with the final statement of this plan - "If we work together to get it right, we will reap the benefits of a safer, cleaner, and smarter transportation system." - it is difficult, given the history of the corporate players involved, to leave the driving to them, so to speak. 

Background - We're Not Tesla

Tesla's success and high-profile crashes are seen as muddying the waters for the 100+ year-old auto companies and their start-up partners: First, the press conflates partial automation with full self-driving capability. Therefore the public and Congress confuse the safety of the former with the latter. Second, with a growing number of partially automated vehicles on the road (SAE Levels 1-2), especially Teslas, and the tendency of drivers not to pay attention to the road - as they should be and are responsible for doing - there is an increasing sense that the public is being exploited as guinea pigs. A public turning against AVs, conflating Teslas with every other partially or fully automated vehicle, is not something that the traditional automakers want.

Most of the state autonomous vehicle (AV) laws that actually regulate AVs - in contrast to merely defining terms,  establishing a study, or allowing for some level of platooning - refer to highly automated vehicles (Levels 4 and 5). The division between partially automated vehicles (SAE Levels 1-3) and AVs is that line where a human driver becomes unnecessary.

And now for the Alliance's recommendations:

Roadmap recommendation #1 - Create a New Vehicle Class for AVs

This recommendation for NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to create a new class of vehicles with its own regulations outside of some of the FMVSS (federal motor vehicle safety standards) seems to lump together partially and fully automated vehicles because the document refers to both as AVs. In my opinion these two different types of technologies deserve different types of regulatory treatment as the former requires both a driver who acts responsibly and reliably, whereas the latter does not depend on human intervention. 

As an alternative, the Alliance asks that NHTSA complete its automation-related FMVSS work as soon as possible. During the Obama and Trump Administrations, NHTSA stuck to a hands-off approach on AV development, regulation, and standards. The image of AVs has shifted over that time, so it is unknown whether the Biden Administration will pursue a different path.

Roadmap recommendation #2 - Clarify Applicability of "Make Inoperative" Prohibition

Basically, this recommendation seeks to formalize the legality of partial vehicle automation that allows for a driver to select either human operation or automated operation, and to shift between those. Whether such vehicles are inherently unsafe, or unsafe without better design or without a great deal of driver education are certainly issues that Alliance members wish to avoid entirely.

Roadmap recommendation #3 - Establish a National AV Pilot Program

This recommendation for the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) to establish what the Alliance calls a "robust" program is vague, to say the least. The Alliance obviously is talking money and more of it because there is already money going into AV pilot programs and testing. I would guess that the Alliance refers to more than low-speed shuttles and freight trucking pilots. Is partial automation a part of this recommendation? Totally unclear.

Roadmap recommendation #4 - Improve the Exemption Petition Process

A recommendation to streamline or standardize - in order to speed up - the exemption process is not a bad idea. The Alliance also requests that "DOT should issue guidance that specifies what data is required as part of the exemption application." 

I would ask that as part of the anticipated exemptions for such AV exemptions that NHTSA - with the full backing of the USDOT - make its own requirements, such as accessibility of AVs, programming that prevents AV operation over posted speed limits, and technology that can recognize pedestrians, bikers, and other road users. After all, we keep hearing about how AVs will bring safety improvements and independence for people with disabilities. Let's have the exemption process advance those goals.

Roadmap recommendation #5 - Raise the Cap on Exemptions for AVs

This recommendation to allow a much great number of exempt AVs has long been sought through legislation from the Alliance and its members. The thought process here is that more AVs equals more data equals advances in the technology.

At least let's be thankful that these companies are willing to work with a government agency instead of throwing a product on the market without any notion of its safety. Oh wait, NHTSA has basically allowed Tesla to do that for years by refusing to regulate partial automation.

Roadmap recommendation #6 - Embrace Innovative Regulatory Approaches

Adjectives such as traditional, legacy, old, new or innovative do not say anything about quality. The question is not whether a regulatory approach is innovative, but whether it achieves the goal of regulation. So before we lock ourselves in a giant bear hug of innovation, we have to actually decide on the regulatory goals. Just saying "safety" is not enough. Safety for whom? There will be errors and crashes; nothing is perfectly safe. I think we can all agree that the FMVSS and regulatory processes as a whole are slow; so perhaps the word the Alliance should use is not innovative, but quicker. Is there a way to regulate well while doing it faster?

There is a request here for "virtual testing with validated simulators." Instead of offering a knee-jerk, uneducated reaction, I defer to actual engineers for input on this matter. I would guess that simulation can be quite good or it can be garbage-in, garbage out. From what I have read - and, again, I am not an engineer - perhaps this is a matter for collaboration among stakeholders and government about where the sweet spot is between simulated testing and testing on public roads.

Roadmap recommendation #7 - Maintain Traditional Federal and State Roles

For some reason, absolutely no one wants to upset this particular applecart. With AVs comes the conflating of the role of driver, traditionally regulated at the state level through licensing, insurance, inspections, and vehicle operation codes (such as speed limit violation punishments) versus regulation of the vehicle, provided for at the federal level. That is not entirely true due to the Bible-like level of deference given to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), drafted at the federal level, that proscribes standards for roadway design, speed, signage and signal placement. [Note: The MUTCD link above goes to the webpage of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) that explains the MUTCD, its history, and the current draft revision, which is open for comments until May 14, 2021.]

Basically, no one wants to be a bad guy by suggesting to take away state control even if any uniform standards for roads and connectivity for AVs will accomplish just that. 

