Transformational Technologies and Mobility Inclusion Playbook (2024)
Chapter: Chapter 4 - Implementation Considerations
CHAPTER 4
Implementation Considerations
In the effort to eliminate barriers to accessing transformational technologies, having a clear understanding of the service intent and the boundaries within which the service operates is essential. This understanding must be gained through the perspectives of those being served and in the context of what can be achieved with available resources. Obtaining this understanding must be a key part of the implementation policy in every case.
The implementation considerations checklist (Table 5) outlines actions that must be considered not only to achieve long-term success but also to manage expectations and maintain the credibility of the implementing organization. There may not be simple methods for executing the actions and easy answers to addressing challenges, such as regulatory compliance, funding sustainability, and user adoption, but it is crucial to address these challenges for the mobility service program to be successful.
This chapter was developed as a complementary tool to the plays and should be used alongside them. Considerations appearing here apply broadly to all programs and new and future mobility services.
Each of these focus areas listed in Table 5 is further expanded on in the subsequent sections. In addition to these implementation considerations, when deploying a strategy, it is essential to consider both the duration and cost of the project. Following a discussion of the key focus areas listed in the table, this chapter delves into the importance of project duration and cost, providing insights into the factors that influence their determination and potential strategies to be considered.
Overall Program Needs
Defining overall goals and identifying opportunities and constraints for program deployment are foundational steps for a successful program. A program is laid out in a specific region with its spatial arrangement, economy, weather, infrastructure, and people. Establishing goals and understanding opportunities and constraints can therefore not be done accurately without early community engagement.
Traditional transit systems have focused on transporting commuters in and out of employment hubs, but many trips fall outside this context. Thinking within the target underserved community’s context will include thorough envisioning of daily life, noting food insecure areas, where people go to get medical care, location density of jobs, and typical work hours. Late-night services will have to carefully manage safety concerns for riders.
Heavy emphasis should be placed on determining project goals collaboratively so as not to waste energy and resources on pilot programs with a low chance of success. Understanding the
Table 5. Implementation considerations checklist.
| Focus Area | Consideration |
|---|---|
| Overall Program Needs |
|
| Communication and Adaptation |
|
| Funding Approaches |
|
| Compliance |
Ensure full compliance with
|
| Vehicle Autonomy |
|
| Private-Sector Implications |
|
| Focus Area | Consideration |
|---|---|
| Other Specific Factors |
|
environment residents live in, including its terrain, weather, and recent court and policy decisions, will make for a more realistic design. Pilot programs should be designed with specific performance measures, including equity metrics, and a vision for a full, long-term deployment if successful. Preparing for success involves leaving room for adaptations and lessons learned from the pilot.
Key questions to be answered during the program design phase include the following:
- What do the underserved populations want and need? What is the best way to engage with them and develop a responsive relationship?
- How does the program fit into the existing transportation environment? How will trips be streamlined to avoid burdening travelers with excessive transfers and complexity?
- What kind of trips will the service be fulfilling, and for whom? Where are the jobs and what are their working hours? Are work trips a key issue for the population being served (as opposed to other travel purposes)?
- Is there availability of shopping and other services close to home? What is the availability/cost of delivery services? Where are the locations of medical facilities or alternative options such as urgent care centers and walk-in clinics?
- Are there barriers outside the traditional transit/transportation arena that can present additional challenges to future success?
Communication and Adaptation
Communicating with the public and adapting in the case of problems, failures, or negative events go hand in hand. Establishing reliable sources of information, with frequent and clear messages communicating changes in the program and responding to problems, is needed to reduce misinformation.
Communication avenues provide more than mere information dissemination; they act as opportunities for potential riders to voice concerns and build a relationship with the agency or service operator. The following should be considered:
- Setting. Communication settings should be appropriate for people with nonstandard working hours, family care pressure, and transportation challenges. A central location to the service area or another location that is well-known, easily accessible, and where participation can be achieved is appropriate. In-person meetings are important in assessing the needs of persons with cognitive disabilities and their caregivers.
- Media. Modes used for communication should be varied and accessible to reach a maximum number of people, including people without smartphones and people of all disability types.
- Language. Selection is key, such as providing non-English communication in some communities, as well as ASL and braille. Some people with cognitive disabilities may require communication through their caretakers.
With open channels of communication, in case of a negative event like a crash or criminal act, established avenues can be used to address the situation. There is no worse day in the life of an agency leader than the day any of the people being served are seriously injured or killed. Such events can quickly heighten emotions and cause rash actions that can end what could be an effective program. Plan to
- Identify who will be the spokesperson for the program to media and public calls. The National Incident Management System has excellent planning tools and protocols. Answering media calls after establishing a clear understanding of the event and a go-forward plan is most effective.
- Follow the investigation closely and report on any updates or developments as they become available.
- Be transparent and thoroughly explain the event, including the involvement of technology (if any).
- Determine the immediate action in the absence of a clear understanding of the event.
- Complete an investigation and reveal that the agency is doing so. Understanding the full incident before giving a formal statement will prevent miscommunication and a potential loss of credibility.
- Consider a 2-day safety stand-down to evaluate program processes, but state that the program will return to operation at the end of the stand-down unless contrary facts emerge.
- Address failure of an inexperienced operator to meet program requirements. Sometimes an implementor gets beyond their capability and fails to perform. There will be pressure on the city or transit authority to take over the operations. Agency leaders should know upfront if this is a possibility or clearly state it will or will not happen, while understanding the required steps to unwind a contract, dispose of assets, and so forth.
- Understand and identify risks concerning the implementation of AV technology. Media and public opinion are very sensitive to even rare AV mishaps, which have derailed promising programs. Plan carefully for the implementation of AV technology.
Outside of major negative events, stakeholders, operators, and agencies should have commonly understood metrics for the success of the program, including trips completed, populations served, cost per rider/trip, service gaps eliminated, key destinations served, jobs accessible, grocery stores accessible, healthcare facilities accessible, service availability/frequency, on-time performance, and level of service equity. Riders should have access to a multilingual call center that takes payments from debit or credit cards, reserves rides, and provides ride details to riders without a smartphone.
Accessibility can easily fall short in practice from what may have been decided during design phases. To protect the quality of service for all riders, regular audits and assessments of service will help identify accessibility gaps that need to be addressed. This should include seeking direct input from users, community members, and stakeholders regarding the implementation of new mobility services.
Key questions to be answered for communication and adaptation include the following:
- Who are the stakeholders? With what setting, mode, and language can they best be reached? Which groups are not represented at outreach events?
- Who will oversee communication in light of a negative event? Who will speak to the media? How and when will community questions be answered?
Funding Approaches
Being able to roll out an effective program is contingent on a realistic assessment of the available budget and financing options. The funding and operational model chosen (i.e., publicly owned and operated, publicly funded and privately operated, privately owned and operated) can change costs and operational decision-making for programs. Agencies should carefully weigh the potential long-term costs and level of control over program decision-making before entering public-private partnerships.
For example, in the case of accessible ridehailing programs, funding can take two approaches:
- Private-Sector Lead. Ridehailing services (with drivers or automated) can address the needs of underserved communities (people with disabilities in particular) by providing service in underserved areas. Funding can be provided for accessible service at the same times and locations by contracting with the traditional rideshare company model (driver-owned vehicles) or through an added fee if they do not provide accessible vehicles.
- Public-Sector Lead. The challenge of lagging service implementation can be addressed by integrating this solution into existing public transportation services. This approach can effectively meet community needs that are challenging to address with traditional transit options or in areas where private-sector offerings are lacking. Funding for this initiative can be generated through fees collected from ridehailing services, which can be specifically allocated to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and extend service availability to areas without shared AVs. Depending on regulatory requirements, public incentives may also be considered in conjunction with private funding solutions. This combined approach ensures a comprehensive and sustainable implementation strategy.
