We have 28 comments to the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation and, now that the deadline has passed, I am grouping the rest into categories. In this post are two summaries of comments submitted by cities, in fact, the only cities to share their responses to the draft plan. People with disabilities live in every city, every county and every state. Yet the two comments submitted represent a mere two municipalities of any kind. According to the Census Bureau, there are just over 89,000 municipalities in the US.
I would guess that accessibility is important to every city and town. Indeed I am certain that many city mayors and staff would agree. But I wonder that many lack the staff to monitor Federal Register notices, which is a nice public engagement tool if you are from the 19th century rather than the 21st century. To be fair, the Federal Register does allow one to monitor notices with keywords of one's choice, which prompts an email to be sent every time those keywords appear in any kind of notice.
So maybe it isn't the opportunity itself that is hidden, but the Federal Register doesn't actively reach out to stakeholders on any particular topic. That falls to whomever wishes to do so, mainly non-profit advocacy groups that are themselves stretched thin. Advice to those advocacy groups representing people with disabilities: Do better outreach for comment submitting campaigns. I will be having a post on that topic at some point.
I am guessing that any city responding to the draft plan is going to come out in favor of expanding accessibility because it would be like opposing apple pie to say otherwise, at least publicly. This guess turns out to be correct, but these cities that have submitted comments are offering concrete guidance about routes to that end.
This comment is from PBOT, the Bureau of Transportation in Portland, OR. Portland suggests engaging municipalities more to expand accessibility through city accessibility plans. "State ADA Transition Plans focus on state
highways, which in many cases, run through cities and operate as city streets, but only as a
small part of a city’s transportation system. A much bigger impact to accessibility can be
accomplished by implementation of city ADA Transition Plans."
In case you are unaware, different streets have different designations. In my state of Maryland, any main thoroughfare is a state road, with some county roads, and then local roads. This really messes with local control and becomes even worse in those states where state legislatures and governors are very anti-city, notably Texas. The letter explains, "City transition plans focus entirely on transportation system elements: streets,
sidewalks, pedestrian signals, transit stops, accessible parking, and curb ramps that are used
by pedestrians every day. Implementing these plans will get people to school, work,
medical appointments, the market, and provide opportunities for healthy activities like
biking, running, and walking."
Quite rightly, PBOT points out that despite the 30-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), there is much to be done to fulfill its mandate. PBOT suggests an economic stimulus that includes implementation of local accessibility plans, with opportunities given to historically underrepresented contractors (such as minority-owned businesses).
In terms of guidance, PBOT asks for advice concerning service animals on public transit and on shared on-demand transportation, such as taxis.
I am going to be a bit critical here, not of the comment itself, but of affixing the equivalent of a bunch of sticky notes to the source document. Yes, this "comment" is actually notes thrown on the margins of the draft plan. Harumph. ðŸ˜
The comment requests funding increases or creation of funding to increase geographic equity beyond rural areas by expanding accessibility in underserved neighborhoods; and funding to support complaint processing to enforce the ADA, thus decreasing backlogs and processing time.
San Diego suggests national standards and technical assistance for several aspects of broadening accessibility, specifically requesting:
Design guidelines for the right of way
Development of national standards of accessibility and training
Adoption of public rights-of-way accessibility guidelines (PROWAG)
Outreach and education about ADA enforcement for people with disabilities
Sidewalks are another area of concern. San Diego is argues in favor of adding sidewalk maintenance to the list of barriers to accessibility and including sidewalk design to the necessary steps to accessibility.
On another note
Thinking of topics of history that can guide us - positively or negatively - toward a better transportation future. Pondering a podcast about these. Feel free to send a note via LinkedIn, email or twitter - @DriverlessRev or at grossglaser@gmail.com. Whatever.
Roman roads/early American roads
Union Stations
History of Braille
Rebuilding of DC Union Station
Polio and the ADA
Disappearance of streetcars
History of the American suburb and racism
Transportation in the Constitution
Why Isn't there a DC subway station in Georgetown?
