Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles (2018)

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.

112 A key exercise in exploring the potential for DLs or exclusive lanes for CAVs is to review and document the current environment of regulatory and legislative affairs specific to CAVs and how that might impact the implementation of DLs. As part of that exploration, understanding the lessons learned from other instances of dedicating lanes is instructive. In particular, it can be helpful to consider the type and magnitude of expected societal benefits that have produced the policy justification for dedicating one or more lanes to a subset of road users. 7.1 DL-Specific Policies and Scenarios Existing DL scenarios include HOV lanes (Figure 7.1), HOT lanes, truck-only lanes, motorcycle/ bicycle-only lanes, and bus/transit-only lanes. On controlled-access high-speed facilities, the most common restricted lane scenario is HOV DLs (FHWA 2017b). This chapter reviews the laws and regulations regarding existing DLs. 7.1.1 HOV Facilities Currently, policy for HOV/HOT lanes is loosely set at the federal level and allows authorities with jurisdiction over those facilities to set more specific restrictions, determine minimum car- pool requirements, and define vehicle exemptions. At the broad policy level, the federal motiva- tion for HOV lane dedication is to provide incentives to increase vehicle occupancy so that the number of vehicle-miles of travel can be minimized for the given level of person-miles of travel. The federal policy gives states the ability to incentivize certain types of behavior depending on the goals of the specific facility, such as throughput maximization, generation of tolling revenue, inducement of mode shift, or environmental sustainability. As a result, across states there are varying vehicle allowances and identification and monitoring methods. Many jurisdictions exempt other vehicles, including motorcycles, charter buses, emergency and law enforcement vehicles, low-emission and other green vehicles, and/or SOVs paying a toll. Section 166 of Title 23 in the United States Code (U.S.C.) contains provisions for operating HOV facilities. Section 1411 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, includes the most recent amendments to these HOV regulations. The current policy states that the public authorities that have jurisdiction over the HOV facility can establish the occupancy requirements of vehicles so long as the minimum number of occu- pants is “no fewer than two” (23 U.S.C. § 166). The policy specifies the following vehicle class exceptions to the occupancy requirement: • Motorcycles and bicycles; • Public transportation vehicles and over-the-road buses; C H A P T E R 7 Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes

Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes 113 • HOT vehicles; • Low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles (defined therein) until September 30, 2025; and • Other low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles (defined by the EPA) through Septem- ber 30, 2019. In addition to variability in occupancy requirements, the ability to exempt certain vehicles based on their propulsion system also exists in several locations. The provision to allow low- emission vehicles to utilize HOV lanes was first introduced in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005. Language in this authorization bill allowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define the single-occupant, low-emission, and energy-efficient vehicles permitted to use HOV lanes. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) replaced SAFETEA-LU in 2012 and extended relevant provisions. MAP-21 also mandated that HOV facilities that allow low-emission and energy-efficient vehicle exemptions (regardless of the number of those vehicles using the lanes) submit an annual report that demonstrates the HOV facility meets performance standards. The performance stan- dards are based on minimum operating average speed over a specified time period. If degrada- tion of the facility speed is reported, the agency must submit a remediation plan to FHWA. The remediation plan must include ways the agency will bring the facility into compliance, including increasing the occupancy requirement, varying the toll charges for HOT lanes, discontinuing exemptions, or increasing available capacity of the facility. These policies are indicative of a federal desire to provide enhanced access for certain types of vehicles but not at the expense of overall system performance. The FAST Act extended the ability of public authorities to offer HOV/HOT access for low- emission and energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid electric vehicles, through 2019. Alterna- tive fuel vehicles (AFVs) and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) may continue to be granted free or discounted access to HOV/HOT lanes through 2025. At the end of 2019 and 2025, the respective vehicle classes will not be able to use HOV/HOT lanes for free unless the vehicles adhere to the occupancy requirements. These “sunset” rules were put into place based on the assumption that use of AFVs and PEVs would increase over time, but the rules may be revisited as the conclusion dates approach. More importantly to this research, the specific models of vehicles that qualify for exemp- tion vary from state to state, and are informed by local vehicle purchase trends and technology Source: Dallas News, used by permission. Figure 7.1. HOV DLs in Dallas.