Funding is often led by governmental entities but can make use of the private sector, social services, and religious groups to delegate the coordination and operation of programs. Partners should be carefully evaluated for their capabilities and skills.
Key questions to be answered for funding include the following:
- Who is best positioned to lead and fund the effort, or parts of it?
- What is the long-term cost-effectiveness of a private versus public funding mechanism? What are the advantages and disadvantages of public, partnered, or private service coordination?
- Can the implementation model be changed to serve underserved communities first or concurrent with high ROI services?
Compliance
Funding scenarios for these programs often come with strict requirements for recordkeeping. The implementor must be able to demonstrate good attention to detail for the funds. The Triennial Review and Title VI Review, procurement process guidelines, drug/alcohol testing, and accessibility in shared AVs through attendants must be prepared for as part of federal regulation compliance. Other requirements include
- Property and fiscal accountability, equipment maintenance, property and personal data security, work standard adherence for contract performance, advanced planning for smooth operations through contract renegotiation and personnel changes, software licensing, cash handling, payroll, and tax payments must all be handled effectively to maintain good business standing.
- Detailed data sharing between contracted operators, like TNC services, and transit agencies is required for the National Transit Database and for an accurate evaluation of program performance. Before entering into contracts, understand what, if any, limitations on data availability are present and ensure that data needed for compliance and performance metrics will be available and not restricted by proprietary limitations.
- Data protection for riders is especially important for underserved populations.
- A robust accounting system may be necessary depending on the source of funds and agency requirements.
- Adequate insurance policies are necessary to protect sponsors, staff, and riders from liability risks.
- Licensing and permitting of vehicles by appropriate local and state authorities is needed, especially for operation of AVs.
Federal procurement regulations may exceed prior expectations and may be difficult to understand and plan. Although some nonprofits and faith-based organizations may be exempt, noncompliance will limit opportunities and flexibility in the long term for the program. Care must be taken to meet requirements from all funding partners and governing entities—federal, state, local, and sponsoring private entities. Small purchases, contractor involvement in purchasing, and Buy America provisions are areas to watch. Processes, recordkeeping, and personnel authorizations should be established before purchasing begins.
Drug/alcohol testing is often a difficult issue for ridehailing companies. This issue is further complicated by prohibited substances that may well be legal in the state in which that program operates. The implementor needs to understand if testing will be required when making all hiring and contracting decisions.
Key questions for maintaining compliance include the following:
- What reporting requirements is the program subject to from local, state, federal, and private sponsors?
- What are the procurement process requirements for the program? How will contracted partners be held to these standards? Who will keep track of procurement?
- What data are required for accurate reporting to the National Transit Database? How will data be shared between contracted partners and agencies?
- How will ADA compliance be maintained with new technologies? Is accessibility included in all stages of program development?
- What drug and alcohol testing protocols will be used? For states with fewer substance restrictions than federal law, will testing be required?
Vehicle Autonomy
AVs face challenges in areas without wireless broadband connections, which is of particular concern in rural and tribal areas. Pressing for broadband expansion is needed to include these areas in the eventual shift toward (shared) AVs. Thorough vetting of a service area must be done to ensure there are no gaps in service coverage and that rigorous addressing is in place to permit GPS use.
Standardizing the AV framework and communication links with roadside equipment is essential. Infrastructure development should facilitate the needs of AVs and their passengers while protecting other road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. Regulators can push for standardization and proactively develop roadside infrastructure that maintains safe, equitable
road standards for all road users. Standardization efforts should address electric vehicles’ communication needs with other vehicles and the roadside [vehicle-to-everything (V2X)], improvement of accessibility beyond minimum requirements, shared operation, passenger communication, emergency signals/stops, ingress/egress controls, and so forth. With new technologies, service models and vehicle types may not fall under existing regulations. First responders’ access to vehicles for medical emergencies or rescue from fire and collisions must be ensured for safety.
