Shared Automated Vehicle Toolkit: Policies and Planning Considerations for Implementation (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

60 Transportation innovations present the opportunity to increase mobility and access to resources, such as goods and medical care. However, these opportunities may not be avail- able for all individuals and certain demographics may face accessibility and equity chal- lenges. This chapter discusses the potential equity impacts of MOD and AVs and how to address them. Tools to Support MOD and AV Equity Tools included in this chapter: • Potential opportunities and challenges from MOD and AV deployment. • Framework to identify potential equity challenges. • Regulations to support equity with transportation innovations. In addition to potential labor impacts, MOD and AV deployment may also impact equity— both positively and negatively. MOD and SAV developments offer an opportunity to expand transportation options for a variety of demographics, including older adults, people with dis- abilities, and rural communities. MOD and SAVs could also help address a variety of finan- cial, accessibility, health, and mobility challenges. However, without careful consideration of potential equity and access concerns, MOD and SAVs may increase inequalities within the transportation network. Opportunities and Challenges MOD and SAVs can provide a variety of opportunities including increased mobility, decreased environmental impacts, and improved safety conditions. However, MOD and SAVs may also result in adverse equity impacts for vulner- able demographics, including people with disabilities, older adults, rural commu- nities, and low-income households. Figure 20 summarizes some of the potential opportunities and challenges resulting from MOD and SAV deployments. The STEPS Framework Stakeholders can apply the STEPS framework to understand potential equity challenges (Shaheen, Bell et al. 2017). These barriers are defined as: C H A P T E R 9 Social Equity

Social Equity 61   Spatial barriers create physical gaps in the transportation network, such as limited service availability in a particular area, excessively long distances between destina- tions, and lack of public transit within walking distance. Temporal barriers create gaps in the transportation network during particular travel times, such as the inability to complete trips during off-peak hours or late nights due to a lack of services (e.g., long public transportation headways). Economic barriers include financial challenges, such as high direct costs (e.g., fares, tolls, vehicle ownership), indirect costs (e.g., smartphone ownership), and structural barriers (e.g., banking access) that may preclude users from using MOD. Physiological barriers include physical and cognitive limitations that make using standard transportation modes or digital platforms difficult or impossible for certain individuals (e.g., people with disabilities, older adults). Social barriers include social, cultural, safety, and language challenges that may inhibit a potential rider’s comfort with using transportation modes and services (e.g., poorly targeted marketing, lack of multilanguage information, neighborhood crime). Addressing accessibility challenges through the STEPS framework can help create a more accessible transportation network. Table 14 provides examples of potential equity opportunities and challenges for MOD and SAVs according to the STEPS framework. The opportunities may be supported by policy agree- ments between stakeholders. Appendix A-9: “Sample Policy Agreement for Equity” contains an example of a policy agreement to support equity. NCHRP Web-Only Document 331 offers additional equity considerations for MOD and SAVs according to the STEPS framework. More information on the STEPS framework can be found in Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity (Shaheen, Bell et al. 2017). Some transportation service models and enablers, such as the choices of human drivers, and pricing and matching algorithms, may contribute to inequality. For example, a study by Ge et al. (2016) identified several racial equity concerns with respect to TNCs. The study found: • In Seattle, Washington, the wait times for African American passengers were as much as 35% longer than for other riders. Figure 20. MOD and SAV potential opportunities and challenges.

