Sometime down the road: interview with Phil Koopman
Phil Koopman has been studying autonomous vehicle technologies since the 1990s. That makes him the perfect person to ask, When will we see automated cars and trucks on our highways?
David Maloney has been a journalist for more than 35 years and is currently the group editorial director for DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly magazines. In this role, he is responsible for the editorial content of both brands of Agile Business Media. Dave joined DC Velocity in April of 2004. Prior to that, he was a senior editor for Modern Materials Handling magazine. Dave also has extensive experience as a broadcast journalist. Before writing for supply chain publications, he was a journalist, television producer and director in Pittsburgh. Dave combines a background of reporting on logistics with his video production experience to bring new opportunities to DC Velocity readers, including web videos highlighting top distribution and logistics facilities, webcasts and other cross-media projects. He continues to live and work in the Pittsburgh area.
If you’re wondering when we will see autonomous vehicles traveling down our nation’s highways, don’t hold your breath. At least that’s the word from Dr. Phil Koopman, who has been tracking the development of autonomous vehicle technologies for more than 25 years.
An associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s (CMU) electrical and computer engineering department, Koopman is a leading expert on driverless vehicles and the safety systems they require. He has extensive experience in software safety and quality, and as a CMU faculty member, he teaches young engineers the software skills needed for mission-critical systems. He recently spoke to DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney about the prospects for autonomous vehicle technologies and the challenges they present.
PHIL KOOPMAN
Q: You’ve been working on autonomous vehicle technologies for more than 25 years. Why has it taken so long for these technologies to reach their potential?
A: I started getting involved back in the mid-1990s. I worked with the Carnegie Mellon University Nav Lab team, which hired me as the safety guy. Just before they took me on, they had gone coast to coast [with an autonomous vehicle], from Washington, D.C., to San Diego. It was 98% hands-off-the-wheel. Think about it: 98% hands-off-the-wheel, coast to coast in 1995! I got hired because after that trip, they were like, “You know, maybe we need a safety guy.”
And then, I think it was 1998, there was an automated highway system demo, where they closed off part of the freeway near San Diego and drove a bunch of platoon cars and a city bus down the road—no hands on the wheel on a closed stretch of interstate highway. Again, almost 25 years ago, right? So, the way I like to look at it is that we were 98% hands-off-the-wheel across the country in 1995, and ever since, we’ve been working on that last 2%.
Q: Why has it taken so long?
A: Well, the catch is the last 2% is really tough, and this is fundamental to the issues of this industry. You can have a vehicle that is good at the easy stuff—and that is certainly an impressive achievement—but we have been there since the 1990s in some sense. It is really that last 2% that’s tough because it is always something new. It is something you haven’t seen before. There is an infinite variety of weird stuff in the world, and handling it all turns out to be a lot harder than people want it to be.
Q: There are a lot of driver-assist technologies available on our cars today—lane departure, automatic braking. Even my Toyota can pretty much park itself. Are these merely steps toward autonomy?
A: They are a contribution. In reality, what was going on in the ’90s was more like that than full autonomy. It was automatic lane keeping and things that today we call driver-assistance. Those are important to have, but making those better and better doesn’t actually solve the autonomy problem. The reason you need a human operator in the driver-assistance vehicles is that the machine learning part is good at knowing what it knows, but it is really, really “brittle” at stuff that it hasn’t seen before. That’s the purpose of having a human driver—to deal with the stuff it hasn’t seen before.
Q: So, when will we realistically see autonomous trucks on our highways?
A: It is more a question of how than when. If you want to completely replace a truck driver, that is a long way in the distant future—and by the way, truck drivers do more than drive. I don’t have to tell your audience that. But even for just the driving part, it is a long way off if you don’t want to put any limitations on what is going on.
If you’re willing to do something like take one stretch of interstate highway, and every day somebody goes through and makes sure all the lane markers are there and there haven’t been any paint or oil spills to obscure the lane markers and there’s no big pile of sand and there hasn’t been a landslide and everything is perfect—if you’re willing to do that and maybe there is a guide vehicle that the automated trucks all follow in a conga line and the guide vehicle is responsible for making sure that if there’s an animal on the road, it gets scared off—if you’re willing to make those kinds of concessions, it could happen in the next few years. But I don’t see next year somebody just saying, “OK, here are a thousand trucks. Let ’er rip!” I don’t see that coming as soon as a lot of people are saying.
Q: Do you see that as the next step—where you’d have a lead vehicle with a driver that’s followed by a platoon of autonomous trucks?