Roadmap recommendation #8 - Coordinate State AV Policies

I find myself asking how the Alliance can keep a straight face by genuflecting in Recommendation #7 to retaining the traditional federal-state division of regulation (tradition being considered something to respect on this matter, though not necessarily elsewhere), while in the next breath asking for uniform state AV regulation or, at least, regional groupings of states with uniform policies. Uniformity and federal funding to encourage it are recommended. Innovation is not welcome here; no laboratories of democracy.

Roadmap recommendation #9 - Align State Traffic Laws

In keeping with Recommendation #8, the Alliance seeks uniformity. Only when the companies do not want to be hemmed in are they for innovation, but when states experiment with different models of regulating AV operations, that's another story. States should all allow AV operations on public roads, the Alliance recommends. But the Alliance claims that human drivers and AV developers would benefit from uniformity.

Uniformity of state traffic laws and regulations would provide benefits not only to AV developers, but also to any road user who crosses state lines. At a minimum, a single resource of state traffic laws and real-time updates to those laws that is accessible to AV developers should be created.

There is nothing inherently wrong in what the Alliance recommends, but I don't see a request for lower speed limits or better designed roads. From a hunch and a two-minute search, I see that there is already a great deal of uniformity, but, like with any US uniform code that many states adopt, there are usually minor tweaks made. I don't see any drivers stopping by the side of the road at state lines to prepare themselves for operating a car in another state. But the recommendation for real-time updates, at the least, makes a lot of sense.

Roadmap recommendation #10 - Lead in International Forums

The Alliance recommends engagement at the international level on standards for testing and deployment. Certainly, the US should be actively part of such discussions and learning. AVs are an international quest and there are bedfellows that operate in different countries. There is also an outsize fear of the US being left behind, even though so much groundbreaking work is being done here. The threat of some other country, usually China is mentioned, taking the lead is often cited as a primary reason for passing lax AV legislation.

Roadmap recommendation #11 - Promote Industry Standards

The Alliance supports industry standards, but is silent on the role of government, particularly NHTSA, assuming leadership. I would say that the Alliance's words sound rational, but the auto industry has a terrible record of being dragged into integrating safety equipment on vehicles. It was only decades of research, advocacy, and regulation that has brought greater safety - to vehicle occupants and not to other road users. The automakers could have incorporated safer design in the 1930s and 40s, and certainly by the 60s, but they did not. Dr. William Haddon Jr. and James L. Goddard, both public health physicians, argued in an early 60s report about auto crash injuries that energy-absorbing safety design should not be made dependent on public demand. Haddon went on to become the first administrator of NHTSA and afterward led the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 

Read more at Safety Sells: Market Forces and Regulation in the Development of Airbags (2005), an IIHS report authored by Martin Albaum, who served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for eighteen years (I am in the middle of reading this wonderful report right now.)

Just today, I am reading an opinion piece in Governing about Vision Zero, a movement now years old that the automakers could embrace, but do not. The author, T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, trained as a public health scientist and served as the vice chairman, acting chairman and board member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) from 2015 to 2019.

There are practical, proven actions we can take, right now, to save lives. For instance, we can ensure that all new cars, not only the most expensive ones, have the in-vehicle technology, including automated emergency braking, advanced impaired-driving-prevention systems and pedestrian-protective exteriors, outlined by the Global New Car Assessment Programme. We can help states adopt sensible laws such as the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety’s 2021 Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws. We can support state policymakers’ efforts to enact .05-percent blood alcohol concentration laws to reduce drunk driving. We can reduce speed limits where drivers interact with pedestrians and cyclists.

Any day of the week, any automaker alone or along with its peers is perfectly able to step up and pledge to incorporate Vision-Zero-recommended in-vehicle technology in every new vehicle and to advocate for safer road design and lower speed limits. Until such time as safety is truly embraced as an industry goal, when I see the auto industry looking for standards, I will continue to believe that these major corporate players are actually seeking a level playing field for marketing and profit.

Roadmap recommendation #12 - Build Knowledge for a Safety Assurance Framework

The Alliance here is recommending that the USDOT take the lead in encouraging research and convening industry players in developing a framework. The industry is not, of course, advocating rethinking of our transportation system and modal availability in a way that promotes public health through active transportation. Though I come to this with a snarky attitude of bias against these companies, I do agree with the recommendation that USDOT provide leadership and develop its own expertise in automated vehicle technologies.

Roadmap recommendation #13 - Prepare Roadway Infrastructure for AVs

The automakers were brilliant in their encouragement and lobbying to create a transportation system in the US that became a self-perpetuating one that prioritized their products - even at the high cost of thousands of deaths per year and a significant negative affect on public health. Though I agree that the US and its state and local governments should be preparing to install infrastructure that will allow for the safe operation of AVs, I think that we should not be deferring to the auto companies, which continue to seek their own profit and not necessarily improve communities and advance public health.

I agree with the innocuous recommendation here:

DOT should revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include items that will support and facilitate AV deployment. States should be encouraged and even incentivized to update their infrastructure consistent with any AV-related MUTCD update.

BUT I think that we need to revise the MUTCD with the broader goals of supporting public health, ensuring safety for active transportation and vulnerable road users, and promoting better environmental results in terms of emissions, mining, etc. Again, we have an MUTCD that has perpetuated a motor vehicle industry rather than giving people choices for safe, attractive ways to get around.  

The MUTCD is being reconsidered and May 14 is the deadline for submitting comments. Please refer to the template comments of America Walks and the National Association of City Transportation Officials. Copy these, add to them, and support the rights of those who do not drive - by preference, lack of a license, disability, or simply not having enough money - to travel around and participate as equals in our communities. It should not be a death defying activity to walk to a bus stop or a supermarket. 