62 Shared Automated Vehicle Toolkit: Policies and Planning Considerations for Implementation Barrier Category Opportunity/ Challenge MOD SAV Sp at ia l Opportunity • First- and last-mile connections to public transit. • Cost-effective. • Land-use changes to support. • First- and last-mile connections to public transit. • Service for low-density areas. • Land-use changes. Challenge • Higher operating costs in lower- density exurban and rural settings. • Decreased investment in infrastructure for other modes. • Higher operating costs in lower- density exurban and rural settings. • Limited curbspace for SAVs. Te m po ra l Opportunity • Dynamic, on-demand transportation service. • Availability of late-night and early-morning transportation. Challenge • Wait-time and travel-time volatility on congested roadways. • Unpredictable wait times due to supply fluctuations. • Wait-time and travel-time volatility on congested roadways. • Unpredictable wait times due to supply fluctuations. Ec on om ic Opportunity • Subsidies for low-income users. • Multiple payment options (e.g., cash, card, cellphones). • Infrastructure may be more cost- effective for public agencies to provide than transit infrastructure. • Subsidies for low-income users. • Multiple payment options (e.g., cash, card, cellphones). • Mobility hubs or SAV vehicles with public Wi-Fi access. • More affordable than privately owned AVs or human-operated vehicles. • Increased access to employment opportunities. • Provide more rides than a traditional vehicle or AV. Challenge • High cost for long-distance/peak- demand trips. • Maintaining affordability, while providing livable wages. • Unaffordable for certain communities. • Disruption to existing revenue streams (e.g., parking, traffic violations). • High cost for long-distance/peak- demand trips. • High capital costs to own. • Job elimination from labor force change. Ph ys io lo gi ca l Opportunity • ADA compliant. • Voice-activated app features. • Increased mobility for older adults and people with disabilities. • ADA compliant. • Voice-activated app features. • Increased mobility for older adults and people with disabilities. • Connection to active transportation modes and other health resources. • Improved safety for riders and surrounding people. Challenge • Inaccessibility of modes (e.g., bikesharing devices). • Maintenance of legacy technology access. • Training required for attendants needed for SAV rides. • Lack of assistance in vehicles without drivers. • Negative impacts of increased rides (e.g., increased infrastructure maintenance). So ci al Opportunity • Instructions and safety guidelines in multiple languages. • Inclusive marketing techniques. • Instructions and safety guidelines in multiple languages. • Inclusive marketing techniques. Challenge • Availability only in highly educated, high-income, dense, urban communities. • Availability only in highly educated, high-income, dense, urban communities. Table 14. Potential MOD and SAV equity opportunities and challenges.

Social Equity 63   • In Boston, Massachusetts, travelers who used more African American-sounding names expe- rienced more ride cancellations than if they had used names associated with White people. • In low-density areas, males who used an African American-sounding name were over three times as likely to have their ride cancelled than if they used a name associated with White people. Similarly, a study by Pandy and Caliskan (2020) found that TNCs in Chicago, Illinois, typi- cally charged higher prices when the origin or destination neighborhoods had at least one of four characteristics: 1. More expensive homes, 2. Younger populations, 3. Higher levels of education, or 4. Higher percentages of non-White populations. These inequities are driven by decisions of human drivers and the service provider’s trip pricing algorithm. Lee (2018) also found that discrimination and inequity in TNC rides may also be caused by racial bias built into the algorithms and machine learning used in TNC platforms (Lee 2018). The contributions of transportation service models and enabling tech- nologies to inequity could exacerbate pre-existing social inequities (e.g., across spatial, racial, gender, and income characteristics). Improving algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence will become increasingly important with AVs. Social equity concerns in transportation can also be impacted by outside factors, such as a lack of affordable housing pushing lower-income households into less central locations and the existence of spatial mismatch (i.e., the discrepancy between where low-income house- holds reside and suitable job opportunities are located). Understanding these relationships and impacts will also likely play a critical role in improving transportation equity and justice in the United States. Social Equity in Boston MPO’s Long-Range Plan In its 2035 Long-Range Plan, the Boston MPO set aside specific provisions for increasing equity in its transportation service. Boston MPO divided its service areas into 2,727 transportation analysis zones (TAZs) and analyzed demographic trends and trip characteristics within each of these zones. Through these analysis methods, the Boston MPO was able to identify equity areas they want to improve in their future plans and transportation service including: • Expanding the area routes in underserved TAZs (spatial); • Increasing the frequency of some routes in select TAZs (temporal); • Improving service (e.g., increasing direct connections to downtown areas, increasing early-morning and late-night service) for low-income workers (economic); • Considering the growth of the population of older adults and how their needs can be met (physiological); and • Improving the navigability of the transit system for non-English speakers (social). Source: Boston MPO 2019.