Thriving Buses in the Midwest
Rural versus Urban in Colonial and Early America
History of planning and why we elevate public meetings
I was wondering recently what has been the trajectory in terms of state laws passed in the post-2016-17 heyday of perfectly safe AVs will soon be here! The killing - yes, killing - of Elaine Herzberg on Mar. 18, 2018, with a combination of unsafe pedestrian infrastructure and Uber's hubris was a major dump of cold water on a free pass for lenient AV legislation. Ms Herzberg did not die in vain; state legislatures slowed down considerably.
This slowdown did not mean inaction. In the last year, two types of state laws have become popular: those mandating AV studies and those allowing for truck platooning. Please note that the source for most the provisions discussed below is the set of links from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) webpage that houses a list of enacted state laws dealing with autonomous vehicles, and some independent research.
I have no idea how much trucking trade associations and companies are paying for lobbying at the federal level, but they have quietly infiltrated state legislatures and, without fanfare, accomplished the passage of platooning bills in many states.
There are a few exceptions in terms of topics among the 2018 and 2019 statutes, which are explained below.
Another reason for a slowdown and look around among state legislators is the anticipation that the US Congress will act and that it needs to act. There is limited authority to among states to regulate vehicles anyway. What I find most interesting in the passage of recent state laws is the diversity among the "Let's study this" laws as to what is actually being pondered and examined. Study and report
Maine requires state government agency participation related to aging and people with disabilities, and participation of a non-profit transit provider.
New York requires that its second annual AV report, in 2019, be from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
Oregon's task force is mandated to include representatives from transit, the taxi industry, and transportation unions, as well as the usual AV, cybersecurity, and insurance industry representation, among others. The study topics go beyond those routinely mentioned in such legislation, with land use, transit, and infrastructure design among the specified long-term topics.
Pennsylvania requires transit participation and either pedestrian or biking participation on its advisory committee.
Washington State has created a work group that is tasked with reporting annually and which is set to expire in 2023. The work group is made up solely of state officials and legislators. The net that the work group is required to cast is broad in that it includes examination of AV social impacts, among other topics, and the task force is legislatively mandated to engage stakeholders and the public.
Washington, District of Columbia (DC) has an impossible legislative search system, so I did a Google search for the name of the legislation. The legislative text (link gives you a Word document) authorizes an expansive AV study, but it does not restrict or discuss who specifically (or their designees) will serve on any committee to research and consider AV laws, regulations, and possible impacts. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is required to produce a study that will be made publicly available by July 1, 2019. The DDOT study must consider many of the usual AV study topics, as well as public space and public health, safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, various transportation modes - "including mass transit, shared-use vehicles, and public and private
vehicles-for-hire" - and the "impact on the District's disability community."
Platooning
Alabama allows for truck platooning, offers a definition, and authorizes its state Department of Transportation to regulate. Alabama does not appear on the studies list because it passed a "thou shalt study and prepare a report" law in 2016.
Kentucky requires that a proposed plan be submitted to the state Department of Vehicle Regulation, which must approve before platooning is permitted; notification is required to be made to the state police.
Louisiana platooning is not permitted on two-lane roads.
Mississippi does not allow platooning on two-lane roads. Platooning must be also expressly approved by both the state department of transportation and the department of public safety after a "plan for approval of general platoon operations" is submitted.
Oregon does not use the term "platooning," instead calling it "connected automated braking system" and this term conceivably applies to any type of vehicle, not merely commercial vehicles or trucks, that is equipped with the appropriate technology.
Pennsylvania allows for platooning with military, bus, or motor carrier vehicles. Platooning vehicles must bear a visual mark. Platoons are limited to a maximum of three vehicles and each must have a driver on board. There's more, which means that platooning takes a considerable amount of lead time.
Utah has passed a platooning law. It is not limited to any particular type of vehicle. This is in addition to Utah's general AV law discussed below.
Wisconsin passed a simple platooning law. It is not limited to specific classes of vehicles.
Other
California statute allows law enforcement officers to remove an AV from a road if the vehicle does not possess a permit to operate as an AV on public roads within the state.
Another California law allows the City of San Francisco to impose a fee for every AV ridehailing or shared ride provided for a fare.