Roadmap recommendation #14 - Support US Leadership on AVs

Finally, here at the last recommendation we raise the flag and insist on US remaining first as the priority. It sounds patriotic and it helps the profitability of the automakers and the tech industry. They want tax incentives, research and, especially, a free hand - "Finally, restrictions on the ability of developers to commercialize AV technologies should be avoided or eliminated." Why regulate? According to the Alliance and its members, regulation is the enemy of innovation. The subtext is that history should not be heeded.

What people care about in reality

When using a roadway to walk, bike, ride on a bus, or in a vehicle what people care about is safety, convenience and attractiveness. I don't care where my toaster, my laptop, or my phone is made - as long as it works well. 

When the car companies can agree with and use their efforts to support the following ideas from the opinion piece in Governing about Vision Zero, quoted above, then I will lower my level of suspicion when they release a 14-point plan that is merely a set of vague recommendations.

At the NTSB, I learned that we should not tolerate even one death, regardless of the mode of transportation. And I learned that we could implement proven methods to prevent deaths and injuries. Vision Zero isn’t just a good idea, it’s a proven strategy to eliminate traffic deaths. It’s time to call on the Biden administration, along with state and local policymakers, to take action and commit to #ZeroTrafficDeaths.

It's also time for the car companies and their partners in the tech industry to be good citizens. 

#10 Comments in Response to NHTSA ANPRM - Campaign of Cyclist Organization

Write-In Campaign

Love this! We have a write-in campaign from the League of American Bicyclists. Identical comments, very brief, from avid bikers. Nice. This is a wonderful exercise in participatory democracy available to any organization whose membership or constituency has a minimum of computer skills, a minute of free time, and a device to post with. Comment after comment is the same - a brief message with a link that allows for easy posting on the webpage for the Framework for Automated Driving System Safety  announcement of proposed rule making (ANPRM).

Photo of turtles in the sun.

Any organization can do this, but for this ANPRM only the League took the time to ask its members to sign on to the generic support of the League's full comment and to thus push for a shift in direction of the great big ship of federal transportation policy on which autonomous vehicle (AV) policy will be based. The generic comment basically states that the comment submitter agrees with the League's position about the ANPRM. No details, no engineering-talk, just an indication of support for an organization they trust and one with a simple goal.

The generic comment reads as follows: 

I am writing to support the comments of the League of American Bicyclists' on NHTSA's Proposed Rule for a Framework for Automated Driving System (ADS) Safety.

 
In the last 15 years people biking and walking have made up an increasing portion of traffic deaths and currently make up 20% of all traffic deaths. It is critical that NHTSA's Framework for ADS Safety prioritize the safety of people biking and walking to stop this increase and realize the potential of ADS for all people.

Through a "vision test," robust public testing of existing automated safety technologies, and research NHTSA can lead the way to safer roadways for all. Now is the time to make the safety of people outside of vehicles a priority in ADS safety.

So far, I have looked at over 200 of these identical comments from League members and a mere handful from individuals who added some text to emphasize their hope that we can protect users of other transportation modes, particularly pedestrians, but also transit.

I have not gotten to the bottom of the pile from League members and surely there will also be more comments from organizations as I reach the comments submitted at or near the deadline.

Why no one else?

Hand lettering of "contemplation."

I could list at least 10 organizations off the top of my head that provides or promotes a transportation option other than private vehicles, or that represents a transportation-challenged population - but none of these has enlisted its share of the public to inform NHTSA of their priorities regarding AV safety and regulation. Think of the possibilities for an explosion of public sentiment from older adults, people of color, transit riders, pedestrians, and people with disabilities.

At some point, I will tally these up and post the numbers. I am sure that the League did this as well with the opportunity to comment on the draft Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). So far, over 900 comments have been submitted in response to that draft and the deadline is not until May 14, 2021. America Walks and others have enlisted their constituencies to comment on that very important document.

Arizona Passes AV Law - Here's the Deep Dive

The Arizona bill, which passed unanimously,  HB 2813 has been signed by Gov. Ducey. The new law firmly keeps Arizona in the "welcome mat" category of US state autonomous vehicle (AV) statutes. Surprisingly, the statute also covers vehicles with a significant level of partial automation as well as fully AVs.

Partial automation - Think SAE levels 2-3 Tesla and Tesla-ish driver assist systems

The Arizona law requires a human driver is o be present in a vehicle that does not have the capability to reach a minimal risk condition on its own or with remote service. The law also provides for vehicle requests from a partially automated vehicle for a human driver to take over operation. Wake up! It's time to instantly become aware of your surroundings and operate heavy machinery in a complex environment. All I can think of is the wake-up, take-your-eyes-off-the-TV-show-or-video-game alert should vary by type of person. Some of us need more time than others. 

Photo of a Delaware beach. 

In the irksome category, the law uses the word "accident" instead of "crash," which is itself problematic, given the auto-oriented roadways in even the largest Arizona cities, let alone its small towns. Have you ever spent a weekend in downtown Phoenix? Nothing happening; a ghost town with some cars going through. 

Usual and unusual AV law stuff

The law requires the fully autonomous vehicle (AV) to be capable of stopping at the scene of a crash, which means recognizing that a crash has occurred.

AVs may operate without a human driver ready to take over operation of the vehicle if the person - never defined, but presumably responsible - for the AV submits a "law enforcement interaction plan to the department of transportation and the department of public safety that is consistent with and addresses all of the elements in the law enforcement protocol that was issued by the department of public safety on May 14, 2018." This looks a like a law that assumes a fleet-based model of AV business for the foreseeable future.

The law anticipates passage of federal legislation and compliance with its dictates. It also anticipates AV ridehailing - a/k/a robotaxi - fleets. In fact, AV ridehailing pickups and drop-offs are totally fine. For whatever a paid driver did, you are on your own. The AV will not be lifting your luggage unless it's an accessible AV, in which case you will be provided with a ramp and relief from back pain. That little digression, of course, is true of all AVs and gets to my belief that vehicle manufacturers, if they choose, have much profit to gain by manufacturing accessible vehicles, particularly AVs.