A: I think that a guide vehicle makes a lot more sense than just having every truck do everything in the next year. But I don’t see anyone trying to commercialize that.
Q: Do you think there are going to be dedicated lanes for autonomous trucks—or even dedicated highways?
A: It is really hard to know how that is going to go. There is a tradeoff between how much infrastructure you want and how hard it is to get the vehicle to do everything a human driver would do. I would think it is completely reasonable to do things like have dedicated on/off ramps at logistics centers. Maybe there is an HOV lane. It is going to depend on the road. It is going to depend on conditions.
Another way to go is to have designated times of day—periods when traffic is light—for autonomous trucks to use the highway. The more you have the road to yourself, the easier it is to ensure safety.
Q: You and I live both live in Pittsburgh, where they’ve been testing autonomous vehicles on city streets for a number of years. But wouldn’t it be easier to test the technology on interstates and limited-access highways than in urban environments?
A: Well, we are going to see everything. Right now in Arizona, Waymo is in fact running robo-taxis without drivers in a very, very benign environment.
The thing about urban roads versus highways is not that one is easier; it is that the challenges are different. In urban environments, you have a lot of crazy stuff happening all the time. It can be a very chaotic environment, depending on where you’re driving, but the good news is that if you’re driving slowly enough, a lot of times you can just jam on the brakes and you’re fine. You just have to know when to jam them on.
If you are on a truck going 60, 70, or 80 miles an hour, however, jamming on the brakes isn’t a very attractive option because you’ve got a lot of weight and mass—and a lot of momentum. So, it is less about weird chaotic stuff, like pedestrians jumping off curbs in front of you, and much more about planning ahead. I would say intuitively it feels like the highways are easier, but it isn’t that easy; it is just that the problems are different.
Q: We have seen a lot of advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence over the last few years. How much will these technologies play into the development of autonomous vehicles?
A: Artificial intelligence means the stuff that is really hard to do. And every 10 years, its meaning changes because some things become easy, while the next thing is hard. People tend to use “AI” as a catchall term for all the new technology, but it doesn’t really mean anything.
Machine learning, on the other hand, is a very specific technique. In machine learning, you show the computer system a bunch of examples and it performs a statistical analysis. And then if it sees a new sample, it will compare that new sample with the original sample. So, if it sees a person, it doesn’t actually know it’s a person. It says, “You know, that thing looks a lot like all the other people I have seen before, so it must be a person.” And that is great.
If you train it on things that it has seen, it works great. But that is like 98% or 99%. If there is something it has never seen before, it not only struggles, but it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know what’s going on.
For example, there was a case where the system was having trouble seeing people wearing yellow. It turned out that this system hadn’t been trained to recognize anyone in yellow, and so, if you were wearing yellow, you were basically camouflaged from the machine learning system, which is not so great if you’re directing traffic at a construction site or you’re a bicyclist in a yellow raincoat.
So, the instances where it makes weird, crazy, or stupid mistakes sometimes come as a real surprise to people, and that is why I was talking about the “long tail,” the rare things that you haven’t seen before. That is why everything is taking longer than everyone wants it to.
Q: In the logistics market, there are obvious advantages to using autonomous vehicles, such as helping to alleviate the truck driver shortage. There are other benefits as well—trucks can be spaced closer together, which could help with congestion on our highways, and driverless trucks might be able to operate for longer stretches of time if they’re exempt from the driver hours-of-service regulations. What are the main benefits that will help push this technology along in the next few years?
A: Well, let me go back to the jobs thing because that is so central. If someone is a truck driver today, I don’t think they should worry about losing their job before they’re ready to retire. This technology is going to take a long time to take hold.
And even if there are a thousand [autonomous] trucks on the roads in the next four or five years, that is just a drop in the bucket. It’s going to take a long time to scale this technology up to be able to go on roads that aren’t the easiest, most benign roads. So, the scare headlines about truckers being out of a job next year—that is just not going to happen. On the other hand, I think the prospect of finding some relief from the driver shortage is fantastic.
In terms of other things, all of the things you mentioned hinge on safety. Until we can get safety right, none of that good stuff is going to happen. And the industry is at a point where it is just now starting to really think hard about safety.
There is a saying we have in the computer world that the first 90% of the project takes the first 90% of the time. And the last 10% of the project takes the other 90% of the time. Ultimately, it boils down to, Can you really ensure these things are going to be at least as safe as a human driver? We are not at the point yet where we have an answer to that, so there is still some more work to be done.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."