114 Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles advancements. This variation has been discussed widely within the industry as a challenge for auto manufacturers and vehicle owners alike, and would be a definite consideration for review in terms of dedicating lanes for CAV usage or adding exemptions for CAVs to access HOV lanes. 7.1.2 Motorcycles and Bicycles Motorcycle-only lanes do not exist on general purpose roads and highways in the United States, but several Asian countries have DLs for small vehicles such as motorcycles and scooters due to their popularity. In the United States, motorcycles often are permitted to use HOV lanes regardless of the number of passengers on the motorcycle. This policy is meant to increase safety for motorcyclists by reducing the amount of travel in start-and-stop traffic conditions (U.S.DOT 2017). If states determine that safety is a risk for motorcycles to use the HOV facilities due to specific operating conditions, however, they can choose to override this provision of federal law. 7.1.3 Buses Bus lanes typically exist on urban streets, where high levels of traffic may cause delays, and in corridors with bus rapid transit, where maximizing bus speed and reliability is a priority so that buses can provide a more competitive quality of service compared to private passenger vehicles (Ryus et al. 2016). Many of the earliest highway bus-only lanes were converted to HOV lanes in an effort to maximize use (FHWA 2016b). Consequently, carpools became the dominant user group on most these projects during the 1970s and 1980s. Not all bus-only lanes were converted back to general purpose lanes, however; New York City offers Select Bus Service on some dedicated lanes (Figure 7.2), and one facility that continues to have a high volume of bus-only traffic is the New Jersey I-495 Exclusive Bus Lane (XBL), a 2.5-mile contra-flow bus lane that operates during a.m. peak hours and averages more than 1,850 daily buses (PANYNJ n.d.). The XBL services a major component of the commuter traffic traveling across the Hudson River via the Lincoln Tunnel. Most of the buses that traverse this lane are bound for the Port Authority Bus Terminal, the nation’s largest bus terminal, which is accessible by exclusive ramps on the eastern side of the Lincoln Tunnel. Another example of bus-only lanes, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) received approval from the FHWA in June 2017 to expand a pilot of red-painted, Source: MTA, used by permission. Figure 7.2. Example: dedicated bus lanes, New York City.

Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes 115 dedicated transit-only lanes in downtown San Francisco. Red transit-only lanes were installed on three streets in 2014, and have since been found to reduce delays, collisions, and transit-lane violations in those corridors (Rodriguez 2017). SFMTA will report back to FHWA regarding the success/lessons learned for the 50 additional painted streets to inform future federal legislation (Dovey 2017). 7.1.4 AFVs As mentioned previously, AFVs are allowed as a stated exemption on many HOV lanes to provide an explicit incentive for people to choose AFVs over less efficient and more polluting conventionally fueled vehicles. “Low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles” are defined in 23 U.S.C. § 166 in accordance with the EPA, but the law permits public authorities to imple- ment more stringent definitions to better manage the performance of their HOV lanes. States may determine the specific vehicle models to exempt from HOV or HOT lane restrictions, the identification method for eligible vehicles, and the number of permits or exemptions allowed. There is no “national standard” when it comes to eligibility. As a result, many different defini- tions and approaches now exist. The identification method for eligible vehicles varies from state to state, with some using special license plates or decals that limit eligibility to in-state registered vehicles. Registra- tion fees for decals and license plates also vary and may include annual or one-time fees. North Carolina and New Jersey require no identification for eligible vehicles, however, which means qualified out-of-state vehicles may also use the HOV lanes in those states. New Jersey does require eligible drivers to register HOT transponders if they want to receive a 10% toll discount. Non-financial incentives for AFVs are low- or no-cost measures that states can use to sup- port AFV market growth. HOV lane access has been a popular incentive with consumers. In a 2013 survey of California drivers, for example, 59% of those surveyed stated HOV lane access was extremely important or very important in their decision to purchase a PEV (ZEV PITF 2014). The study noted that, in California metropolitan areas, a direct correlation exists between HOV lane access and daily VMT in HOV lanes. Respondents who faced a longer mileage commute often ranked the HOV lane access as their chief reason for purchasing a PEV (ZEV PITF 2014). 7.1.5 Truck-Only Lanes Many states prohibit trucks from using the far-left lane of a highway to improve throughput and safety. Similarly, climbing lanes separate slow-moving heavy trucks on segments of high- way that have steep grades. Interchange bypass lanes separate trucks from passenger vehicles at highway interchanges by routing trucks around major interchanges some distance away from where passenger vehicles join the highway. These truck-only lanes serve the combined policy goals of reducing potentially unsafe interactions between light and heavy vehicles in locations with complicated maneuver patterns and helping to smooth and speed up traffic flow for the light duty vehicles. In California, two sections of I-5—one in Los Angeles County and the other in Kern County— include designated truck-only lanes. On these sections of the highway, trucks are required to travel in the designated lanes and passenger vehicles are encouraged to stay in the main travel lanes. The truck lanes in Los Angeles County are meant to separate slower truck traffic from general traffic on a section of grade. The truck lane in Kern County shifts truck merges farther downstream from automobile merges where SR-99 joins the freeway going southbound.