Hand lettering of "Moving in public."

Commercial AVs are permitted to operate as well in Arizona.

Local and municipal preemption.

The Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety are the only state agencies that may implement or enforce this chapter, except that neither agency may prescribe procedures or rules that are unreasonable or unduly burdensome.

Pretty standard stuff. 

Arkansas AV Bill Seems Sure to Pass

Arkansas autonomous vehicle (AV) legislation has flown through the state's House and Senate, awaiting the governor's signature, and sure of passage. HB 1562 would delete the word "pilot" and permit permanent operation of an allowed AV on Arkansas roads. I do not disagree with this approach, though I find the attitude in the bill to be much more pro-business than pro-safety, any regulation of which is left to the state highway department. 

Another approach means vibrant experimentation

Pilots are generally well-funded, but temporary, projects that have been a favorite for the last few years in the AV shuttle world especially. For trucks and other AVs, testing has represented most AV operations. This doesn't mean that these are the only options and one can question whether a temporary fabulous service - sometimes only operating on particular days and for quite limited hours - can really prompt ridership demand or change how people travel. What most, but not all, pilots aim for is an unambitious introduction of AVs in a way that closely mirrors a quaint amusement park ride more than an actual transit or on-demand taxi-type service. 

This is not to say that there are not exceptions and the trend is toward transit-like or microtransit AV pilots. There is a place for permanent integration of well-designed AVs into our transportation networks. This is basically the course that Waymo has chosen in suburban Phoenix - located in AV-friendly Arizona.

The Arkansas bill could change this pilot/testing rubric in a major way in the Land of Opportunity State, though there is so much flexibility left to the State Highway Commission that the execution of such a statute would not necessarily result in wider latitude for industry. The presumption, however, is that corporate latitude - with as little regulation as possible - is the legislative purpose.

Name dropping without vision

There is no pathway to popularity laid out in the Arkansas AV bill for on-demand robotaxis or public transit, because the bill merely allows these AV services without mentioning how, why, or whether to regulate them, let alone prompting an explosion of zero-or-low emission modes or transit. 

Pre-COVID, Fayettville reported the following mode shares:

Fayetteville is host to about 44,000 workers aged 16 years or older. Of these workers, nearly 25% travel less than 3 miles to work, and nearly 50% of workers travel less than 7 miles to work. The private vehicle is the most used mode for commute trips in the city, with a share of 86%. About 6% walk for their daily commute, 2% ride a bicycle, 1% use public transportation, and less than 1% used a taxicab or motorcycle. About 4% of workers reported working from home. 

[Fayettville Mobility Plan, 2018. ] Please note that public transportation in Fayettville is fixed-route bus service with a minimum of 30-minute headways and a majority of routes having scheduled 60-minute headways. The service is fare free and the state university operates its own transit system.

Still, the bill allows AV operation as:

• An on-demand driverless capable vehicle network,
• For-hire transportation,
• Transportation of multiple passengers who agree to share the ride in whole or in part, or
• Public transportation.

This is all fine and perhaps Arkansas legislators envision their AV bill as an initial step toward a multimodal future, though I suspect otherwise. I find it interesting that online searches about the bill and its sponsors revealed almost no coverage of this legislation. AVs do not seem to be a hot topic for the  Arkansas public.

#6 Comments on Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation

This is the last post about comments submitted in response to the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation. The comments discussed below were all submitted by individuals speaking on their own behalf, though represented in that group is one well-connected professor and a strident activist among the group. There were a total of 28 comments, pretty meagre considering that approximately 15-20 percent of the US population has a disability.

For me, it's a privilege to read the comments. Picture the black-and-white fact of voting results and imagine every person explaining why they are showing up to vote. That added color, as it were, is what we get to read in these comments.

Comment from Louise Shawkat

This comment states that not all people are able to drive and everyone needs to access medical care, voting, and houses of worship.

Comment from Elizabeth Henry

This comment expresses full support for frequent and reliable public transportation

[S]o we wheelchair users can get to school, work, groceries, friends and of course doctor appointments. Paratransit is universally terrible and actively dehumanizing - you have to allow a 3 hour window for pickup and then the way back and on the drive, they may go out of the way to drop off someone else.

This is so sad because Ms. Henry compares what anyone would consider mediocre bus service in DC or New York to be heaven because she would be able to reduce her harrowing three-hour wait and trek to an hour and a half.

Comment from Walter Park

This comment implores the USDOT that now is the time to take big steps and those steps, in the opinion of Mr. Park, are to support a robust, multimodal public transportation system. "Accessible transit can also be a huge benefit to the environment and a clean energy job-maker. Accessible high speed rail can transform California's economy and its communities."

Comment from Roger Mackett

This comment is from a civil engineering professor emeritus at the University of London. 

I am also a member of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) which is an expert committee established by the Transport Act 1985, providing advice to the UK  government on the transport needs of disabled people. I chair the DPTAC Research and  Evidence subgroup. I am also a member of the US TRB Accessible Transportation and  Mobility Committee. 

I have been actively involved in the development of the Inclusive Transport Strategy (ITS) which is an equivalent document to the US Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation. The ITS can be downloaded from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-transport-strategy. 