Nebraska general AV law: Requires that an AV be able to achieve on its own a minimal risk condition, but does not require proof or testing of such capability. Also explicitly allows for ridehailing, other shared-use AV commercial passenger transportation, and public transit. Preempts local regulation or taxes related to AVs.
New York specifies the coordination with the state police required prior to AV testing demonstrations in the Empire State. This is an update to a pretty restrictive AV statute passed in 2017. The 2018 law requires that a "law enforcement interaction plan shall be included as part of the demonstration and test application that includes information for law enforcement and first responders regarding how to interact with such a vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations." The law also calls for a report to be written; see above for details about that.
Pennsylvania allows for automated work zone vehicles as part of its Turnpike Commission's road projects.
Utah's legislature just passed an AV law, awaiting the governor's signature, that:
Governs and allows for AV ridehailing
AV registration requirement
Fully allows, for level 3 automation, whether with driver on board or a remote driver
No license required for AV systems
Preemption of local government regulation of AVs
Low speed vehicles have different rules. Defined as four passengers, including the driver or fallback operation, or less. BUT that human driver is permitted to be a remote operator. These vehicles have a maximum speed permitted of 25 mph.
It should be noted that Utah was an early state that studied AVs. Perhaps the state is a bellwether for others that are or have studied AVs and will then consider AV legislation.
You spend a week away and tons of autonomous vehicle (AV) stories come out, by which I exclude the "here's how the world will change, IMHO" pieces and the "world will end with AV transportation" stuff. My favorites of those genres are the "we'll all be having sex in AVs" and the "we'll all be nauseous with carsickness in AVs," which, if you consider those together for a second, is not an attractive combination.
I will only mention actual news.
United States
Still waiting - We are sitting by our laptops and phones in anticipation of the next iteration of the NHTSA AV guidance, due in July. I personally expect the guidance to be released after mid-July or, perhaps, I'm just hoping not to sit inside on July 4th reading it. I think it will continue along the trajectory of the "let's get out of the way of private sector innovation" 2.0 guidance released last time around. This is not to judge Sec. Chao's USDOT in particular because the Obama Administration took pretty much the same position.
The levels of driving automation are defined by reference to the specific role played by each of the three primary actors in performance of the DDT [dynamic driving task] and/or DDT fallback. “Role” in this context refers to the expected role of a given primary actor, based on the design of the driving automation system in question and not necessarily to the actual performance of a given primary actor. For example, a driver who fails to monitor the roadway during engagement of a level 1 adaptive cruise control (ACC) system still has the role of driver, even while s/he is neglecting it.
Active safety systems, such as electronic stability control and automated emergency braking, and certain types of driver assistance systems, such as lane keeping assistance, are excluded from the scope of this driving automation taxonomy because they do not perform part or all of the DDT on a sustained basis and, rather, merely provide momentary intervention during potentially hazardous situations. Due to the momentary nature of the actions of active safety systems, their intervention does not change or eliminate the role of the driver in performing part or all of the DDT, and thus are not considered to be driving automation.
Senators hear both sides of debate - The June 13 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works (like roads) Committee featured witnesses on both sides of the AV START Act debate, meaning those favoring more versus less regulation and control over AVs. A stark comparison can be made, for example, between the testimony of Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO of ITS America (the former Colorado Secretary of Transportation who allowed the spectacle of the staged AV truck delivery of Coors beer), who recommended that tech and auto companies get free reign, and the testimony of Shaun Kildare, Director of Research at Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, who pointed out how untested AVs are and how we don't maintain roads now, so how can we expect anything different with roads full of connected vehicle technology. Apologies for the awful run-on sentence.
Is concern in the Senate part of the reason for the birth of the Partnership for Transportation Innovation and Opportunity (PTIO)? Though PTIO is touted as a labor-focused enterprise to deal with upcoming loss of jobs, the initial descriptions - here's the website - show a concerted effort to deal with public relations problems that the AV industry has been and will encounter. PTIO includes some big players - Lyft, Uber, Waymo, FedEx, Ford, Toyota, Daimler, and the American Trucking Associations. Interesting that none of the cute AV shuttle companies are in the group. Probably have not been asked to join the team. Right now, it looks like PTIO will only have a presence in DC.