64 Shared Automated Vehicle Toolkit: Policies and Planning Considerations for Implementation Regulation Supporting Social Equity Regulation and legislation can set minimum service standards for MOD and SAVs to help ensure users and communities with a variety of needs have access to these transportation options. The federal government also supports transportation equity through the U.S. Access Board, executive orders, and support of inter national efforts to enhance equity and accessibility. Examples of existing regulation, legisla- tion, and other guidelines include: Regulation • Title 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 21: Implements provisions of Title VI for any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the U.S. DOT, and • Title 49 CFR 37.105: Implements equivalent service provisions with the respect to a variety of service characteristics (e.g., schedules/headways, fares, geographic area of service). • California Senate Bill 1376: The California Public Utilities Commission collects a 10-cent fee on each TNC trip in California. The funds are then directed toward an accessibility fund. Legislation • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Prohibits discrimination against people with dis- abilities based on their disability and requires public agencies to provide equitable service to people with disabilities if they are not able to use existing services. – Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Expands upon the guidelines set forth by the ADA and pro- hibits programs, agencies, or activities that are federally financially supported from dis- criminating against people with disabilities. – Rehabilitation Act of 1998 - Section 508: Requires federal agencies to ensure all electronic and information technology including mobile apps, are accessible by people with disabilities. • Civil Restoration Act of 1987: Prohibits discrimination within an organization or agency if the organization or agency receives any type of federal financial assistance. • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and/or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding. Other • U.S. Access Board: An independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards; develops and maintains design criteria for a variety of develop- ment (e.g., built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications information technology). • Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations: Requires federal agencies to prioritize envi- ronmental justice as a way to increase equality for vulnerable populations. • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0: Published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium, which guides international internet standards and informs agencies of what accessibility elements should be considered in website and app developments. • New York State Transportation Equity Alliance: Coalition of over 85 groups in New York working to increase equity in state transportation policy. • Five-Year Racial Equity Plan: Oregon’s Portland Bureau of Transportation developed a 5-year racial equity plan and roadmap to advance racial equity through the organization, leader- ship and management, workforce, communities and partnerships, contracts, and data and metrics. • Transportation Equity Program: Boston MPO has implemented a program to increase equity in its services through surveys, focus groups, and other outreach methods.

Social Equity 65   Key Takeaways • MOD and SAVs may be able to enhance accessibility for underserved communities, but they may also result in adverse impacts if a select population or community bears a dispropor- tionate share of the benefits or adverse impacts. • Physical and digital accessibility are key considerations for some vulnerable populations to accomplish a complete trip through MOD or SAVs. • Bias could be built into the algorithms and artificial intelligence employed in MOD and SAV services. Ensuring algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence/reinforcement learning is an important consideration for the public and private sectors moving forward. • Stakeholders can use the STEPS framework to identify, prevent, and mitigate potential equity barriers to accessing MOD and ADS. • The public sector can play an important role in ensuring equitable access to MOD and AV through regulation, legislation, and other actions. • Strategies such as community engagement may be able to address AV equity challenges when regulation or legislation is not present. Considerations for Social Equity • Use the STEPS framework to identify potential equity opportunities and challenges. • Apply best practices, regulations, legislation, and federal requirements for equity and accessibility. • Conduct research to understand impacts on equity and social justice. • Employ third-party accessibility testing, validation, and certification. • Consult with different organizations (e.g., accessibility-oriented non-profits) to offer insight on different equity and accessibility considerations. • Ensure that regulations do not burden taxpayers (e.g., evaluations for acces- sible vehicles). • Evaluate changes made to transportation systems to ensure that they support equity (e.g., if a route is removed, ensure that riders are provided with an alternative option). Regulations may also need to be developed to ensure that the costs of mandating and regu- lating AV accessibility do not burden taxpayers but benefit the private sector. For example, if a tax has to be implemented to pay for public employees to inspect AV designs for accessibility but companies can market their vehicles as accessible, it places an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers.