Webinar Question and Answer Transcript

Joshua Cregger: I think there are a lot of questions to think through when considering automation for transit buses and thinking about how to transfer vehicle technologies from other vehicle types to transit buses. Questions like: Do we have the right application? Does it do something that is useful for transit bus operations? Can it function in the environments that transit bus functions? Will the technology work in a transit bus? So, for instance, will it require new equipment or modifications to existing equipment to apply to a bus? Are there unique conditions on board the bus that need to be considered? For example, how do you ensure the safety of unrestrained passengers or standees when putting in a new automated system? Are there other transit bus relevant applications that maybe do not have a direct analog to the current automation systems?

I think the automated bus consortium is taking a good approach to investigate many questions and identifying priority use cases. And then on the issue of scale, it is also important to send a signal to industry there is interest, that there is a potential market, and the consortium is also working to provide some organization around that. So it is not just a few buses with one specification from one transit agency, and a few more with a different specification from another transit agency. So those are good initial steps, but for the transit agency not involved in an activity like the consortium or any other pilot research activity, what can they do? I would say paying attention to those activities to see how the initial pilots play out is useful. Also, thinking about your own unique needs as a transit agency is another.

It is possible there other applications beyond those that have been currently identified and automation may be able to provide great value for those additional applications. And those applications may be more broadly applicable than just your transit agency. I encourage connecting with other transit agencies who are involved in testing, whether they are involved in the automated bus consortium or they are doing other testing of their own, and to learn from their challenges and understand what worked and what didn’t. A lot of these early systems probably won’t be fully mature home runs straight from the get-go. But there is a lot that can be learned from the parts of those systems that work and don’t work, as well as the challenges and solutions outside of the technology itself. So we can learn a lot about institutional issues that maybe you did not realize would be institutional issues or working with new partners or figuring out how to solve problems you don’t necessarily run into in the day-to-day operation of your transit agency but that might pop up when looking at the new technologies.

Steve Mortensen: Thank you. I think you did an outstanding job answering that question. I would just like to support some of the things you said. You talked about expressing there is a market out there for transit agencies and that their interest to implement transit automation. So I agree with that. I want to emphasize how does automation address transit agency needs? I don’t recommend engaging in necessarily pilots for the novelty of it, so that’s something to emphasize. If there is a perceived roadblock—especially at the federal level, like a federal policy roadblock—I encourage you to reach out to FTA decision-makers and expressing those concerns. We talked about policy-related things when Heather did the poll. I forgot to mention that the FTA has been working on this for quite a while. We just released FAQs and answers with many policy-related questions, so please take a look at that. Find those on the transit automation research page of the FTA website. And then, also, getting ready for this new technology, you need to gear up the capabilities of your workforce to handle these high-tech jobs that will be required for supporting transit bus automation.

Jean Ruestman: Another thing we can start doing, and should start doing, is talking about this—talk to your driver, talk to your mechanics, and talk to your passengers. There is a lot of misconception out there about how quickly this is coming and what it will mean for everybody. We all know—from all of the polls that have been done—that there has been a lot of fear around automation. And the more we talked to people about it and explain that it will happen in steps—that it won’t replace everybody; it might just change jobs—that the automation will not probably ever take the place of human touch. There will probably be at least an assistant on most buses, especially in demand response type trips. So I think we need to talk about it more and help ease some of that fear.

Greg Walker: One of the things that we learned from the industry forum is that everything might not be possible from day one. So we are re-crafting in some of the edits we are making to the bus specifications that will go out in Phase 2 for those agencies that choose to proceed into Phase 2. It will be for the manufacturing and technology providers. We are talking about possibly three phases. So Phase 1 may be driver assistance, Phase 2 might be some advancement on that, and Phase 3 may be full automation. So we know that there is not necessarily baby steps because there is a lot of effort—billions of dollars have gone into connected and automated vehicles in the last few years. But there will be some phases of implementation and demonstration and evaluation of capabilities as we move forward in the various applications that we are working with.

Steve Mortensen: Very good question. We’ve been asked that before. You’re not interested in the IMI that’s been announced as a total of $5 million, and that could fluctuate. We are not at liberty to identify the budgets, the estimated budgets, or the costs for the remaining demonstrations. So I hope you don’t perceive that as a copout answer. That is just the truth.