This person has credentials. Prof. Mackett's first point is that the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation is missing both a timeline and a plan for how to monitor progress. The professor offers contrasting policies in the UK as well. For instance, he discusses e-scooters, which are permitted to operate in the US, sometimes even on sidewalks. In the UK, in contrast, due to the risk that these devices pose to blind pedestrians, they can only be used on private land or as part of ongoing research trials. Prof. Mackett also provides a link to information about lawsuits brought by rail passengers who use wheelchairs. He asks that research be done on access to trains, looking at the spacial difference between train platform and rail car.

Prof. Mackett also refers to the seminal work done in the UK to review laws and regulations related to autonomous vehicles (AVs), including, specifically, for people with disabilities and older adults. For anyone seriously interested in legal frameworks for AVs, that multipart series (probably coming to over 700 pages in full) is a tremendous resource. 

Comment from Zach Karnazes

We have here a comment from a knowledgeable disability activist. Here is a link to Zacthivism, which goes into detail about Mr. Karnazes' disability work and info, which is very San Francisco centric, but quite informative and thorough. I will just say that Mr. Karnazes is also quite pro-equity and pro-transit union. Indeed, his first point is exactly what I keep saying, that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) should itself be complemented with or changed to allow for constant monitoring and enforcement rather than relying on passenger complaints. He suggests a federal civil rights enforcement body.

What Mr. Karnazes really wants is a new, better version of the ADA. I agree, but I doubt it will happen even if the filibuster were thrown out the window. Between COVID, vaccinations, saving democracy, and perhaps fixing or replacing crumbling infrastructure, no disability organizations are pushing for a wholesale refurbishing of the ADA. Mr. Karnazes, I salute you for speaking truth to power.

This comment is well worth the read, opinionated and with heart; here is a cursory look at Mr. Karnazes' wish list.

• New ADA Title II, which removes "vague language around denials of access" based on administrative and financial burdens (which goes beyond transportation).
• Increased funding for public transportation. Mr. Karnazes here cites the inherent conflict of interest for the bus driver when attempting to remain on schedule while taking the time to secure a person in a wheelchair.
• Create an ombudsman office to help people with disabilities. "New York State has a program like this (https://aging.ny.gov/long-term-care-ombudsman-program), but California and most all other states do not."
• Stop relying on disability organizations, "so-called "stakeholders" and corrupt "non-profits" that do not represent our community well and are afraid to make bold claims for fear of losing their federal funding." Instead, Mr. Karnazes suggests policy based on polling or other data collection that reflects the lived experience of people with disabilities. I will not offer my own commentary except to say that this gets complicated.
• Make public transportation fare free for people with disabilities who are living in poverty. Mr. Karnazes refers the reader to videos in which people with disabilities describe the difficulties of living on Social Security assistance.
• "Create a non-biased Grievance oversight procedure for ADA access issues with transportation, with the hearing judge that is not employed by or working at the office where the complaint is filed." Having worked at a local transportation administrative agency in a large city, I will remark that this recommendation has merit. However, I do not have knowledge of other agencies in this respect.
• Support the bus drivers in their work and through their union.

Comment from Thea Selby

This comment advocates briefly and without specifics for much improved public transportation systems in the US. The goals are accessibility, abundance of transit, and environmental friendliness. "Also, when you make public transit more accessible for one group of people, it ends up helping us all." Amen.

#5 Comments on Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation - Disability Organizations

This post features organizations that represent, protect, and promote the rights and lives of people with disabilities. The overall framing of the conversation is where the value of these comments to the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation begin, but what I did not expect from these organizations was the variety among the comments sent. There was not a coalition-type decision for every group to send the identical or nearly identical comment. These comments give a feel for the meaning for people with disabilities of the obstacles that continue to obstruct their path in using our transportation network on an equal footing with all others.

What is missing in this record of comments are many organizations that work with and on behalf people with disabilities, those who represent seniors, and those who provide transit and transportation services for them.

Comment from Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities

The comment of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) comes from the CCD Transportation Task Force. Please be aware that I have met most of the co-chairs of the task force, some multiple times, and I respect and support their work. One of the co-chairs has been very active on work related to accessibility of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and others have participated to a lesser degree. 

The CCD comment puts disability in American life and life in the US with a disability into perspective. One fifth of Americans have a disability; many are either unable to drive or cannot afford a retrofitted vehicle. A significant percentage live on an income of $25,000 or less, problematic for anyone, but more so for people who need extra support. Therefore, CCD points out, affordability is as much as an issue as accessibility. In a nutshell, CCD desires that "[t[he rights of people with disabilities must be prioritized, infrastructure drastically improved and accessibility baked in to any innovation."

CCD is pleased with "DOT’s inclusion of spontaneous and independent travel as a facet of the principles."

 

CCD seeks to:

• "[I]ncentivize the expansion of accessibility in all parts of the transportation system"
• Embed accessibility in innovation
• Promote geographic equity, including rural and tribal
• Add racial equity to the framework principles
• Change the language from removal of unnecessary transportation barriers to "reframing and setting as a goal removal of all barriers to people with disabilities"
• "Elevate concerns about affordability and digital inclusion when considering the deployment of new technologies that empower new networks, operational models, and vehicle types" (going beyond the embedding of accessibility into AVs)
• Incorporate safety for people with disabilities as passengers and pedestrians into the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
• Fully staff "NHTSA research programs and its Office of Civil Rights ... with a budget for fully qualified expert full time employees for compliance reviews on a continuous basis, and research and regulation reform to ensure inclusivity now and in the future."
• Establish "[v]igorous complaint and remediation processes, and compliance with the ADA," including discrimination in driver licensing and commercial driver licensing,
• Ensure audits of sidewalk and curb ramps
• Fund "repair and expansion" of the sidewalk accessible network
• Redirect funding from police enforcement, which disproportionately affects people with disabilities, towards "infrastructure improvements and ADA compliance"
• "[E]ncourage education of micromobility providers on the dangers of scooters and bikes which block PROW [public right of way], and solutions, including provider in-app penalization options for micromobility abusers"
• Strategize to fully include people with disabilities into transportation surveys
• "Encouraging inclusivity and reminding state and local DOTs of ADA obligations"
• Conduct a "survey of all inaccessible Amtrak and legal rail stations, and a detailed plan with deadlines to ensure full accessibility in the future"
• Ensure accessible on-demand transportation that is part of programs to complement transit services
• Designing federal programs so that on-demand transportation does not supplant transit service*
• Accessible rail cars, including bathrooms, redundant announcement systems, and entry-level boarding.

