Most state-level autonomous vehicle (AV) study reports are pretty much the same and, therefore are a waste of the money spent on them. Like most, the New Jersey report is part AV primer, part summary of the current legal landscape, and part recommendations, some vague enough to drive an AV truck through. The report does not approach AVs from the perspective that this shift will be an opportunity to solve the transportation problems that plague the Garden State.
Unlike the following opinionated quote from a February 2020 press release by the Amalgamated Transit Union NJ State Council and the New Jersey Work Environment Council, the New Jersey AV report hesitates to offend anyone.
New Jersey suffers from dual problems associated with the same root cause: poor air quality and some of the worst traffic congestion and longest commutes in the country. The cause of this issue can be traced through a mess of policy and cultural phenomena – investments in car travel over public transit paired with America’s unique culture of individualism and self-reliance creates systemic inequity throughout our systems.
[O. Reilly and N. Langweiler, Transit Equity Day - New Jersey Must Create a Transportation System Accessible for All, NJ Insider (Feb., 4 2020).
Note: I will be using the term Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), but in New Jersey it's called the MVC for Motor Vehicle Commission.
Caveat: What I am not paying much attention to that is discussed in the NJ report
- Freight
- Delivery
- Enforcement of traffic law details (No one is going to say that traffic laws should not be enforced.)
NJ report - What I like
😎 Good summary of Congressional activity and controversial issues that have kept Congress from passing legislation.
😎 Good summary of state laws and executive orders.
😎 Decent summary of New Jersey regulations that refer to vehicle operators or drivers, which, presumably, would have to be changed at some point were AVs to circulate en masse in the Garden State.
😎 Recommendation for broad stakeholder engagement, but, my big caveat is below in "What I don't like."
😎 Concise explanation of insurance uncertainties and range of opinions as to how liability frameworks could operate.
😎 The New Jersey report spends much of its space repeating what the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) recommends. AAMVA, by the way, has compiled and links to an impressive AV library, available for free on its website.
😎 The report expresses opinions about what is likely to happen when AVs arrive; it predicts for the suburbs greater sprawl, in contrast to its prediction for cities as shared-use smorgasbords. For New Jersey, a state that embraces suburbia, this is a serious concern. Traffic is already a problem in the Garden State.
😎 Summary of research about job loss and displacement that AVs may cause.
😎 Recognizing that how roadways and transportation modal choices play out with AVs will determine who is afforded a healthy and safe environment and who is not. Here the report actually expresses an opinion.
AVs should be deployed in ways that will reduce transportation-related air emissions and promote healthy living environments for all populations. This implies the need for strong collaborative planning with historically environmentally burdened communities and the prioritization of future transportation investments and land use strategies that will promote active transportation modes such as walking and cycling, and eventually the deployment of zero-emission public transit vehicles. In the future, this may require establishing incentives toward adoption of electric vehicles and shared use of vehicles over private AV ownership, particularly in urbanized areas and congested corridors.
😎 Immediately following this strong declaration in terms of equity and public health, the report again expresses an opinion when it addresses public engagement, calling for "proactive and meaningful involvement processes" that will ensure full and fair participation of "all potentially affected communities."
NJ report - What I don't like
😣 In the club of states that basically have spent money on a current AV primer. Why did the state legislature authorize to spend the money when there are already good AV primers available for free and the report discusses nothing particular to the state of New Jersey?
😣 Lip service is paid to transportation accessibility needs of people with disabilities. No guarantees are recommended and no details are given about how to achieve equity in transportation (or otherwise) for people with disabilities.
😣 No discussion of state goals - What do we want the New Jersey transportation network as a whole to accomplish for the state and how do we plan for AVs so that the transportation system will achieve those goals?
😣 Little discussion of equity in terms of how the state should address job loss, the transportation needs of low-income populations, affordability of AV transportation, AV transportation modes available, and land use. However, as noted above, the report does declare strong opinions in terms of equity on the subjects of public health, using that term broadly, and public engagement. In a state with very different populations and a full spectrum of communities from very poor to incredibly wealthy - with all of the separation that we see among these across the US - the report reflects our national hesitance to honestly and fully address equity. The report seems to hesitate to offend anyone.
[Photo: Driving Tips in New Jersey at sixt.com.]
Just watching
The report creates an image of a state that considers itself a passive bystander to eventual business models for AV passenger services and ownership. Much of the discussion of uncertainties about land use patterns, planning, and AV costs is written in the passive voice as though government has no role unless there is already a strong consensus. The authors of the report seem to have taken the position, or have inferred, that the purpose of the report is not to declare any ultimate goals for an AV transportation network of the future, and certainly not to pick sides in a state where free parking and driving everywhere are the norms.
Even when the report lets itself veer into expressing opinions, in particular what may happen in suburbs versus cities, it does not conceive of the state as having the authority to influence or change land use and transportation regulation and patterns.
Skeptical view of the role recommended for the DMV
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as the lead agency will limit itself to AV safety and registration, but is not an agency that is accustomed to or bearing the capacity to consider land use or incorporating how non-drivers interact with the roadway. The report does specify pedestrians and people with disabilities.
Again, to underscore my skepticism about a DMV being the lead agency, the report comes out in favor of tasking the DMV with responsibility for broad stakeholder engagement. This is not an agency with a history of relationships with senior, disability, low-income, or transportation-vulnerable communities. New Jersey certainly has not always, or often, done justice for communities of color. There is also nothing to indicate a real commitment to go beyond engaging and listening to active incorporation of concerns and ideas articulated by these communities.
Recommendations read like "We're all in favor of apple pie."
- Safety: Yes, we know that safety is a priority, and this needs to be listed.
- Remain technology neutral.
- Prepare proactively for AVs.
- Encourage consistent regulation and operating environment.
Basically, the report recommends trying to get all stakeholders to sing Kumbaya together.
Recommendations with a little more oomph
- Recommendations for two distinct task forces: (1) an interagency advisory committee made up of staff from state agencies, and (2) a stakeholder engagement council. These two bodies have the potential to add lots of value and specifics to how New Jersey proceeds as they are given particular mandates in the report.
- AV testing and operations regulatory structures that should be in place and what should be required.
🤔 What?
- Recommendation to give a free pass to companies that are already players approved for AV testing in other states. This is surprising given the low bar in certain states.
What is interesting
👀 In some details following the recommendations, the report calls for EITHER a safety risk management plan or a voluntary safety self-assessment approved by NHTSA. Perhaps the authors are providing that leeway as a wait-and-see gesture. But perhaps not, because there is also a recommendation to give a free pass to companies that are already players approved for AV testing in other states, including ones with low standards. Perhaps the state regulators will choose to be more discriminating.
👀 Recommendation that there always be a human backup driver in an AV that is being tested and recommending a mandate for a training program for backup drivers.
👀 Recommendations that companies "acknowledge/certify" that an AV, when it is being operated in an automated mode, is incapable of operating outside of its ODD (operational design domain).
👀 Attention paid to law enforcement and AVs having the capacity to reach a minimal risk condition on the side of the roadway.
👀 For all of the vagueness of the report and its apparent stance that it is too early to make many decisions, the report veers off in a whole different direction when it conceives of passengers on an AV without a backup driver.
For HAVs that do not require a driver, the autonomous vehicle has a communication link with the HAV Operator to provide information on the vehicle’s location and status, and allow two-way communication between the HAV Operator and any passengers (if applicable) and law enforcement or other first responders, should the vehicle experience any failures that would endanger the safety of the vehicle’s passengers or other road users while operating without a driver.
[Image: Map of New Jersey from Britannica entry about the state.]
My recommendation for a good state AV report - a solid B+
My favorite state-level AV report remains Minnesota's because it conceives of AVs in terms of state goals for equity and accessibility, and environmental sustainability. It separates out legislation around truck platooning as separate from statutes addressing AVs. The report looks at a spectrum of other state frameworks for regulating AVs, and, in addition to other recommendations that are relatively specific for these type of reports, Minnesota's specifically declares:
• The state must ensure that CAV pilot projects are conducted in urban, suburban and rural Minnesota to allow the public equal opportunities to learn about the technology and help guide policy decisions.
• Conduct pilot projects in areas with aging populations, persons with disabilities, low-income communities, in communities of color, and tribal nations.
To all of you, a happy and healthy 2021!!!