Joshua Cregger: At the outlook—when we were to identify potential companies to reach out to—we prioritized some of the larger bus manufacturers. So like Gilligan and New Flyer, we did reach out to. And then, also, bus manufacturers that had made announcements that they were working to test automated bus features. Not necessarily looking at some of the other technologies like powertrain technologies, but specifically announcements whether was lower level or higher level automation. But just that they had a public stance on activity in that area.

Jean Ruestman: We are doing a lot of things, actually, to prepare. I just started working with a group who are working on designing and coming up with basic design for fully accessible vehicles, and what does that mean with autonomous vehicles? So we’re looking at all types of accessibility that would help all types of disabilities and seniors. And we also—as a State DOT—we insisted that our projects for the first mobility challenge, that we held be accessible that these in some way they help people with disabilities or seniors and we also included veterans in ours, that it aids with the mobility gap. If you’re someone working with the community to become involved in some of these projects, and again, I cannot stress the importance of partnerships enough. But if you start partnering with universities and reach out to manufacturing and transit systems and letting them know the specific needs. One of the most helpful things we did before we officially issued our call for projects for our mobility challenge was to hold a workshop where we invited a cross-section of transit agencies and tech providers and people that were either in or represented seniors and people with multiple disabilities—all to just come together and share their story. I think that helped drive how the technologies are built and how the automated vehicles are going to be designed.

Greg Walker: I am seeing a few questions on the screen related to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). One thing I did not mention is what we are pursuing now in the automated bus consortium is SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Level Four automation. So we are proposing that there is still the operator or bus driver on board the vehicle. It is not fully automated in terms of no operator. So there will be somebody, while the person might not be, you know, turning the steering wheel. But they will be there to collect fare and to help ADA passengers. And to answer questions of: Are people on the right route? How do they get to the transfer? So it will be the operator on board the vehicle.

Jean Ruestman: One other thing I thought of that is really important is the team that designed the automated shuttle that we re-funded, their entire team received ADA training, sensitivity training. The engineers, the designers, and everyone on the team received the same training. So many of them mentioned how helpful it was going to be during the design process by having the same training that you would normally think to give a driver or an aide helping on those buses.

Steve Mortensen: From the FTA perspective, I just want to state that all demonstrations that are planned have to meet ADA. And part of the research you probably did not see in the road maps that I had, but we will do accessibility analysis. And we have one demonstration specifically with respect to level 4 automated transit. Also, I hope you are aware the department automated driving systems demonstration grants—the eight that were selected—were announced by the Secretary. A number of those have components where they are going to be including seniors and persons with disabilities. Like our FTA automation demonstration, we will include human factors so there will be real participants because many will be in revenue service. Lastly, I wanted to state or remind people that the Secretary sponsored a summit last week here at the USDOT. One of the things she announced was this inclusive design challenge. So there’s a lot of exciting projects in the future with respect to making these automated vehicles more accessible to seniors and persons with disabilities.

Heather Richardson: You mentioned the FAQs have been posted recently. Those also cover ADA questions?

Steve Mortensen: Yes. There are a number of topics—what I call the big three questions and answers with respect to ADA—and then the federal motor vehicle safety standards Title 6, bus testing, data, and the national transit database and several other topics.

Greg Walker: We just had a team meeting all day yesterday on this. One of the things we discussed was since one or two years ago when we started investigating what the market may be. And we determined a lot of the bus providers and manufacturers did not have initial plans at that time for automation. We have seen the market grow dramatically in the past couple of years—as Joshua mentioned—and when he showed the slide of North America, Europe, and Asia. There are demonstration projects that will roll out as early as next year with Scotland. And even Taiwan is going to put into production or it is in production 24 vehicles to put into operation by November 2020. The industry is advancing dramatically and so we really see that the market is growing. And again, I mentioned we are going for the Level Four—so not full automation without an operator. It will not be like a rental car facility, train at an airport—operating without any personnel onboard—but it will be with the operator or safety technician or an ambassador or whatever you want to call it onboard. So initially, there won’t be huge operating savings in terms of driving the bus. But the savings we think will dramatically be increased in terms of safety, reliability, and performance. We see a lot of operating savings in terms of operating around a bus depot or garage and moving the buses between washing and fueling and maintenance and parking and cleaning. We see a lot of savings, so I will stop there.