Hand lettering of "spicy."

A long section of the comment is devoted to air travel, which I will not summarize except that it speaks in more detail about the quite insufficient, sometimes harmful, measures provided to enable people with disabilities to ride on commercial airplanes. Beyond transportation, but related to it in our Internet and app-based world, is a request that USDOT cooperate to expand broadband access and affordability. CCD also requests that the phrase "people with ‘differing abilities’" not be used and that better language would be either people with disabilities or disabled travelers.

* This point is one with which I disagree. I fully support all-accessible on-demand transportation, whether that be taxi, ridehailing, or microtransit service (leaving aside for the moment micromobility options), but there are often occasions where an on-demand option can better serve a route or an area than retaining or supplementing existing transit service, particularly infrequent and often unreliable service. I think that CCD's fear is that the replacement will not serve people with disabilities as well even while it might be an improvement for others.

Comment from American Association of People with Disabilities

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) is a member of CCD. AAPD's comment is pretty global in its suggestions, making broad suggestions on (1) stakeholder engagement when issuing regulations, guidance, and funding announcements; (2) the role of regulation, urging appropriate regulation instead of knee-jerk (my word) anti-regulation bias; (3) enlarging the scope of the "complete trip" definition to include digital access for booking rides; and (4) geographic equity, particularly for communities of color and low-income populations. 

Hand lettering of "worry."

AAPD saves its specificity for AVs. It asks that the USDOT expressly include organizations representing people with disabilities in the stakeholder engagement section of the proposed framework. AAPD also suggests that people with multiple disabilities be included in AV design: "Advance solutions that can further enable people with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities, [including those that live with multiple disabilities] to use automated vehicles." [Emphasis on AAPD's suggested additional language.]

Comment from United Spinal Association

United Spinal Association organization is a member of CCD. United Spinal applauds the attitude of universal design in the framework and "respectfully request[s] that the next iteration of the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation consistently pursue a universal audience approach at every opportunity." This organization calls the draft plan "embryonic," as though it expects significant changes before the draft plan reaches final form. Clearly, United Spinal is banking on the change in presidential administration because a bold request is made now, not when a final plan is issued, to appoint a specific person at the USDOT to focus on accessibility and universal design, and to meet with the CCD transportation leaders, USDOT modal administrators, and the Secretary of Transportation on a regular basis.

It is not that United Spinal is asking for anything different than what the draft plan envisions, it is that this organization wants a commitment to realizing the goals enunciated in the draft plan. 

DOT must take a comprehensive approach to strengthen coordinating its accessibility efforts with the tremendous knowledge base and institutional resources of the U.S. Access Board. DOT must be ever cognizant though of the Access Board’s severely limited budget and that optimal partnerships will depend upon DOT’s significantly larger and therefore more flexible budgetary resources to be committed to coordinating initiatives.

...

United Spinal respectfully requests that DOT convene a series of workshops to further operationalize the complete trip concept in the next iteration of the Draft. While the Draft addresses multiple aspects of complete trips primarily through examples of existing work the DOT is conducting, a more comprehensive analysis of the concept is truly needed. 

...

Future iterations of the Draft must include a timeline of realistic goals and achievable benchmarks to increase accessibility for all Americans. 

What the USDOT offers in the draft plan, United Spinal says, is a start. In terms of AVs, United Spinal sees the possibilities and the very real risk that an accessible transportation network might not be realized. 

United Spinal supports: 

• a separate objective be established in the Draft to further AV safety, testing, research and design and above all, accessibility exclusively. 

• An AV Federal Advisory Committee. 

Until [then,] Spinal wants to reiterate its support for the recommendations made by the Consortium for CitizensTransportation Task Force regarding DOT’s AV 4.0, including formation of an AV Advisory Committee with an accessibility subcommittee, and any grants funding autonomous vehicle projects requiring that people with disabilities are part of the design and testing of new technologies in order to ensure the accessibility and usability of the technology from the start.

United Spinal lends its support to expansion of broadband access.

Comment from Hearing Loss Association of America

Hand lettering with drawing of "meditate."

In its comment, the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) speaks about the unrealized guarantees of the ADA and need for redundancy in communication throughout the transportation system. HLAA is not a member of CCD. The technologies are already here and HLAA suggests which ones would help people with hearing loss. These would provide redundancy for announcements on buses, planes, and trains, and at stations, sometimes to note last-minute changes or emergencies.

Likewise, HLAA asks that AVs be accessible, which would include technology that provides "hearing loops, visual and text information ... whenever verbal information or audible prompts are used." Again, redundancy is featured in its recommendations. 

• Assistive listening systems, including hearing loop systems in stations, rail cars, at information points and any other place that requires understanding speech, whether via broadcast announcements or person-to-person communication. 

• Tablets, iPads, computers, and/or smart phones with speech to text software applications and with lapel microphones for person-to-person interactions. 

• Captions for videos or on-line communication. 

• Public information boards that simultaneously display audible announcements in text.

Similar to other comments from disability organizations, HLAA speaks about more and better integrated stakeholder participation.