116 Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles The New Jersey Turnpike provides an example of a separated roadway where, during a stretch along the corridor, three lanes traveling in each direction of the 12-lane toll road are reserved for passenger cars only and the other three lanes are open to all cars, trucks, and buses (N.J. Turnpike Authority n.d.). The designated lanes are intended to improve operations and safety by separating the heavy and light vehicles, and to provide flexibility for HOV and variable tolling during peak hours. Financing remains a key issue in implementing truck-only lanes. In many cases, tolls would need to be charged to fully fund the facility, and questions remain as to whether truckers are willing to pay the additional costs for use of designated lanes. The argument also is made that both trucks and passenger vehicles benefit from truck-only lanes, so both sets of lanes should pay a toll; however, the relative cost burden for each group is more difficult to determine. Operationally, trucks place more wear and tear on roadway surfaces than passenger vehicles do, so maintenance costs may be higher on the truck-only lanes and the lanes may need to be closed more frequently for pavement repair. Roadway design features such as ramp curvature, overpass/underpass height, and crash barriers differ for trucks and cars, and the relative costs of these design features also would need to be considered in a truck-only lane situation. Cur- rently, because of these considerations, truck-only lanes remain economically challenging and often are politically difficult to implement. 7.2 CAV-Specific Regulatory and Legislative Affairs In the past 5 years, there has been a flurry of activity in the policy, regulatory, and legislative arena specific to CAVs. This section reviews and documents the current environment of regu- latory and legislative affairs specific to CAVs, and how that might impact the implementation of DLs, including at both the federal and state levels, as well as how this may impact dedicating lanes for CAVs. In order to achieve political progress on lane dedication for CAVs, it will be necessary to have well-supported and clearly defined definitions of the policy goals that will be served and of the magnitude of the expected benefits to be gained. 7.2.1 Current State of Legislative Affairs—State Level As CAV development and testing pick up momentum, each year brings new legislative activ- ity around the nation. Regardless of party or location, policymakers are questioning whether additional regulatory or legislative action will be needed. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) website, in 2011 Nevada was the first state to authorize the testing of highly automated vehicles (termed autonomous vehicles in the legislation). Since then, 21 other states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colo- rado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Vermont) and Washington, D.C., have passed legislation related to highly automated vehicles. Governors in Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin have issued executive orders related to highly auto- mated vehicles (NCSL 2018). Florida’s legislation, passed in 2012, was meant to encourage the safe development, testing, and operation of motor vehicles with automation technology on public roads of the state. Michigan’s SB 169, signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder in December 2013, allowed for the testing of highly automated cars on Michigan roads. The Michigan law included certain stipulations, such as that a licensed driver must be behind the wheel at all times and be ready to take over control.

Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes 117 Because this issue is evolving so rapidly, many of the “early adopters” in legislative activity have already revisited the topic and made adjustments. In 2016, Florida revised its language to expand the allowed operation of highly automated vehicles on public roads and eliminate requirements related to the testing of highly automated vehicles and the presence of a driver in the vehicle. Also in 2016, several updates to Michigan’s laws were introduced with strong bipar- tisan support, including the following: • Allowing open operation of CAVs beyond testing by repealing the test only restriction; • Allowing on-demand AV networks to link passengers and various forms of transportation with AVs; • Allowing customers to request a ride via a network operator, which then directs a vehicle to the customer’s location and then on to a desired destination; • Allowing vehicle platoons in which vehicles can travel together with electronically coordi- nated speeds; • Establishing the American Center for Mobility, providing a research facility that will build on the intense activity already seen and providing researchers the ability to test real-world condi- tions in weather, road, and traffic situations; and • Penalizing persons who hack or damage AVs to impair the technology or gain unauthorized control of the vehicle. The 2017 legislative sessions resulted in several policy and legislative actions regarding CAVs. According to the NCSL database, 33 states introduced legislation. This number was a significant increase from 2016, when 20 states introduced legislation (NCSL 2018). The diversity of language being recommended in the different bills introduced is vast. Bills with identical language appeared in several state legislatures (Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, Illinois, Arizona, and Michigan), but many more bills contained individual elements that reflected a focus on unique, state-specific concerns. A 2017 report by the Governor’s Highway Safety Association provided some valuable guidance, including a 5-point recommendation to: • Be informed, • Be a player in your state, • Understand the role of states, • Don’t rush into passing laws or establishing regulations, and • Be flexible—this is a new game (Hedlund 2017). This advice is valuable especially because many agencies and legislators are struggling with definitions of terms (e.g., operator versus driver, autonomous vehicle, pilot versus deploy- ment, driverless vehicle, testing requirements and authority, and others). Because the field is so broad and evolving so quickly, definitions often are a challenge for regulatory agencies. SAE International produced a set of definitions in its J3016 document, and those definitions have been adopted in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) policy guidance (NHTSA 2017a), in draft federal legislation regarding highly automated vehicles (S.1885, the “AV START Act”), and in administrative regulations drafted by California (California DMV 2018). It is inherently difficult to measure one state against another in terms of legislative policy because driving laws and environments are not standard from state to state. Because each state has a different format in terms of how its legislature meets (year-round, limited session dura- tion, periodic sessions) and how its legislature operates (multiple cross-over days, different committee make-up and responsibilities), it is nearly impossible to stay abreast of the progress in real time. NCSL has worked hard to keep up, but technology, policy, and societal changes are happening quickly.

118 Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles State laws concerning the testing and use of CAVs have focused largely on passenger automobiles, but some attention also has been paid to trucks. One of the applications often considered in early adoption scenarios involves truck platooning, which has numerous safety, environmental, and mobility benefits. By its nature, however, truck platooning results in a closer-than- typical following distance. Many state laws require that following distances be “reasonable and prudent” but do not set specific limits. Some states have laws that require trucks to follow at specific distances, or at a certain time gap behind another vehicle. In 2014, the ATA documented how state laws differ with respect to definitions of “following too closely” (Scott 2014). In July 2016, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released Authoriz- ing Automated Vehicle Platooning: A Guide for State Legislators, a report that provides suggested language for each state to adjust their laws to allow for truck platooning (Scribner 2017). The report provides both strong language that would allow a legislature to facilitate pilot tests for truck platooning, and weak language that would engage a more rigid regulatory approach to beginning truck platooning. 7.2.2 Current State of Legislation—Federal Level The topic of CAVs is not new to the U.S. Congress, having first been addressed in MAP-21, the authorization of transportation funding enacted in early 2012. MAP-21 included elements of language that would encourage research and funding to test CV technologies. More recently, in 2015 the FAST Act included specific language meant to “accelerate deployment of connected/ autonomous vehicle technologies.” Both of those pieces of federal legislation focused in large part on authorizing funds for research, demonstration, and infrastructure-oriented pilot programs. No changes were made to vehicle safety standards or other policy/regulatory directives that would cause automakers or NHTSA to more directly guide the development, testing, and deployment of CAVs. Likewise, no language was introduced that might supersede or impact the rapidly growing “patchwork of laws and policies” being explored by the state and local governments then entering the conversation. That situation changed, however, in early 2017. In early 2017, various members of the U.S. House of Representatives were exploring draft language for as many as 14 different bills. The Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee took on the challenge of synthesizing all 14 drafts into one bill—and added the challenge of garnering bipartisan support to their effort. The resulting bill became HR 3388, titled the “Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution Act” or the “SELF DRIVE Act” (U.S. House of Representa- tives Document Repository 2018). The House bill was sponsored by Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Digital Commerce and Con- sumer Protection Subcommittee. HR 3388 was approved by the full House in September 2017. Also in the fall of 2017, the U.S. Senate introduced S 1885, titled “The American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act” or the “AV START Act.” At the time of this writing, the bill had passed through committee but had not yet been brought to the full Senate floor for action. The Senate bill has several similarities to the House bill, but there are enough differences that a conference committee will be required if the Senate passes its bill. Given the real-time activity in this sphere, it is still too early in the process to definitively iden- tify impacts to state and local agencies or the specific impacts on dedicating lanes for exclusive or priority use of CVs and AVs. Some of the early legislative language and draft principles have “It is really, really, really hard, regulating uncertainty.” – Alicia Fowler, Deputy Secretary and General Counsel, CalSTA

Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes 119 focused heavily on impacts to automakers and the automotive industry (e.g., exemptions to certain federal safety standards or required safety assessment certifications for vehicles in order to promote development). Widespread use has been made of the terms “patchwork of state regulations” in trying to unify a national picture. HR 3388 would prohibit states from imposing laws related to the design, construction, or performance of highly automated cars, but state and local agencies would still maintain their traditional responsibilities, such as licensing, registra- tion, insurance, and law enforcement. 7.2.3 Current Regulatory Actions Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are federal regulations that specify design, construction, performance, and durability requirements for motor vehicles and regulated auto- mobile safety-related components, systems, and design features. According to recent research released by the U.S.DOT, few barriers exist that could prevent an AV from complying with FMVSS, as long as the vehicle does not significantly diverge from a conventional vehicle design (Kim et al. 2016). That said, AVs that begin to push the boundaries of conventional design (e.g., using alternative cabin layouts, omitting manual controls) would be constrained by the current FMVSS or might not fully meet the objectives of the FMVSS. As currently written, many standards are based on assumptions of conventional vehicle designs and thus pose challenges for certain design concepts, particularly driverless concepts under which human occupants have no way of driving the vehicle. In early 2018, NHTSA released a request for comment on removing regulatory barriers for AVs. The agency specifically seeks industry feedback/comment to identify any “unnecessary regulatory barriers to Automated Safety Technologies, and for the testing and compliance cer- tification of motor vehicles with unconventional automated vehicles designs, particularly those that are not equipped with controls for a human driver” (NHTSA 2018). In the request for comment, NHTSA also asked for comments on the research that would be required to remove such regulatory barriers. Current federal motor vehicle standards do not consider vehicles without human drivers. This absence of standards could inadvertently slow down the speed of innovation surrounding automation technology. However, under current law, the U.S.DOT can exempt up to 2,500 vehicles in a 12-month period from NHTSA FMVSS vehicle rules. Automakers are seeking to increase that cap. HR 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act currently being considered in the U.S. House of Representatives, makes reference to this cap and would dramatically expand the number of exemptions possible. Beyond asking for exemptions to FMVSS, industry generally has favored a proposed regula- tion: FMVSS No. 150, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication Technology for Light Vehicles. As of 2017, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA suggested that V2V communications technology be required to be installed in all new light duty vehicles beginning in 2020 (NHTSA 2017b). This requirement would dramatically increase the possibility of CV applications and move toward solving any debate as to whether future AVs will be connected. NHTSA has proposed this requirement based on the potential safety benefits. According to U.S.DOT literature, CV technology will prevent between 421,901 and 594,569 crashes by 2051 and reduce the costs from motor vehicle crashes by $53 billion to $71 billion. Looking at the universe of currently known applications, U.S.DOT reports estimate that up to 80% of non- impaired driving crashes could be reduced in severity or eliminated (NHTSA 2015). More far-reaching opportunities and benefits can be created if all new vehicles come equipped with V2V communication (and as V2I capabilities develop further). Achieving the goal of a