Jean Ruestman: I think those market assessments really align with what other discussions for the consortium people talked about—applicability limitations that it is highway only—and we were very thoughtful in choosing demonstration projects that really cover the gamut. Here in Michigan, we will have two demonstration locations for it. And one of them is rural and many people think it’s not really in rural areas. And that is why we chose a rural area—long distance trips for one demonstration—and then the University where you have a lots of people around with a lot of students—so market assessments really in line with other projects, such as pedestrian detection on buses. We are partnering with the highway side of our department to do that, so we can do multiple demonstrations at once regarding connectedness of intersections tied in with the pedestrian detection system. I think it is what we all expected and it really gives us a good roadmap—if you will—for the things we need to start working on now in anticipation of automated vehicles coming into play.

Joshua Cregger: Steve mentioned the STAR plan, but if you look in the appendices of the STAR plan, it actually has some work. It is high level. But doing cost-benefit analysis and looking what the cost and the benefits and what they might be—which could include things like what Greg mentioned—in addition to repair costs, potentially liability costs to insure these vehicles. There may implications [that] could allow you to use the land differently. Say for instance—automation for the bus yard. Perhaps you can park buses more closely together and that will have implications for how large your lot needs to be—if new land needs to be acquired. There could be slip and fall implications. So if you can move them around the bus yard without having someone working in the yard—boarding and lighting from the bus multiple times, in particular, in places where there could be snow or rain. That is another benefit. In addition, we took some of the content from that benefit-costs section of the Appendix in the STAR Plan and that can be found in a recent paper TRB (Transportation Research Board) paper from earlier this year.

Greg Walker: The procurement—the specification as we are drafting now—is for a full-sized 40-passenger vehicle that can operate on a regular transit route. But given the variety of applications of the pilot project, there is one project that might be considered a shuttle. But the vehicle is not what you think of as the 11-passenger or 12-passenger shuttle as the full-sized bus. But it is a shuttle in Dallas between [the] light rail station and Love Field Airport. So that turns it to operate as a shuttle. But it is not a shuttle vehicle—as in a small slow speed vehicle; it is a full-sized transit.

Greg Walker: Like I said—we were talking Level Four. So there will be an operator onboard to perform all of the regular functions that the operator on the regular bus would perform.

Jean Ruestman: You would see—in some of the projects going on for the higher-level automation—in some cases, Level Four. There’s a lot of use of cameras and AI (artificial intelligence) and there are people concerned with some of that, but it is one of those things that’s being tried out there and another area that requires more studies to be looked into.

Greg Walker: Nobody is saying anything, so I will. I don’t know. I don’t have a reference to that—the $4,000. I don’t have any information.

Steven Mortensen: Unfortunately, I do not either.

Heather Richardson: Okay. That is forthcoming as we move forward with research and demonstration.

Greg Walker: Both of those items are on our risk register to be discussed with the consortium, but we don’t have a consensus yet. We think the insurance liability will be with the operator, not with the technology provider—just as it is today. That is what we are assuming right now. Some of the insurance requirements vary by state, so we have 13 different participants—three in California—but [the] rest of which are spread out throughout the U.S. So that is under investigation with each of the consortium partners and their insurance providers.

Steve Mortensen: With respect to the liability insurance—that is one question that is in our FAQs. It is a very general answer and it reflects what Greg just said—which is—it is typically the state’s responsibility, not a federal responsibility. We do not regulate product liability and related insurance issues. With respect to cyber security—yes, it is a very big issue. We have a question on that—with some answers with respect to that. But the bottom line is: any research we do, we need to include that as a component of the research.

Greg Walker: I will add on. Cybersecurity has come up with consortium—some partners—but with others, it’s come up that they get hit all the time, if not daily on people trying to access their data or their systems and I hesitate to say, hack the systems. But again, one of the risk register item[s] is, some partners are concerned with: could anybody potentially hack the system and operate the bus remotely? So we are asking the industry, in terms of that, will be a question that comes up in the procurement as to responding to the security, the cybersecurity of their software systems. But in reality, all systems today operated normally— they’re collecting data and downloading data. They may not be under operation by the computer. So transit agencies across North America and across the world—I would assume are dealing with cybersecurity issues currently.