The full impact of Levels 4–5 shared AVs must be understood before programs are developed and deployed. Table 6 illustrates how current transportation problems for underserved populations riding in shared, human-driven vehicles (SAE Levels 0–3) could be improved, worsened, or unaltered by the introduction of higher levels of autonomy.
Table 6. Impact of shared AV implementation on barriers to underserved populations.
| Index Icon | Barrier Increased with Shared AVs | No Change with Shared AVs | Barrier Decreased with Shared AVs |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
Presents same barriers related to affordability, banking access, and smartphone/data access (banking and internet/data inaccessibility). | ||
 |
Increases real or perceived risk from other passengers with no driver to summon help or intervene. May increase feeling unsafe due to discomfort with the technology. |
Removes the impact of human error in driving. Removes real or perceived risk from the driver. |
|
 |
While similar to systems with drivers, the risk of population or location bias in the assignment system due to profit level may increase risk if not addressed. | Removes the risk that an individual driver will deny service to any individual or fail to serve an underserved area due to bias. In microtransit applications (including a more expanded route with improved shared AV technology), shared AVs may increase connections to transit and other transit options. If realized, lower operating costs may expand the ability to serve broader populations. |
|
 |
The introduction of autonomy adds further complexity and concern. No driver is present to answer questions from unfamiliar riders. No driver is present to help, recognize the need for assistance, or identify accessible loading/unloading locations (e.g., poor surfaces like gravel or high curbs, which are likely a greater issue in rural areas without paved sidewalks). |
Demonstrated success in the application may be the most effective way to improve trust in technology by potential riders. Asynchronous shared AVs improve independence for people with disabilities, including people with visual or mobility disabilities. |
Private-Sector Implications
Private companies are unlikely to lead transportation equity efforts since the profit model leads them to prioritize efficient, high-return geographies first. However, agency structure and the increasing sophistication of transformational technologies open opportunities to facilitate broader access.
Government entities can take several levels and types of action, including forced compliance through ordinances and statutes requiring availability and accessible accommodation. Other options include incentivized compliance and provision of a parallel alternative through a transit authority to underserved areas. Enhanced provider collaboration, like automatic routing through an alternative service provider, can reduce the burden on riders, especially when requesting accessible vehicles. However, making accessible vehicles widely available in all services should be a priority.
Additional considerations include leveraging the investment by private- and public-sector entities in service technologies through the use of existing technology applications. There is no need to reinvent processes that are available off the shelf. Creative uses of existing vehicle capacity, like driving commuters who can act as a last-mile connection for their coworkers, could be seen as a jobs program or a source of extra income.
Key questions regarding private-sector considerations include the following:
- What kind of relationship do government entities, private service providers, and resident populations have? What are some likely points of conflict?
- How much leverage do government entities have to guide private operators? Are there current legal challenges at the local or state level? Are there imminent policy changes that could affect service design and deployment?
- How much new technology investment is necessary to meet a region’s travel needs? Can current vehicles and infrastructure be used differently or more effectively?
Other Specific Factors
Some challenges are difficult for an implementing agency to influence or resolve. Land use planning or the spatial arrangement of a city or region is outside the scope of an individual transportation service. Disconnected growth of economic opportunities and housing availability crossing over multiple jurisdictions can make service planning complex. Since COVID-19, transit ridership has not yet fully recovered, and commuting travel patterns have changed or outright decreased (including changes related to work-from-home trends). In a post-COVID travel landscape, programs should adapt to shifted travel behaviors.
In many areas, there is not one overarching transportation authority to provide service. Allowing fare sharing across boundaries (GoPass—DART/DCTA/Trinity Metro) is nontraditional but can encourage the hesitant/long-commute riders to expand their trip-planning horizon. Fare sharing can also ease barriers in educating riders to use different neighboring services at different rates.
