Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
2017 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 845 Advancing Automated and Connected Vehicles: Policy and Planning Strategies for State and Local Transportation Agencies Johanna Zmud Ginger Goodin Maarit Moran Texas a&M TransporTaTion insTiTuTe College Station, TX Nidhi Kalra ranD CorporaTion Santa Monica, CA Eric Thorn souThwesT researCh insTiTuTe San Antonio, TX Subscriber Categories Operations and Traffic Management â¢ Policy Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRBâs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRBâs relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCORâs recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administra- tion and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 845 Project 20-102(01) ISSN 2572-3766 (Print) ISSN 2572-3774 (Online) ISBN 978-0-309-44646-4 Library of Congress Control Number 2017945934 Â© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 845 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs B. Ray Derr, Senior Program Officer Charlotte Thomas, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Maria Sabin Crawford, Editor NCHRP PROjECT 20-102(01) PANEL Field of Special Projects Randell H. Iwasaki, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA (Chair) Giovanni Circella, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA Andrew E. Dick, Oregon DOT, Salem, OR Steven B. Gayle, Resource Systems Group, Inc., South New Berlin, NY Alain Kornhauser, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Blaine D. Leonard, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT M. Susan Martinovich, CH2M Hill, Reno, NV Siva R. K. Narla, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC Harold R. Paul, Baton Rouge, LA Jack Pokrzywa, SAE International, Troy, MI Matthew G. Smith, Michigan DOT, Lansing, MI Hamid Reza Zarghampour, Swedish Transport Administration, Borlange, Sweden Egan Smith, FHWA Liaison King W. Gee, AASHTO Liaison Anita Nam Kim, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Liaison Gummada Murthy, AASHTO Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison
F O R E W O R D By B. Ray Derr Staff Officer Transportation Research Board Connected vehicle (CV) and automated vehicle (AV) technologies are rapidly entering the fleet and are expected to profoundly change personal, freight, and public transport. The potential benefits to society of these technologies are immense but there are also substan- tial risks. This report assesses policy and planning strategies at the state, regional, and local levels that could influence private-sector AV and CV choices to positively affect societal goals. The report will be useful to staff responsible for developing plans for reacting to these technologies and is accompanied by a briefing document that may be appropriate for agency decision makers. Vehicle manufacturers and third-party vendors are continually introducing new AV tech- nologies into the marketplace. CV technologies are also moving towards implementation, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationâs rule-making being a key driver. Vehicles that are increasingly automated and connected (to each other and/or to infrastruc- ture) offer many benefits in areas such as safety, mobility, and the environment. However, there is a gap between the consumer benefits that motivate vehicle manufacturers and owners and the societal goals of public agencies. Without action by governments, there is a risk that some of the public benefits from these transformative technologies will not be realized. In NCHRP Project 20-102(01), the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, RAND Corpo- ration, Southwest Research Institute, and the University of Utah identified and described mismatches between potential societal impacts and factors that influence private-sector deci- sions on CV and AV technologies. Policy and planning actions that might better align these interests were then identified. After meeting with the project oversight panel to identify the most promising actions, the research team conducted in-depth evaluations of the feasibility, applicability, and impacts of 18 strategies. This report is intended for use by experienced agency staff as they explore actions their agency might take to increase the likelihood that CV and AV technologies will have beneficial impacts on traffic crashes, congestion, pollution, land development, and mobility (particularly for older adults, youths under the age of 16, and individuals with disabilities). Some actions are likely to be infeasible for a particular agency, but every agency should find a few of the actions to be worth pursuing. Agencies are encouraged to share their experiences with any of the strategies at the National Operations Center of Excellence (http://www.transportationops.org/). The research team also developed a briefing document that concisely conveys the key findings of the research. It is available on the TRB website (http://www.trb.org/) along with a PowerPointÂ® presentation that can be adapted for presentations to agency decision makers.
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 20-102(1) by the Texas A&M Trans- portation Institute (TTI), a member of The Texas A&M University (TAMU) System. Ginger Goodin, senior research engineer, was the principal investigator and Johanna Zmud, senior research scientist, was the co-principal investigator. Members of the research team were Maarit Moran, Jason Wagner, and Laura Higgins of TTI; Mark Burris of TAMU; Nidhi Kalra, James Anderson, Liisa Ecola, Carlos Gutierrez, and Jesse Lastunen of the RAND Corporation; Eric Thorn of the Southwest Research Institute; Paul Avery and Dan Fagnant of General Motors; Trey Baker of WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff; and Shelly Row of Shelly Row Associates. The researchers would like to thank the following individuals for their participation in interviews to inform the policy strategies (in alphabetical order): â¢ Darran Anderson, Texas Department of Transportation. â¢ Kevin Balke, Texas A&M Transportation Institute. â¢ Tom Bamonte, North Central Texas Council of Governments. â¢ Larry Boivin, Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles. â¢ Emily Castor, Lyft. â¢ Cathie Curtis, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. â¢ Michael Eichler, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. â¢ Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation. â¢ Ed Hutchinson, Florida Department of Transportation. â¢ Mark Lawrence, Spot Hero. â¢ Matt Lesh, Meridian Autonomous Systems. â¢ Tanner Martin, HNTB. â¢ Sam Medile, Unified Parking Partners. â¢ Dick Mudge, Compass Transportation and Technology. â¢ Gary Neff, ParkAssist (New York). â¢ Steve Polzin, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. â¢ Seleta Reynolds, Los Angeles Department of Transportation. â¢ Melissa Roberts, Atlanta Regional Council. â¢ Ricardo Sanchez, Cintra. â¢ Jack Svadlenak, Oregon Department of Transportation. â¢ Vincent Valdes, Federal Transit Administration. â¢ Jason Weinstein, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area).
C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 7 Chapter 1 Introduction 7 State of the Technologies 9 Regulation, Legislation, and Standards 10 Relevant Stakeholders 10 Report Organization 11 Chapter 2 Realizing Societal Benefits of AVs and CVs 11 Potential Impacts of AVs and CVs 12 Positive Societal Outcomes 13 Aligning Public- and Private-Sector Interests 16 Chapter 3 Role of State and Local Policy and Planning 16 Policy and Planning to Mitigate Impacts 16 Mechanisms to Align Public- and Private-Sector Interests 18 Potential Public-Sector Impacts 21 Chapter 4 Policy and Planning Strategies 22 Enact Legislation to Legalize AV Testing 25 Enact Legislation to Stimulate CV or AV Testing 29 Modify Driver Training Standards and Curricula 35 Increase Public Awareness of Benefits and Risks 41 Subsidize SAV Use 45 Implement Transit Benefits for SAVs 49 Implement a Parking Cash-Out Strategy 51 Implement Location-Efficient Mortgages 53 Implement Land Use Policies and Parking Requirements 62 Apply Road Use Pricing 68 Implement a No-Fault Insurance Approach 71 Require Motorists to Carry More Insurance 73 Subsidize CVs 76 Invest in CV Infrastructure 78 Grant AVs and CVs Priority Access to Dedicated Lanes 81 Grant Signal Priority to CVs 83 Grant Parking Access to AVs and CVs 85 Implement New Contractual Mechanisms with Private-Sector Providers
88 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 88 Summaries of Policy and Planning Strategies 89 Suggestions for Further Research 91 References 96 Appendix Viability Assessments Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.