120 Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles single open, interoperable, and nationwide CV system would enable a large range of application development. Establishment of the NHTSA’s proposed regulation will help resolve technol- ogy and standards issues (e.g., network interoperability, security, privacy) before they become significant challenges, will reduce the risk for industry to invest further in vehicle-to-everything applications, and should bolster consumer confidence. Beyond the V2V regulation, one possible regulatory issue for truck platooning is existing legal restrictions on signage and lights on platooned vehicles. Currently, the only flashing lights that can be placed on vehicles are for emergency vehicles, which require standardized indicators. Exceptions to this requirement exist, including tow trucks and school buses. Some industry experts have suggested that platooning vehicles (particularly trucks) may need an indicator light of some kind to verify that they are safely operating at a reduced head- way between vehicles; however, this issue is currently regulated at the state level (Fitzpatrick et al. 2016a). For wide-scale adoption of truck platooning, if indicator lights are desired, it would be wise to consider standardization of requirements, perhaps at least on the National Highway Freight Network. 7.2.4 Federal Automated Vehicle Policy In September 2016, NHTSA released Federal Automated Vehicles Policy: Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety, a document that set out a proactive safety approach to bring life- saving technologies to the roads while providing innovators with the space needed to develop new solutions (NHTSA 2016). The policy was rooted in the U.S.DOT’s view that AVs hold enor- mous potential benefits for safety, mobility, and sustainability. In September 2017, an updated document, Automated Driving Systems 2.0—A Vision for Safety, was produced (NHTSA 2017a). The first chapter of the 2017 document presents “Voluntary Guidance for Automated Driving Systems.” This chapter sets out to support the automotive industry and (to a lesser extent) other key stakeholders as they “consider and design best practices for the testing and safe deployment” of automated driving systems (ADS) (NHTSA 2017a). Acknowledging that vehicles operating on public roads are subject to both federal and state jurisdiction, and that states are beginning to draft legislation to safely deploy emerging ADS, the second chapter seeks to clarify federal and state regulatory roles by including a section on “Technical Assistance to States, Best Practices for Legislatures Regarding Automated Driving Systems.” This chapter also addresses best practices for legislatures and best practices for state highway safety officials. These sections incorporate “common safety-related components and significant elements regarding ADSs that states should consider incorporating in legislation” and offer a framework for states to develop procedures and conditions for safe operation of ADS on public roadways (NHTSA 2017a). NHTSA’s Automated Driving Systems 2.0 document includes considerations in such areas as applications and permissions to test, registration and titling, working with public safety officials, and liability and insurance. It does not mention of dedicated or exclusive lanes for CAVs, because infrastructure issues are outside NHTSA’s interest and jurisdiction; however, the U.S.DOT has made several public statements about developing a Version 3.0 of the guidance, pledging to include multimodal issues of importance to all the modal administrations within the U.S.DOT. In support of the Version 3.0 update, the U.S.DOT released a request for information in early 2018 that mentioned specific interest in “Integration of ADS into the Highway Transportation System from the FHWA” (FHWA 2017c). Several responses to this request for information referred to infrastructure needs and consideration of more research on dedicating lanes for CAV. Whether the FHWA and U.S.DOT will include these topics in Version 3.0 was unknown at the conclusion of NCHRP Project 20-102(08); however, the updated guidance was antici- pated to be released in late summer or early fall of 2018.

Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes 121 7.2.5 Individual State Barriers to Dedicating Lanes for Exclusive Use by CAVs An important lesson learned from dedicating lanes, in particular from HOVs and the inclusion of AFVs, lies in the definitions of allowed vehicles. Legislation and regulation in progress at the federal level is making progress toward better use of definitions developed by SAE International in terms of vehicle levels of automation and related terminology. Until the federal legislation moves from concept to law, however, the legal and regulatory environment remains evolutionary and state laws and regulations vary. Individual states are at various levels of maturity in terms of under- standing how their own state laws or regulations would impact the testing and use of CAVs in their jurisdictions. Given this variability, and the fact that both the technology and the legal/regulatory environment are evolving in real time, it was beyond the scope of this research to identify every possible incentive or impediment to dedicating lanes for CAV within each state.