Parents and guardians must often travel with small children, and older children may want to use services. Their inclusion into service must be decided but will ultimately be affected by parental guidance and cultural norms. The provision of car seats and helmets as well as the decision to include or exclude children from a program will be part of an individual program’s implementation. Passenger cargo must also be given a space in program and vehicle design.
Finally, it is important to ensure that app-based driver and passenger ratings are assessed for bias during the interpretation of feedback data. Highly-rated passengers can be routed first to highly-rated drivers. There is a potential for bias to enter into this rating system. Much like restaurant or product reviews, this potential must be acknowledged in the interpretation of feedback results.
Key questions for outside factors include the following:
- What experience and resources do neighboring agencies have? How can transformational technology services build on each other, especially in dense, multi-municipality regions?
- How prevalent is hybrid work? Are there signs of change to hybrid work arrangements from major employers?
Deployment Duration and Cost
When deploying a strategy, it is essential to consider both the duration and cost of the project. This section delves into the importance of project duration and cost, providing insights into the factors that influence their determination and their impact on successful strategy deployment.
Duration Considerations
It is important to consider both technology and policy aspects across different timeframes for effectively implementing mobility strategies and ensuring a smooth transition toward transformative technologies. The following subsections explore the short-term (6–12 months), medium-term (12–24 months), and long-term (24–36 months) perspectives.
For each timeframe, specific technology and policy considerations are provided, taking into account factors such as software deployment, customization, equipment deployment, resource acquisition, training, stakeholder engagement, infrastructure assessment, and legislative actions. Furthermore, because Levels 4 and 5 AVs are still in development, this discussion also highlights the enabling factors that will contribute to their eventual deployment in a manner fitting the needs of all.
Short-Term Strategies
Technology considerations for short-term strategies are
- Procuring and deploying software as a service, commercial off-the-shelf, open source models.
- Examining the potential role of an agile method that emphasizes iterative and incremental development, continuous feedback, and adaptability to changing requirements. In other words, incrementally deploy functionality in smaller, incremental releases over time rather than wait until the entire software is complete. This approach allows agencies to deliver working software more quickly, get feedback early, and make improvements throughout the development process.
- Owning (or subscribing to) equipment (e.g., cloud) to operate the software.
- Leveraging existing services that operate technology (update system configuration parameters)—for example, add to an existing call center to manage new mobility operators or services (bikesharing, ridehailing, etc.).
Policy considerations for short-term strategies are
- Expediting procurement (or making procurement available through the schedule, purchase order, or task order).
- Ensuring that policies related to operating the mobility solution are available and have the support of legislators/policymakers where appropriate.
- Preparing agreements or memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with associated stakeholders, including individuals or organizations that play a significant role in the operation or implementation of a particular program or initiative (e.g., independent owner/operators who may have unique perspectives or concerns that need to be addressed in the agreements or MOUs).
- Providing resources to educate and train staff and users on service.
- Ensuring that awareness is built with input from underserved communities on their needs from the services.
Medium-Term Strategies
Technology considerations for medium-term strategies are
- Making limited software customization to an existing system (requires coding and software updates).
- Deploying equipment in the field or on premises.
Policy considerations for medium-term strategies are
- Acquiring resources, operations training, and maintenance personnel to start up a new system with new staff.
- Establishing new MOUs for sharing information.
- Setting up funding for deployment sustainability.
- Engaging stakeholders for pilot feedback.
Long-Term Strategies
Technology considerations for long-term strategies are
- Developing, prototyping, piloting, and deploying a system.
- Examining higher resources and skilled labor needs for syncing operations with new technology.
Policy considerations for long-term strategies are:
- Establishing new MOUs that include settlement and financial reconciliation (e.g., deployment governance of multiple organizations).
- Passing legislation or acquiring a waiver to allow mobility vehicles to operate (e.g., e-bikes, e-scooters, AVs).