Comment from American Foundation for the Blind

The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) appreciates the multimodal approach that the USDOT takes in the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation. The AFB comment begins by pointing out the large size of the population it represents and its sheds a spotlight on the importance of access to transportation in terms of getting to vaccination sites. The organization is also a member of CCD. 

AFB raises the issue, not discussed previously in the comments, of people who are deafblind. AFB suggests expanded use of tactile wayfinding for this population, as well as education (I think they mean travel training) for people who are blind or have low vision navigating at transportation hubs and in the pedestrian environment.

Hand lettering of "mobility smorgasbord."
Day 28 of 100 days of hand lettering.

The blind community has been especially active and excited about the development of AVs and AFB "appreciates the goal of eliminating barriers to licensing, operating, and riding in passenger and commercial motor vehicles. Automated vehicles in particular offer promising solutions to many barriers if manufacturers commit to designing fully accessible vehicles." AFB asks that accessibility be prioritized when considering regulation and to embed accessibility experts at each of the modal administrations at the USDOT. AFB expressly refers to the Access Board guidelines and to digital accessibility for compliance with Section 508.

AFB takes a holistic, multimodal approach and thanks the USDOT for considering all of the modes beyond automotive travel. It mentions wayfinding in some detail as this is an important aspect of trip navigation. In this vein, AFB asks for improvements in shared-use modes.

AFB strongly applauds a commitment to expanding and maintaining accessible public transit infrastructure. We encourage the department to consider ways to incentivize more convenient paratransit service, including by implementing modern scheduling systems, reducing how far ahead individuals must schedule trips, and reducing barriers to traveling across jurisdictional boundaries. We encourage improved collaboration between Federal aid recipients and secondary providers. New mobility, including ridesharing, offers ample opportunity for improving services for people who are blind and has proven successful in several pilots, but such collaborations must provide accessibility to all people with disabilities, including wheelchair users.

For long-distance travel, AFB refers to the CCD comment. 

Comment from Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago, et.al.

As this comment focuses on and goes into detail only about accessible air travel, I will not be writing about the details. If one is interested in the weaker accessibility requirements for airplanes than for public transit, this is a good comment to read.

Comment from New York Lawyers for the Public Interest

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) lauds the USDOT for developing the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation and it offers practical suggestions that would add to accessible transportation in urban settings. This New York refers to the city and not the state, though the website never actually states that. 

NYLPI wants to see vastly expanded accessible ridehailing (I take issue with the term "ridesharing," as used in the comment), specifically mentioning Uber and Lyft. "Ride-sharing companies collect record profits, and yet are woefully coming up short in promoting social equity through the provision of accessible vehicles." The former is not actually true; as it stands, Uber and Lyft lose money on every ride. This is the reason why each company invested early in AVs.

NYLPI asks that micromobility companies - bikeshare, scooter share, etc. - be required to develop and make available accessible options. And NYLPI's comment reads like a pedestrian rights manifesto.

[T]he importance of accessible sidewalks and streets must be emphasized in the Strategic  Plan. In accordance with the goal of providing for the “complete trip” of people with  disabilities, sidewalks must be fully accessible. Full accessibility includes proper curb cuts  and Accessible Pedestrians Signals. Moreover, with the rise of outdoor dining, clear protocols  and enforcement guidelines must be promulgated to ensure that sidewalks are not obstructed  by private businesses. Lastly, protocols and guidelines should be provided for clearing debris  and snow from sidewalks, as impassable sidewalks violate disability laws.

Regarding public transit, the accessibility of which is a huge issue for New York City's subways, NYPLI makes clear something that should be shouted from the rooftop of every discussion on this issue: "[F]ull accessibility of rail and bus stations entails more than working elevators." And let me just say that the word "working" here should not be assumed or considered redundant. ADA lawsuits in major cities have revolved around the issue of poor elevator maintenance and repair. Full accessibility also includes safety features that are both tactile and visually noticeable.

And I have to love my fellow New Yorkers for this, even though I am in exile, that NYPLI proudly touts the importance of the city's economy to the nation and its public transportation to the city and the region's commuters. 

[Video is Liza Minelli singing New York, New York in the movie of the same name.

And this next video was why youtube was created. Here is Judy Garland and Liza Minnelli onstage together in London. 

Comment from Sustain Charlotte Inc.

Sustain Charlotte (which only has a Facebook page) offers a brief comment to support robust, accessible, well-funded public transportation.

#4 Comments on Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation - Industry Representatives

I am making my way through the comments to the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation and I recently looked at comments submitted by non-profit organizations, some representing people with disabilities, others connected to specific travel modes, and still others not tied specifically either to transportation or accessibility for people with disabilities.  

In total, nine groups with disability access as a primary focus submitted comments. Two organizations without such a focus offered their thoughts, and three organizations whose interests align with a particular transportation industry responded to the draft plan. I am reading those last ones first and covering them in this post. 

Lip service, perhaps, but that is meaningful

A generation ago, I doubt that every industry-related comment submitted in response to a government plan to expand accessibility would have genuflected at the altar of accessibility. Even if these same players will bark at the idea of independently changing their products to be accessible, or claim that regulation is needed to even that playing field, but that the time is ripe for innovation, not for regulation, they still feel compelled to state on the record that accessibility is good. I do not believe that companies or the associations that represent them or the research endeavors they fund would have made the same declarations 30 years ago, let alone 60 years ago. That change might not deliver a product line to help people with disabilities, but it is not meaningless. 

Painting of coffee mug and the word "slow."

I expected to find in the industry comments this genuflection to the value of accessibility, while pointing off that now is the time for prioritizing innovation, while equating that priority with a regulation holiday, as if kindergarteners would instantly learn to read and master algebra if only their teachers laid down no rules or schedules for the classroom.