Pittsburgh mayor is pissed - Love this because Mayor Peduto is fighting the battle for every city in the country to control its streets and not be completed preempted by sometimes faraway and antagonistic state capitals. So what is Peduto angry about? The state transportation department of Pennsylvania, PennDOT, will be meeting separately with each of the major AV players in the state - meaning Pittsburgh, where they are all testing and developing technology - instead of hosting a public meeting. Basically, the people of Pittsburgh, whose streets are the testing ground, and Mayor Peduto have been locked out of the process.
At first, after the Uber crash in Arizona, PennDOT appeared to be changing course and steering toward a California-like regulatory/voluntary approach. Peduto seemed to be on board or, at least, ready to talk. But then, like many matches made through dating apps, radio silence. This whole debacle demonstrates that inclusion and taking the time to invest stakeholders (such a DC word), such as major cities, works far better than effectively saying "screw you, not interested in your input." In an instantly viral world, PennDOT should be careful; Mayor Peduto is a charming and passionate adversary if that is what the agency turns him into.
Commercial interruption for Waymo video. Arizona riders love Waymo AVs.
Wicked* AVs in Beantown - Watch out Jamaica Plain, Beacon Hill, Roxbury, and Alston: Every Boston neighborhood could soon see AVs zipping around. Boston is now permitting AVs to be tested throughout the city. So far, that means nuTonomy, which has been testing for a long time at the seaport. nuTonomy is beaming, stating the company is:
[P]roud to be the first and only company authorized to operate autonomous vehicles on public roads citywide in Boston. Being recognized by the City for our exceptional safety record is an important milestone for the entire nuTonomy and Aptiv team.
My message to nuTonomy is to watch out. Those Boston drivers can be aggressive; as a pedestrian, I used to wait for three cars to go through the intersection as the light changed before I felt safe to walk.
*By the way, translate the word "wicked," when used in Boston (or anywhere in the Red Sox Nation states of New England) as "fabulous." Wicked all over Massachusetts - So far, the states that have passed AV laws have either preempted their municipalities out of any say-so for control of where AVs may test or the state laws call for onerous requirements, hoops that would have to jumped through with each municipality. The latter demonstrate part of the reason that a state like Arizona has attracted testing. It's easier to operate when there is one state rule.
Massachusetts has possibly arrived at a beautiful angle of repose for balancing state-city relationships in relation to AV testing. "the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and 14 towns and cities in the Greater Boston area signed a Memorandum of Understanding that will open up their roads to autonomous vehicle testing." Massachusetts, unlike some other states with councils established to study AV testing, continued to meet even after testing commenced in the state. Usually those councils precede and end with a report.
The new MOU streamlines and standardizes the process for companies seeking to test Autonomous Vehicles on Massachusetts roadways. Following the signing of this MOU, MassDOT and the participating communities will finalize a universal application for companies to use when seeking to test Autonomous Vehicles and the participating municipalities will identify locations and roadways suitable for Autonomous Vehicle testing.
The municipalities signing the MOU today include Arlington, Boston, Braintree, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Newton, Revere, Somerville, Weymouth, Winthrop, and Worcester. In addition, the Department of Conservation and Recreation is joining the MOU in order to make Commonwealth-owned parkways available for the testing of Autonomous Vehicles.
Basically, this area covers the Boston T and commuter-rail universe. Nice.
Nebraska slows down - Despite a lenient, come-on-in-to-test new law and despite plans for testing on public roads in Lincoln, Nebraska will not be seeing AVs too soon on public roads. No reports are explaining the details of why an ambitious pilot for testing in Lincoln has slowed way down, but now the word is that the University of Nebraska will host a pilot on the private roadway of the campus.
Officials in Lincoln had initially planned to launch a driverless shuttle service to carry passengers between downtown Lincoln, the Haymarket District and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s main campus, but a city spokeswoman said the project was delayed and won’t arrive in Lincoln for at least another few weeks. City officials now expect to run smaller-scale tests on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Innovation Campus to work out any possible kinks.
