Will We Have an AV Delaware?

Delaware is the First State, meaning the first state to adopt the United States Constitution, and, I'll add, at a time when that document's seminal place in our history was not assured. Delaware is also known as the state of incorporation for many large corporations that have no connection with the state - no factories, no headquarters, and no staff - due to the corporate friendly laws that have created an onshore equivalent of an offshore tax haven. This saves corporations millions of dollars and starves those states where these companies actually operate from collecting the tax revenues that any reasonable person would consider their due.

Think business models

A little context: Right now, we have a transportation system in which most people own the vehicles in which they ride each day. Ownership and vehicle operation are thus located in the same state.

But this may change IF we transition to a shared-use fleet model of transportation, whether it is today's car companies, ridehailing companies, tech companies, rental car companies, transit agencies, or who knows what kind of public or private entities actually own the AVs on our roads. Will there be one national company with a virtual monopoly, a few companies that pretty much divide major markets (similar to air travel), many different kinds of business models, or a public-private mix that leaves transportation-vulnerable riders to poor service of inadequately-subsidized agencies? And what will the role of public sector and non-profit transportation be?

No one knows.

No one knows if the average person will be better or worse off than today in terms of their transportation options. No one knows whether older adults and people with disabilities will be better served than they are today. And almost no one has even thought about what to do about rural areas, where it is unlikely that anyone will make a profit from transit or shared-use transportation or what we can do to avoid leaving rural communities behind when the AV transition happens in big cities and their suburbs.

So what the heck does this have to do with AVs?

I'm writing this post imagining the assumption, albeit an assumption that could prove false, that we will have a passenger transportation system of primarily shared-use AV fleets.

What is to prevent one state - an AV Delaware, if you will - from being THE main state for vehicle registrations?

Presumably, this would be a state with lenient requirements for registration, maybe technology licensing (if that becomes the norm or required), and insurance. We would still have 50 state standards, but, for large companies, there would, for all intents and purposes, there would be that one sweet state. What about a state inspection system with lax standards?

And where would this leave transit? Looking at the history of car companies lobbying Congress and having cushy relationships with key federal agencies, it doesn't take much to imagine transit retaining its lowly, poor service, except in certain cities.

What can prevent this scenario from emerging?



I hate to go to the source, but it would really help to limit campaign contributions - meaning get rid of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - which would take a constitutional amendment. Just a monumental feat, but it would limit the influence of big money.

What else could prevent this? Federal leadership. This is certainly doable and Congress is likely, in my opinion, to take the lead at some point. This aspect of AV regulation might not happen, however, until we see AVs en masse on our roads. After all, we did not see vehicle safety regulation at all for decades after automobiles appeared on our streets and roadways. We have a different mindset now, so I do not expect decades to pass.

The question is whether such legislation and regulation would favor the companies providing the transportation or whether it would be oriented toward the actual people using the shared AV fleets and transit services. I don't mean to be a downer, but the latter is not what we in the US have seen when it comes to either accessibility for people with disabilities or transportation equity for low-income communities, whether in urban or in rural areas.

State-by-State Conversation by Report

State-level automated vehicle (AV) task forces and their reports vary a great deal, with some examining scenarios of a wholesale transition of the roadway space or the transportation system, while others appear to presume a static, mostly auto-based transportation system, similar to what we have now in most of the US.

Most of these reports, such as Wisconsin's, serve as AV primers for state legislators, government agencies, and others who work on transportation-related issues within a given state. They explain basic AV concepts, levels of automation, and how AVs differ from connected vehicles. Some explain well the traditional federal-state division of responsibilities over regulation and oversight of vehicle manufacturing, driver licensing, insurance, and infrastructure design. The Utah report does a nice job of describing the federal-state division of responsibilities, as well as which federal concerns are monitored by which federal agencies.

Progressive, inclusive, and geographically correct

These reports reflect the culture of each state, especially in terms of the scope of topics explored. Minnesota's report is a good example. This report emphasized equity and accessibility concerns, even describing the inclusiveness of the meetings that the Governor's advisory council in charge of the report conducted to discuss AV issues with people around the state.

The fear of an inequitable lack of balance between urban and rural areas was evident throughout the Minnesota report and, reflecting the concern with public perception, public engagement was a major priority for the advisory council.

Each meeting included remote participation. In addition to the public meetings, individuals could participate online, by survey, or share their feedback directly with the CAV-X office. To ensure transparency for the process, MnDOT placed all materials on its public website, including dates and times for each meeting. MnDOT conducted additional outreach activities for those unable to attend meetings, including individual meetings and calls, public events, presentations at various conferences and events, and a demonstration at the Minnesota State Fair. MnDOT also participated in intergovernmental consultation with tribal governments through the Advocacy Council on Tribal Transportation, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, and individual meetings with tribal executives. The final recommendations considered input from all of these outreach efforts.

Unlike most such bodies, the Minnesota advisory council did not include any AV companies or car manufacturers. Instead the advisory council included staff from government, non-profit organizations, labor, the insurance industry, and the energy sector.

Transportation modes besides cars and trucks? What are those?

On the other end of the spectrum is the report from Idaho, which mostly ignores the possibility of shifting transportation modal choices, and explores the usual concerns of cybersecurity, privacy, licensing and insurance. This might be due to the fact that members of the Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Testing and Deployment Committee - that's a mouthful - were auto dealers, representatives of various vehicle associations, and lots of law enforcement staff. Transit was not represented.

Indeed, though none of the recommendations mention transit, walking, or biking, a subcommittee that included transit, biking, and walking advocates managed to include some interesting text in the report - just not in the executive summary or in the recommendations.

The predictable routes, limited number of vehicles, fixed infrastructure in the public right-of-way, and public oversight place public transit in a unique position to pilot AV/CV technology. By piloting AV/CV for transit, the public could become more familiar and comfortable with the technology. Enabling and deploying AV/CV technology for public transit would also provide operational benefits to transit agencies by providing more consistent operations at potentially lower costs.

...      ...      ...

In the future, most vehicles using Idaho’s transportation infrastructure may not be individually owned, as they are today. The Mobility as a Service (MaaS) model predicts that most vehicles would be owned by corporations or collectives, and dispatched to users on demand. This model already exists with services like UBER and Lyft that currently use human drivers. These services have pilot projects testing the use of AVs. 

AV technology is accelerating faster in urban areas than rural areas. If state policies fail to address the needs of rural and local jurisdictions, the state could develop a disconnected network for AV/CV operations. 

Garden State: Not exactly innovative

Photo from Hyundai. https://www.motor1.com/news/300142/hyundai-elevate-concept-revealed/

The New Jersey joint resolution to establish a task force requires the task force to evaluate existing state and federal law, consider whether to pass AV legislation, whether to allow AVs to operate on public roads, whether to enact AV safety standards. Also looking at the other usual topics of licensing, registration, and liability. This is a completely typical state AV task force. It basically allows a state to appear to be doing something while hedging for time, and it also allows various transportation players in a state to come together, learn, and have an AV-focused conversation that will result in a public report.

*[In New Jersey, a joint resolution is defined as "a formal action adopted by both Houses (of the legislature) and approved by the Governor. A joint resolution has the effect of a law and is often used instead of a bill when the purpose is of a temporary nature, or to establish a commission or express an opinion."] As of Feb. 20, 2019, the Governor has not yet approved of this joint resolution.

While across the pond, if it's required for a 16 year old ...

Meanwhile, Britain surges ahead in a much more organized fashion than we are seeing from the US federal government. The UK automotive minister and - love this title - future of mobility minister have announced that passing a stringent test, using the term "rigorous safety assessment," is required before an AV is permitted to be tested on UK roads.

The UK also has an AV report out of its Law Commission (jointly with the Scottish Law Commission) that provides a much more complete assessment of the legal issues surrounding AV laws and regulations. First, it examines the legal rules in other countries; second, it makes a distinction between partially automated vehicles (such as the Tesla autopilot system) and highly automated vehicles; third, it looks at local versus national control and whether new government agencies should be created or not. The report also raises the issue, in tort liability terms, of what a reasonable AV manufacturer or software updating company would do in terms of an obligation to update sensors, cameras, software, and other technology.