- Performing realistic assessments of the state of infrastructure and regional preparedness for transformational technology additions. Many regions, like rural and tribal areas, will need sustained investment into repairing and upgrading infrastructure before spending money on new technologies.
Policymakers play a crucial role in the successful deployment of emerging technologies, understanding that the mere development of these advancements does not automatically ensure their availability in every region. It is essential to recognize that the adoption and implementation of AVs, including shared AVs, are contingent on factors such as infrastructure preparedness, labor costs, and public readiness. Acknowledging these considerations is pivotal in formulating effective policies that align with the unique characteristics and requirements of different regions. Table 7 provides a summary of enabling events and conditions for shared AVs.
Table 7. Shared AV implementation enablers.
| Enabling Event/Condition | Description |
|---|---|
| Lack of Driver Availability | The consistent lack of drivers (low unemployment, competition for more favorable jobs) will impact the ability to staff the traditional shared services. |
| Driver Cost | Changes in collective bargaining rules, the status of employee versus contractor definitions, or other fundamental changes to the ridehailing business model could greatly impact driver costs. |
| SAE Level 5 Achieved (all conditions) | The broad availability of commercially viable Level 5 AV systems is necessary for the widespread adoption of shared AV services. All issues, including communication, insurance, and liability, must be resolved. |
| Broadband Communications/V2X/Edge Computing Available | Overcoming latency and bandwidth issues is key to successfully having a shared AV react quickly enough for unusual or unexpected situations (e.g., a pedestrian stepping out of the shadows). This may require the roadside or other vehicles to communicate with the shared AV (e.g., traffic signal change, presence of pedestrians near the road, collaboration from other vehicles) for the reaction time to be short enough for dependable operation. This communication may be a challenge in rural and tribal areas with limited wireless service. The base technology in the vehicle may exist, but the supporting technology to enable SAE Level 5 autonomy may not be present. |
| Effective Risk Management Established | Clear enabling statutes, insurance, liability regulation, and all other legal issues must be settled by enough states and localities to support a critical mass of vehicles for manufacture at SAE Level 5 autonomy. |
Cost Considerations
Assessing specific costs for new and future mobility services can be highly challenging. This complexity is particularly evident in the case of emerging technologies, such as AVs, where cost estimations are still uncertain. Additionally, the geographical context plays a significant role in cost considerations. Therefore, for this research project, comparative measures and the current state of the technology were used to assess cost implications.
Agencies and operators possess valuable insights into their budgets, areas of expertise, and access to specific resources. Therefore, they are best equipped to conduct detailed cost analyses tailored to their strategies and circumstances.
Low-Expense Strategies
Low-expense strategies allow for quick implementation and use of existing technology without altering the price of service per rider. They provide an opportunity, for example, to enhance safety features, promote fare sharing, and raise public awareness through software updates to transformative technology apps. By leveraging readily available solutions, these cost-effective strategies offer an efficient means of improving the accessibility and inclusivity of mobility services.
Moderate-Expense Strategies
While requiring a greater investment than low-expense strategies, moderate-expense strategies offer additional benefits through the integration or adoption of technology that may not be readily available. For example, by implementing a unified transit fare system across various modes, digitizing rural road infrastructure, and enhancing amenities for micromobility riders, these strategies facilitate seamless mobility experiences and address specific challenges in transportation networks.
High-Expense Strategies
High-expense strategies rely on technologies that are still under development and may require substantial investments and longer implementation timelines. Costs in this category can be
unpredictable, such as determining liability insurance for shared AVs, which depends on policy considerations and the stage of shared AV availability. Despite the uncertainties in costs, high-expense strategies offer the potential for transformative impacts. Example strategies include enhancing roadway and digital infrastructure to accommodate emerging mobility services and procuring adaptive shared AV fleets. While costlier, these strategies contribute to long-term advancements in mobility, addressing congestion, enhancing safety, and enabling efficient and sustainable transportation systems.