*In Brooklyn, NY, there is Lincoln High School, Lincoln Gardens cooperative apartment building community, and Lincoln Garden Cleaners. All of you alumni of P.S. 209 and Avenue Z Jewish Center (plus the million nearby churches) know what I'm talking about. And tons of famous Lincoln alumni, including Mel Brooks, Arthur Miller, Neil Sedaka, and Stephan Marbury.
Back to Nebraska, the law is lenient for AVs. Neb. Revised Staututes from 60-3301 to 60-3311 are the pertinent state code sections; 60-3308 is the preemption provision.
Even Toledo - The Toledo in Ohio (not Spain) has a plan for AVs; the "[u]se of smaller, autonomous vehicles is a key element of MoveToledo, a strategic plan TARTA [Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority]." Last week, TARTA's general manager "announced his agency has received a $1.8 million federal grant to develop an experimental automated public transit route. The three-year pilot, Mr. Gee said, most likely will use small vehicles similar to a 15-passenger, electric shuttle." The pilot is scheduled to be on the street by summer of next year. Details have yet to be determined and these AV transit pilots take a while to arrange due to the programming of the vehicles and the need for accessibility, which is an odd add-on for foreign manufacturers.
Cross-border cooperation - On the state/province level, there is collaboration on AV planning. This is in the Pacific Northwest and cross-border counterparts in Canada. The states of Oregon and Washington, and the province of British Columbia have set up an AV working group called the Automated, Connected, Electric, and Shared (ACES) Northwest Network, an organization focused on moving people and goods throughout the Puget Sound. ACES is not an official government endeavor for either the American or the Canadian participants, but, according to it press release, will include visionaries, researchers and other experts. (I have the same instinctive response to the word "visionaries" that I have to the word "passion," which is that these words are being employed awkwardly outside of their central zones of application.)
All over the United States, cities and counties, even state governments, are waking up - suddenly, as if an alarm clock just went off, awakening them from a deep sleep - and they are screaming "What are we going to do when autonomous vehicles come? Ahhhhhh!!!!! Oh my g-d, what the f&*ck are AVs? CVs? V2Vs? And gas stations versus EVs?
They don't know what the future holds and how to plan; no one knows, partly because the private sector is calling the shots. Plus, federal legislation will come along to preempt state laws and state laws will preempt local laws.
[Aside: I do believe that in the next year, unless we get totally bogged down with impeachment proceedings or some nightmare major distraction, the US will see the passage of a true bipartisan law in the form of AV legislation. The regulation and on-the-street details will fall to the US Department of Transportation and state departments of transportation. Many states already have some kind of AV advisory council.]
Calling on the quiet kid in the back
Let's take Nashville as an example because its transit plans for bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail (LRT) are attracting criticism - as ambitious transit projects tend to do in car-oriented places - because of talk that shared AVs will make transit less important or not important at all. Shared AVs, some say, will absorb all of the extra congestion expected in the coming decades from Nashville's growth. So, two giant assumptions here: (1) Nashville's current population trajectory will continue, and (2) residents and workers in Nashville will be traveling in shared-AVs that are shuttle or taxi-like instead of alone in their own AVs.
So, one might say, plan for AVs. BUT no one knows when AVs will be coming, in what form, or what business models will co-exist in particular local and regional markets or which will dominate, or whether to go out now and buy all of the connected technology one can get one's hands on or whether to wait because vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) won't be necessary when every vehicle is connected to every other one.
A question answered - Where?
We do know where AVs are thanks to a cool map from the Initiative on Cities and Autonomous Vehicles (ICAV, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute). This screenshot is just of the US and Canada, but the Initiative map covers the globe and one can zoom in and click on a colored spot for information about the AV activity in that city AND a link to municipal information about the particular project. Very cool.
Go local
Local is in. Local is farmers markets and quirky restaurants, yarn stores, parks, and murals. But most places are full of strip malls, free parking, and street crossings and pedestrian infrastructure that are ugly and dangerous. AVs challenge the conventional transportation wisdom of free parking and everyone needing a car. However, that challenge might only be in the minds of planners and others paid to ponder transportation networks. It is possible that we will have an AV in every parking spot and companies aiming to make that goal both affordable and profitable.
Now, cities and counties are wondering how to move forward and they are hosting meetings, writing reports, investing money, and sometimes being completely frank that they are not sure what to do. In no particular order, here are some examples.
Disclaimer: What appears below is not a complete list. In fact, actual city plans are mentioned later. Scroll down if at first you become irritated.
Columbus, Ohio - Winner of the much-hailed and competitive $40 million Smart Cities Challenge (with a matching bonus of another $10 million), Columbus is perceived as having an advantage. Here is a one-year update on the Columbus demos being funded, which include autonomous shuttles and new fare card technology. Do not believe Columbus is ahead, if only because this city is very troubled. Few complete streets, terrible transit, lots of highways, illegal drugs, and big, big problems with poverty. There is so much to fix; this is a city very much tied to the automobile and the Smart Cities plan tries to do too much. Big doubts. - 😬. Columbus' plan links via ICAV.
Lake County, Illinois - Just outside of Cook County, which is mostly Chicago, Lake County is suburban and exurban, with lots of strip malls and big box stores, and some local stuff thrown in. (I've had decent falafel there and lots of good walks.) Great parks and walking trails. This is a place built around the car. Lake County is just beginning to address AVs and the already changing transportation system as it ponders the new popularity of complete streets and cities. So, being smart, nearby experts from Chicago were invited to address the Lake County Transportation Alliance about ways to improve transportation that do not involve extra lanes and more cars - or huge investments of tax dollars.
Atlanta, Georgia - Not even on the ICAV map yet, but Atlanta is promising a hi-tech, connected corridor right by Georgia Tech, with an AV shuttle. Lots of promotion and news stories about the Ponce-City-Market-to-Midtown (home of Georgia Tech) CV corridor and future AV shuttle route. Here's a boring, but informative video that focuses on the CV aspects of the project. (As a mom of a GaTech grad student, not sure the cycling stuff alleviates any concern about my biking offspring on that exact route.)
Portland, Oregon - Home of Portlandia, food trucks, and all things artisnal - way west of Brooklyn, still independent as its own city, and without the snarkiness. Have to include a clip from Portlandia. This is from a classic early episode about whether the organic chicken on the menu had a full life.
Portland's draft policy smartly considers AVs in the context of the city's transportation goals, such as Vision Zero for pedestrian and biking safety, pollution reduction, and reduction in low-occupancy vehicle trips, among others. View the Portland AV policy page for draft policy documents, timeline, and a new acronym - SAVI for Smart Autonomous Vehicles Initiative. Basically, the draft policy is four single-spaced pages stating that AVs should serve the very new urban goals that the city has already identified. That's good, BUT (you knew there would be a but) there is no explanation of who, when, or how these linkages will be made and goals accomplished. Still, this is a saner-than-Brooklyn-almost-paradise (which has had its own problems, such as the recent ethnic-reactionary murder on the streetcar). The policy identifies a rational order of priorities.
Implement a prioritization of
modes for people movement by making transportation system decisions according the
following ordered list: 1. Walking 2. Bicycling 3. Transit 4. Fleets of electric, fully automated, multiple passenger vehicles 5. Other shared vehicles 6. No or low occupancy vehicles, fossil-fueled non-transit vehicles
Boston, Massachusetts - The Boston Plan incorporates the laudable non-tech goals of “Zero deaths. Zero injuries. Zero disparities. Zero emissions. Zero stress.” Good way to think of technology - as a means to an end, rather than as the end. Boston has articulated definite goals, a brave move because results can be compared against actual performance. One goal even aims for improved transportation for people with disabilities: "Greater Access for Nondrivers. AVs increase the mobility of people who are unable or unwilling to drive, such as the disabled and the elderly."
While the Boston planning document makes major assumptions, it does examine a range of scenarios in terms of ownership, modes, and use of AVs. I like that. BUT this document only looks at a dense, urban area of the city instead of playing with variables for different types of neighborhoods throughout the city. Allston is not Jamaica Plain is not Beacon Hill. The document also foresees improved mobility for older adults and people with disabilities without analyzing at all the pieces that must be in place for those results to occur.
One more like: The Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) type of "digital mobility platform." Here is the image from the document. Interesting that the city is set up as the central governor of the system. Boston rightly envisions itself as part of a public/private ecosystem with which coordination must happen with other city and state bodies.
Toronto, Ontario - This Canadian city has long been on top of AV developments. Thus far, Toronto staff have acknowledged that there are too many unknowns to make firm predictions. A March 2017 document, Implications of Automated Vehicles for TTC, spends most of its pages defining variables and what exists. About two-thirds of the way in, the Toronto document lists the ways in which AVs will likely bring change to traffic, transit fleet management, workforce needs, roadway safety, and the mobility of people with disabilities (without offering any details on that one). It identifies these questions as ones that remain unanswered:
What will be the cost of the vehicles, the services needed to support them, the training
to work with them, etc.?
Will the software running the system be proprietary, or something independent of the
vehicle that can be changed?
How is liability determined between Operators, maintenance, ITS, and the
manufacturer?
What would the overall net change in costs be after considering vehicle and software
procurement, new infrastructure, and changes in roles and staffing?
How will AVs operate in inclement weather?
Seattle, Washington - Seattle does not so much have a plan as a working let's-look-into-these factors document, which also serves as a teaching document that defines what the heck is actually being discussed. This document nicely summarizes the federal/state/local/judicial division of responsibilities and powers.
Arizona - Just read the other day about Waymo's expansion to the four Arizona cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe and Gilbert. Well, a native New Yorker would not characterize these as cities because walking and transit are not major transportation modes, but Waymo is there and those "cities" are happy. Actually, to be fair, Tempe is a real city, small, but a city.
I have now managed to write a too-long post and insult most cities in the US. At least the dog is sleeping next to me.
An ambitious autonomous shuttle pilot program is starting up at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The 15-passenger shuttles are manufactured by Navya and a caretaker will be on board, in case anyone is too freaked out that there's no driver. Okay, that's not the official reason for the human present. The vehicle model is the Arma and it is fast for a pilot shuttle, going up to 35 mph.
The pilot starts with two vehicles and service every 10 minutes on campus, but plans are already being discussed for more. Needless to say, the vehicles are fully electric. MCity, an autonomous vehicle testing facility in Ann Arbor, is part of the partnership making the pilot happen.
Ford showing off its autonomous car at the MCity testing ground in Ann Arbor, Mich. Aren't those uncongested streets cute? And what sweet, undistracted, few pedestrians.
Info-gathering mode for the gun shy
Not every US state and jurisdiction is ready for autonomous vehicles, self-driving tiny houses, and transit to be anywhere and everywhere on its roads. Some would prefer to sit back, have research performed, and read a report before getting feet wet. Portland, Ore., and the small state of Rhode Island fall into this category. Both recently issued RFIs - or requests for information.
Portland is high tech, granola, and transit, bike and artisnal friendly. Its RFI, issued on June 9, seeks "data to assist the City in understanding the availability and
diversity of suppliers in the marketplace, as well as approaches and solutions to AV testing, piloting and deployment." (To view the RFI, click on link to file attachment number in the middle of the page.) This specifically includes business models, electric vehicles, maintenance, and communications.
In its open way, Portland invites all players to submit information. "We are open to receiving individual applications from companies that
have a single piece of the AV puzzle, or group applications that bring together multiple entities." Listed are traditional car manufacturers, transportation network companies - a/k/a TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, tech companies, consultants, and community stakeholders, among a few others.
Among the topics Portland seeks input about include, but not limited to, first and last mile for transit, commuter transportation, etc., drone or mobile delivery, campus/private land transportation, connected vehicle and infrastructure technology, data collection, and freight transportation.
The deadline for submissions is Aug. 11, 2017. Though a pilot program might come later, the city emphasizes that a pilot program description is not what it is currently seeking.