What I found was different than what I expected. 

I discovered what looks like engagement. I think the tough nut to crack is not indifference so much as a desire that everyone hold hands and jump in the pool at the same time. It's not a fear of being left behind; it's a fear of being first, with no one following, and no one buying.

I am not always right

Comment from Alliance for Automotive Innovation

Here we go with the words of the industry association representing automobile manufacturers and their technology partners. I recently described the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (the Alliance) in a post discussing its comment submitted in response to the RFI for an Inclusive Design Reference Hub. My favorite part of that comment was a line talking about reflecting the "cross-stakeholder" nature of the issue of autonomous vehicle accessibility in a proposed repository of accessibility standards and resources. One is in DC for sure when words like cross-stakeholder are bandied about.

The Alliance has mastered the skill of making statements that are as American as apple pie, but have no meat behind them. Notice the lack of actual commitment.

Auto Innovators shares the Department’s commitment to a more accessible transportation future and therefore appreciates the Strategic Plan’s focus on this goal. We particularly appreciate the Strategic Plan’s identified strategies to promote accessibility for AVs. This includes strategies around: (1) advancing solutions that can further enable people with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities to use AVs; (2) leveraging Department research funds to investigate the impact of AVs on transportation for people with disabilities; (3) engaging stakeholders on inclusive design of AVs; and (4) working to pave the way for safe deployment of new technologies that increase accessibility in transportation by evaluating relevant regulations and eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers.

The comment then proceeds to reiterate the Alliance's thoughts shared in response to the proposed Inclusive Design Reference Hub. I will repeat the bottom line of my tea-leaf interpretation of that comment, which is that the Alliance would adhere to accessibility standards if required, but its members will not voluntarily be offering anything new in accessibility.

No one in this group is jumping into that pool alone. But wait one hour after eating to swim.

[Caption to video: Clip from the Princess Bride with Billy Crystal and Carol Kane.]

Comment from University of Michigan, Mcity

I am counting MCity as an industry player because it is a partnership of academia; the auto industry and some AV companies; and all levels of government, from the city of Ann Arbor (home to the University of Michigan), to the state of Michigan to the federal government. Michigan's leaders are never at a loss for words to say that they intend for the AV future of the auto industry to remain in their state. Michigan Sen. Gary Peters has been, in my mind, an honorary Eisenhower Republican on the issue of industry-friendly AV legislation, for example. What's good for GM and so forth.

As for MCity's comment, it too utters a standard declaration of the goodness of accessibility. As I said, no one will come out against that, but the approach that MCity seems to support is one of investment in research, with no word on its position on establishing a goal of accessibility and a hard deadline to reach it. This is an entity that understands its partners. My snarky comments aside, the comment lists the work on AV accessibility that MCity has been involved with. 

• "Michigan Mobility Collaborative - ADS Demonstration, led by the city of Detroit under a USDOT Automated Driving System Demonstration grant. The Detroit project will test the mobility, safety and endurance of a Level 4 AV – operating as Level 3 with a safety driver - to serve the city’s senior citizen population."
• "[P]artner with May Mobility on an AV deployment in Ann Arbor expected to launch in October 2021. May Mobility and the U-M Transportation Research Institute just received $300,000 from USDOT’s Inclusive Design Challenge for their proposal, Independent Safety for Wheelchair Users in AVs. The deployment will include a wheelchair-accessible Toyota Sienna. J.D. Power will conduct a survey to collect user sentiment, of which a component will address accessibility."
• Funding research projects: "Low Speed Accessibility Matrix, and Accessible Autonomous Shuttles: Human Factors Challenges and Design Solutions. A third is being considered for funding, Design Guidelines for Achieving Accessible Autonomous Vehicles." [Emphasis in original.]

What MCity does not do, perhaps what is feels it is inappropriate to do, is provide feedback on the draft plan. There is no discussion of it.

Comment from Airlines for America

Airlines have a terrible reputation in terms of accessibility. The bathrooms on planes are too small for wheelchairs; they have barely enough room for an occupant with a caretaker. Likewise, the aisles are no place for wheelchairs or walkers. A normal-sized human is too large for a basic seat. Legislation actually made it through Congress a couple of years ago that forced the airlines to report data on wheelchairs broken. It's like the strollers collected at the plane and given back at arrival - except that these are often broken by the time the plane lands. 😳 To be honest, I do not follow this issue particularly, so I do not know whether the situation has improved since the legislation was enacted.

Hand lettering: Mobility Smorgasbord

I therefore did not expect much of the comment from Airlines for America. But this association, which represents the major airlines in the US, plus FedEx and associate member Air Canada, seems to have a decided attitude toward regulation that while it is unpleasant, it is - I repeat - okay as long as everyone holds hands and jumps in the pool at the same time. The airlines association is talking stakeholder engagement, and it wants to be at the table, with the elephant in the room being the power of the consumer public to demand greater accessibility.

I have no interest in air travel, so I am going to give a quick rundown. The specifics that the airlines association comment addresses are: 

• Accessible plane lavatories, 
• FAA processing of disability-related complaints against airlines, 
• A strategy for boosting accessibility compliance, and 
• Expansion of outreach to include more players within the airline industry universe. 

Personal complaint for the airlines

As long as we are addressing the airlines, they not only discriminate against people with disabilities, they completely disrespect any customer not tall or strong enough to lift an average piece of luggage into the overhead luggage compartment. That's me and every petite woman, by the way. Plus there are those in this group who are barely able to retrieve their luggage from the overhead luggage compartment and thereby endanger whoever is sitting or standing nearby, putting all of those passengers at risk of luggage falling on one's head.