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.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."