The Ocean State
Seems like a weird nickname for Rhode Island because it can apply to so many states. Rhode Island's RFI has a deadline of July 12., mid-day. The state is seeking information about autonomous vehicles and not proposals for pilots or programs. RI is seeking information about autonomous surface transportation in all of its forms, from ordinary cars to inter-suburban mobility to ride sharing (or ride hailing, I suppose) to intercity rail. The state also wants ideas about public-private partnerships and utilizing the state's well-known academic institutions, including Brown University and RISDI (Rhode Island School of Design), both within walking distance in Providence.
Mentioned in the RI RFI are requests about planning, employment, laws and regulation, operations in various weather conditions, and law enforcement as well as particular cities, corridors, and connectivity to specific campuses.
Self-driving entertainment
... and finally, a video of a potato enabled to travel autonomously shows what happens when a smart, tech-savvy person has too much time on his or her hands. Cute, odd, and entertaining one-minute-plus video. Plus proof that one can be a plant and travel at the same time.
Teaser: We have draft federal legislation!!! Next Tuesday will be a hearing on Capitol Hill, though I will be on a different coast at the time. Maybe I can catch the live stream. The subcommittee hosting the hearing will be the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The draft legislation is available and I will be examining it ASAP.
Beyond the driverless testing bubbles of San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Austin where autonomous vehicles have found mostly enthusiastic homes, most cities have remained silent and let their state governments express enthusiasm or trepidation about the transportation revolution. Some, like Toronto, New York, Boston, and Atlanta, have made some noises.
Now we have a few smaller cities, technically medium size, that are begging or already laying out the red carpet for companies to come test.
Keeping it weird
Portland, Oregon, home of artisnal everything, lots of backyard chickens, and tons of tatooed people, has put the word out on its cute streets. The city is quickly drafting regulations to allow autonomous vehicle pilot programs and "specifically looking to attract programs that actively enhance Portland's current transit infrastructure or improve accessibility while also helping the city reduce its carbon emissions. The city will finalize its autonomous vehicle regulations after a two year test period." (Endgadget post, 4/19/17)
The mayor's vision is not the Pittsburgh approach of attracting one company. Rather Portland seeks to be corporate agnostic, if you will, and take all comers. All is not craft beer and homemade funky clothes, however, because not all of the Portland council city council is in agreement about setting out the autonomous car welcome mat. This remains a big question mark at the moment. Hello Jerry! Meanwhile, out in normally quiet and staid Sacramento, CA., the state capital, home to Governor Jerry Brown - and no, you did not wake up from a 1970s dream of the future - there is enthusiastic activity already going on to make the city a "test bed" for autonomous vehicle testing. The unspecified companies meeting with Sacramento officials probably already have permission to test on California roads. That's a complete guess, by the way. Even the owner of the basketball team, the Sacramento Kings, is on board. The city seems to be united and ready. Gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains Knoxville, TN, is getting an Olli autonomous transit shuttle. Soon to be tested and taken out for spins during events, the shuttle is pencilled in for "full phase" - I assume that means actual operation - next year. Take that Manhattan - it may be Poughkeepsie gets driverless before you. Issues outlined a/k/a questions to think about Meanwhile, two recent reports have come out that are relevant for city planners. The first, from the National League of Cities, outlines the issues that cities should ponder and begin planning for in relation to autonomous and connected vehicle technologies. Autonomous Vehicles: A Policy Preparation Guide briefly discusses transportation and the mixture of partially and completely autonomous vehicles for an audience mostly unaware of the differences, but the report also points out privacy, cybersecurity, and other issues that will shape the autonomous experience. The second report is A Look at the Legal Environment for Driverless Vehicles, an in-depth examination of the myriad legal issues - federal, state, and judicial - that will affect the adoption and regulation of the coming transportation transformation. Produced by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) legal publication division, this publication is an excellent exploration of product liability, privacy, cybersecurity, insurance, crimes, criminal procedure, and other issues, with wonderful information about statutes, regulatory regimes, and caselaw. The report falls down a bit in the prediction department, but where it sticks to legal analysis it is a fantastic read. This is a web not only of different areas of the law and different responsibilities, from administrative agencies to the courts, but also of different levels of government - local, state, and federal - having their fingers in the pie. The report lays out this complex matrix quite nicely. It's a great read for transportation law nerds. Guilty here on both.
