AV Pilots: Policy, Funding, and Partnerships are Happening!

Pilots, pilots, and more pilots!  This is an exciting time in the driverless vehicle world because we’re starting to see Level 3 and 4 automated vehicles being piloted in many different settings around the world (e.g., Japan, Pittsburgh, Singapore, and Dubai). And, what’s even more exciting is that governments are getting involved in a lot of different ways:

  • Establishing policies around driverless testing and pilots. Check out Australia’s National Guidelines for Automated Vehicle Trials, which focuses on safety, but also lays out clear expectations for the private industry.
  • Providing government funding for driverless pilots. The US Department of Transportation just issued a request for proposals for “automated vehicle technology “proving grounds.”
  • Government partnerships with the private sector for driverless pilots. In Ontario, for example, the province, has been seeking out applications for private industry and academic institutions to conduct AV testing. In the United Kingdom, the government awarded a £5.5 million grant to a consortium of partners, which include Bosch, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), Jaguar Land Rover, Direct Line Group, The Floow and the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

No matter the approach, these pilots are critical for ensuring the advancement of the technology.  The technology requires thousands of miles of testing in real-world scenarios (not just test facilities!) and people need to see the technology in action to be willing to consider using it. Government agencies are starting to see the potential safety and mobility benefits of the technology more and more, but government also needs to understand (based on real-life experience) how they need to update their infrastructure, what data will be needed and be made available, procurement policy changes, how to handle liability, and how best to manage the transition period.  What else should government agencies consider as they implement these pilots?

Posted in Driverless Car Development, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Should Road User Charging be Introduced along with Driverless Vehicles?

I was happy to find that a consistent theme at the ITS World Congress this year was on the importance of shifting to road user charging to fund infrastructure investments. The idea behind road user charging is that people pay fees based on how many miles a vehicle travels. Road user charging pilots are currently happening in many states, including California, Oregon, and Colorado; in addition to being established in places around the world, including Germany and New Zealand.  This is a seemingly logical consideration for government for the following reasons:

  • Many governments rely upon fuel tax revenues to fund infrastructure and the purchasing power of fuel tax revenues has declined as vehicles have become more fuel efficient and the tax hasn’t been increased enough to keep up with inflation or infrastructure spending needs.
  • Driverless vehicles have the potential to be all electric (so they’ll generate no fuel tax revenues) and to enable increased vehicle miles traveled. By charging people based on their distance traveled, this tax may discourage unnecessary trips (which is a significant concern in a driverless society).

The potential for road user charging becomes even more significant when the government considers how it might support a wide range of governmental goals.  Road user charging rates could be adjusted based on the following types of variations:

  • Charging based on time in order to reduce peak travel congestion;
  • Charging based on a cordoned area to reduce congestion in that specific region;
  • Charging based on vehicle occupancy could incentivize sharing (and, conversely, disincentivize zero and single-occupancy vehicle trips);
  • Charging based on a vehicle’s impact to the roadway (e.g., charging more for heavy vehicles or for sudden acceleration and braking)
  • Charging based on the fuel efficiency of a vehicle to encourage reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and/or
  • Charging based on road types to discourage non-local vehicles traveling on local streets;

Despite the fact that will be a challenge to implement, I believe that road user charging has the potential to be introduced at the same time as driverless vehicles. Why not leverage the excitement around the adoption of a new technology by introducing a new (and desperately needed) funding mechanism for infrastructure spending?

Posted in Driverless Car Impacts, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

How Driverless Vehicles Could Impact Parking

“We have significant parking demands today, but should we invest in a parking structure that may not be needed in a few years?” “Will we need all of the parking that we have today?”  “How can we make sure driverless vehicles aren’t parking 20 miles outside of our city center?”  Driverless vehicles will, indefinitely, have significant implications on a region’s existing and future parking requirements.  I hear questions like these all the time, so I figured it was worth a dedicated blog post.

Changes to parking requirements will largely depend upon the level of vehicle and ride sharing that occurs. If people continue to own cars similar to how they do today, this means that the number of vehicles will, generally, be the same and, consequently, the parking demand, will remain as-is. On the other hand, if the level of vehicle and ride sharing increases (and private vehicle ownership decreases), parking requirements would also decrease.

For the parking requirements that still exist – it has the potential to be re-located since vehicles can park themselves after dropping a passenger off. Urban parking could be re-located to remote locations so the expensive downtown real estate can be re-purposed. Homeowners could re-purpose their driveway and garage and pay for remote parking instead.  Remote parking will, of course, result in increased vehicle miles traveled, so government agencies will need to consider this trade-off, determine their desired outcomes, and establish pricing and policies that support them.

Other potential impacts:

  • Parking space size requirements may shrink because AV parking will be more precise
  • Buildings, transit stations, and other destinations will likely need more/better pick-up and drop-off locations due to increased ride sharing and/or vehicle pick-up/drop-offs
  • Traffic in areas with parking constraints could improve due to a reduction in vehicles circulating looking for parking.
  • Existing parking structures could be re-purposed due to reduced parking requirements.
  • Parking fees/taxes could increase or decrease depending on how much parking is still needed and how it is priced/taxed.

Driverless vehicles present an opportunity to free up a lot of valuable land; however, it’s up to the government to ensure that happens (by putting policies and pricing in place to encourage vehicle and ride sharing!). It’s also up to the government to make sure the land gets re-purposed appropriately.  Let’s start planning for that now!

Posted in Driverless Car Impacts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

My First Driverless Vehicle Riding Experience!

I’m ashamed to say that it has taken me two weeks to write about one of the highlights of my trip down under….I got to ride in a driverless shuttle in Perth, Australia!  Earlier this year, the RAC (a private membership organization that, amongst other things, advocates for safer roads in Australia), in partnership with the State transportation agency, acquired a fully autonomous (driverless) electric shuttle through French manufacturer, NAVYA. Referred to as the Intellibus, this Level 4 automated vehicle is navigating a few kilometers of public roadway near the Perth waterfront. Today, with a waiting list of thousands of people, the RAC is allowing members of the general public to sign up as a volunteer to ride in the Intellibus.

Some of my impressions:

  • This vehicle moves SLOWLY. I probably could have run faster than the Intellibus. That being said, the speed is slow on purpose. In addition to the fact that the RAC is testing the technology (and its reactions to obstacles), I would imagine that this is probably what the general public can handle at this point.
  • The other people’s response to the experience was priceless. I watched one woman go from disbelief to amusement to an external processing of what her life could be like with a driverless vehicle. Another person grilled the “chaperone” (who was extremely well-versed in the technology and the industry) about how the technology works. The “chaperone” explained that he has also had riders clutching the seats out of fear. These interactions, to me, are what it’s all about: building public awareness and acceptance around the technology.
  • The vehicle stopped very abruptly anytime anything appeared in its path. The vehicle was purposely programmed this way to maximize safety and minimize risks. Even if a cyclists was a few meters away, the vehicle stopped abruptly. This programmed “leeway” (or lack thereof) is an important consideration as these vehicles are introduced into our public roads.
  • The pre- and post- ride surveys were fantastic. The RAC is getting some very early public data regarding public acceptance, public confusions, potential future applications, etc.

Bottom line: I was so impressed with the RAC and the driverless vehicle experience. The RAC staff spent many months navigating the all aspects of the procurement process, regulatory exceptions, liability requirements, public communications, partnering with the state government, and the list goes on. In my opinion, they are paving the way for both the public and private sector and I was thrilled to have this opportunity.  Has anyone had any similar driverless vehicle experiences?


Posted in Driverless Car Development, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

The Biggest Barrier to Driverless Vehicle Adoption: Human Acceptance?

Here are just a few stats from some surveys that have been conducted recently:

  • In the United Kingdom, 73% of people would not give up driving in exchange for a driverless car and 38% of people would not likely buy a driverless car even if they were accessible and the same price as regular cars. (source)
  • In a survey of people from 10 countries around the world, 58% say they would take a ride in a fully self-driving car (source)
  • In a survey of Americans, a slight majority of adults under 30 are excited by the future of self-driving cars, compared to 40 percent who are worried. The attitudes of those over 65 are very different: just 19 percent say they’re excited about self-driving cars, while 71 percent are worried (source)

You get the idea…  While the survey questions, timing, and audiences were varied, it’s clear that people have significant concerns with riding in and/or purchasing a driverless vehicle.  This makes sense: driverless vehicles have been a fantasy concept in movies for years (see Disney’s Magic Highway and Total Recall, as examples); I’m not sure anyone expected to see them on our roadways in our lifetime.  I believe the only way to get past this barrier is to actually change people’s perceptions of driverless vehicles….from a concept to a reality.  This means that people need to be able to see and touch them!  Singapore, Pittsburgh, and London have taken great steps forward by doing exactly that and I expect many other cities to follow in the coming months and years. I’ll be curious to see if those cities’ comparable survey responses change more quickly than others.

The private sector is motivated to get these driverless vehicles out quickly, but what can the government do to help advance human’s acceptance?  Pilot programs (Bishop Ranch) and test sites (GoMentum Station and MCity) are just a couple of examples.  Do you have any other ideas?

Posted in Driverless Car Development, Government Considerations | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Additional Federal Driverless Policy Reflections

Having now read the United States federal driverless vehicle policy in detail, I continue to be impressed. The policy document has clear guidance for safety standards and it clearly delineates a boundary between federal and state’s regulatory responsibilities. It also acknowledges the importance of existing regulations (i.e., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). I also appreciate how the policy document outlines many of the issues and barriers associated with driverless vehicles that require further study (e.g., cyber security, data protection, etc). While I know this is a first cut and there will be many stakeholders providing input still, I thought I’d mention a few ideas that I would have liked to see mentioned (even as considerations….not requirements):

  • Since the impacts on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is still unclear (and a significant risk), government (at the federal or state level) is in a position to encourage electric power technology to minimize greenhouse gas emission impacts.
  • While data recorders are required for safety purposes, it would be quite forward-thinking if the federal or state governments required anonymized reporting of vehicle miles travelled and even vehicle occupancy to support road user charge pilots.
  • Connected vehicle technology is an entirely different technology; however, most experts agree that the greatest safety benefits will be achieved when the driverless and connected vehicle technologies are combined. It is surprising that this document doesn’t acknowledge that.
  • I acknowledge that the liability issue has been and is intended to be a state issue, but I’m unclear on why this is the case. Wouldn’t insurance providers, auto manufacturers, and state government agencies all benefit from consistency in liability approaches across state borders?
  • Will driverless vehicles with Level 5 functionality be able to transport unaccompanied children? Maybe this is thinking too far out, but I think this will become a huge question once the SAE Level 5 vehicles are publicly available.
  • I understand that the policy document intended on delineating federal and state policies, but what about local governments? It would have been nice to see the federal government acknowledge the very important role that local governments have in developing policies that will mitigate the VMT impact, manage costs and revenues associated with the introduction of AVs, and re-imagine their transit systems (to name a few local policy issues).

Do you agree with this feedback?  Any others to add to this list?

Posted in Driverless Car Future, Driverless Car Impacts, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Policy for Driverless Vehicles Were Just Released….and They Were Worth the Wait!

After months of build-up, the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA) released its Federal Autonomous Vehicles Policy. It turns out the hype was merited. As stated in NHTSA’s press release, this 116-document “sets a proactive approach to providing safety assurance and facilitating innovation through four key parts. Vehicle performance guidance uses a 15-point Safety Assessment to set clear expectations for manufacturers developing and deploying automated vehicle technologies. Model state policy delineates the Federal and State roles for the regulation of highly automated vehicle technologies as part of an effort to build a consistent national framework of laws to govern self-driving vehicles. Finally, the policy outlines options for the further use of current federal authorities to expedite the safe introduction of highly automated vehicles into the marketplace, as well as discusses new tools and authorities the federal government may need as the technology evolves and is deployed more widely.”

I’m still digging into the details and I am planning on more blog posts on this topic, but I’ll share a few of my reactions and some that I’ve read:

  • To date, I’ve referred to fully automated vehicles as driverless vehicles, self-driving vehicles, or autonomous vehicles. The federal government has now introduced a new term: highly automated vehicles (HAVs).
  • NHTSA has a lot of policy supporters. This article includes some heavy hitters in the industry voicing their appreciation for the federal government’s leadership.
  • As this article points out, the policy states that “vehicles should record, at a minimum, all information relevant to the [crash] and the performance of the system, so the circumstances of the event can be reconstructed.” While it’s unclear exactly how the data sharing will happen, this is certainly a challenge…. And a broader governmental issue that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later as the government pursues partnerships with new mobility companies (e.g., Uber, Zipcar, etc) today.
  • I may be missing it, but the policy does not seem to mention the freight industry. This article suggests that the freight industry was not involved in the policy development. Hopefully, they will speak up during this 60-day comment period because they are important stakeholders!
  • I think the delineation between federal and state roles is logical and clear. As stated in this article, “when humans are driving, states are in charge, but when software is driving, the feds are in charge.”
  • I haven’t heard or seen any mention of federal funding supporting the advancement of this technology. We will likely have to wait until the next presidential term to see how that shakes out.

I’m most impressed by the US DOT’s leadership and progressive stance regarding accelerating the development and adoption of highly automated vehicles.  I think their approach is admirable and will likely be studied and, ultimately, copied by many other countries.  What did everyone else think?

Posted in Driverless Car Development, Driverless Car Future, Government Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments