Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation (2019)

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.

II-5 This chapter describes the characteristics of the transformational technologies selected as the focus of the research described in Part I of this report. The following elements are discussed, with most of the elements covered for each technology: • Description. The technology is described. If available, cost and range data are provided. • Deployment Status and Challenges. The technology may currently be categorized as being under development, in pilot testing, a loss leader, or self-sustaining. Technical and economic challenges to further its market penetration may be discussed. • Implications for Personal Travel Demand. The likely impacts of the technology on per- sonal travel demand are described in percentage terms when such data are available, and in relative terms when the data are not available. Actual experience is preferred over technical forecasts with implicit assumptions. However, in many cases the discussion has had to rely on theoretical considerations. • Implications for Transportation and Land Use. This general discussion addresses the potential impacts on general regional growth and land use. Geometric streetscape design considerations outside of the travel lanes are covered separately. • Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure. These potential impacts of the tech- nology on highway or roadway infrastructure needs and design also are described in general terms, with the focus on the traveled way rather than the streetscape. • Implications for Logistics. This part of the discussion relates to vehicles, shipping volumes, and logistics infrastructure, all focused on the movement of goods. • Policy and Planning Challenges. Equity and environmental considerations are pointed out only where they are particularly relevant. The brief descriptions provided in this report are not intended to be a full inventory of potential equity and environmental impacts. • Special Considerations for Rural Areas. This discussion restricts its focus to issues where the implications for rural areas significantly differ from those of urban and suburban areas. 2.1 Personal Communication Devices 2.1.1 Description Personal communication devices are internet-connected devices that travelers, shippers, fleet operators, and carriers can use to monitor vehicle locations and infrastructure conditions on a near real-time basis. Smart phones, tablets, and desktop personal computers are examples of personal communication devices. The most impactful of the personal communication devices are global positioning system (GPS)-enabled “smart” cell phones because they potentially provide mobile connectivity wherever the traveler is located. There are limitations on this mobile connectivity. Lack of cell C H A P T E R 2 Characteristics of New Technologies

II-6 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation towers and topographical obstructions, such as mountains and tall buildings, can interfere with cell phone transmissions and GPS satellite communications. Similarly, cell phone coverage and GPS communications may be limited inside large buildings unless there is also an accessible wireless network. Cellular 5G is one of the upcoming advances in cell phone communications technology. Cellular 5G offers exceptionally high capacity and low latency cell phone transmission capabilities. Cellular 5G operates on three different spectrum bands (De Looper 2019): • Low-band technology operates in a range below 1 gigahertz (GHz). This spectrum band has peak data speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps). Low-band enables larger spacing between cell towers and is less affected by physical obstructions. T-Mobile 5G owns a significant portion of this band. • Mid-band technology has lower latency (delays in transmission), a shorter range, and less penetration of obstructions than low-band. However, mid-band offers peak data speeds of 1 gigabit per second (Gbps). Sprint is a major owner of this spectrum band. • High-band technology offers very low latency and peak data speeds of 10 Gbps. With high- band, the range between cell towers is low, and high-band is not good at penetrating buildings. AT&T and Verizon are working on offering 5G in this high-band spectrum. Note that existing 4G (or “LTE”) cell phones cannot transmit or receive 5G. Cellular telephone network operators claim that high-band 5G can provide vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications equivalent to dedicated short-range communication devices (DSRCs). The range of high-band 5G towers is, however, extremely limited, requiring that a 5G receiver/transmitter be installed every few hundred feet (i.e., almost from street light to street light in an urban area). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently passed a rule requiring local agencies to give rapid review for applications for new 5G transmitters (Federal Communications Commission 2018). By comparison, DSRC communications also are limited in distance (on the order of 300 yards) (Wolff 2018). Thus, V2V DSRC works for suitably equipped vehicles within 300 yards of each other. V2I DSRC communication requires that DSRC roadside units be installed in sufficient density on the highway and that some means be provided for the road- side units to communicate back to a traffic management center (TMC). DSRC communication between vehicles and “everything” also is possible, and is sometimes called V2X. The 5G technology has another feature not available in the 4G or LTE cell phone standards: 5G towers can prioritize the transmission of emergency messages over others (Pogue 2018a, Pogue 2018b). 2.1.2 Deployment Status and Challenges As this report was being prepared for publication, some vendors had begun releasing 5G phones, but 5G was not yet widely deployed. The deployment status of 5G also varied by carrier, as observed by De Looper (2019): • Verizon fixed 5G service (no mobile service) is currently available in portions of Houston, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Los Angeles and Sacramento, California. Mobile 5G- and 5G-capable smartphones were expected to be released sometime in 2019. • AT&T began offering 5G in parts of the following 12 cities in late 2018: Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh and Charlotte, North Carolina; Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Waco, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; Jacksonville, Mississippi; Louisville, Kentucky; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Initially, the service was to be made available

Characteristics of New Technologies II-7 in 2019 to selected customers within those cities. Tree-lined streets were expected to present a significant challenge at the start. Compatible cell phones were expected to become available in 2019. • T-Mobile expected to begin providing 5G service in 2019 in New York City, New York; Los Angeles, California; Dallas, Texas; and Las Vegas, Nevada. T-Mobile indicated it was aiming for national coverage in 2020. • Sprint had plans to launch 5G service in early 2019 in New York City, New York; Phoenix, Arizona; Kansas City, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, D.C. Compatible 5G phones were expected in 2019. At the time this document was prepared, T-Mobile and Sprint also were in talks to merge. 2.1.3 Implications for Transportation and Land Use The new communications technologies enable entrepreneurs to combine new technologies with new connectivity to deliver applications that improve personal mobility, the delivery of governmental services, and the movement of goods (logistics). In this Desk Reference, Chapter 3 further addresses the impacts of specific applications employing improved personal communication technologies. 2.1.4 Special Considerations for Rural Areas Rural areas of the United States face many unique challenges, several of which pertain in rela- tion to new technologies: • Rural America is getting old. The median age of rural residents is 7 years greater than that of urban residents (Porter 2018). • Economic growth is bypassing rural economies. During the 4 years that followed the 2008 recession, counties with fewer than 100,000 people lost 17,500 businesses. By 2017, the largest metropolitan areas had 10 percent more jobs than they did in 2008, but rural areas had yet to recover to their 2008 levels (Porter 2018). • The supporting infrastructure for personal communications devices in rural areas lags that of the larger metropolitan areas. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that completely rural counties had a broadband subscription rate of 65 percent compared to 75 percent for mostly urban counties. Low broadband rates occur in the upper Plains, the Southwest, and the South: Arizona, New Mexico, south Texas, lower parts of Mississippi, and Alabama, and areas of the Carolinas and southern Virginia (Plautz 2019b). • A federal task force on agriculture and rural prosperity identified the “expansion of high-speed, high-capacity internet” as a key infrastructure priority. A U.S. Department of Agriculture grant program was available to improve broadband access in rural areas (Plautz 2019b). • With regard to broadband, the distinction between “access” and “usage” matters. In 2018, the FCC identified only 24.7 million people as not having access to broadband speeds; however, in a study for Microsoft that focused on usage patterns, Lohr (2018) identified 162.8 million people in the United States who use Microsoft products on the internet but at below broadband speeds. The Microsoft study also found a strong correlation between employment and broadband use. • A State of Iowa task force has identified high-speed internet access as a priority for rural areas (Boshart 2018). • In 2018, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and West Virginia were identified as the states with the lowest percentages of households connected to broadband internet service (Vitu 2018). Broadband subscription rates for these states fell in the 70 percent range. The national average was 81 percent. The state of Washington had the highest broadband subscription rate, at 87 percent (Vitu 2018).

II-8 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.2 Active Transportation Technologies In this Desk Reference, the phrase “active transportation technologies” applies to single- person vehicles. Potentially transformative emerging technologies in this category include elec- tric bicycles (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters), among others. The impacts of these new technologies are expected to be magnified when they are combined with personal com- munications devices and internet applications that enable the vehicles to be shared. The final chapter of this Desk Reference provides additional information about applications of new technologies. 2.2.1 Description Active transportation technologies enable individuals of all fitness levels to have greater ranges of travel and can enable travel at higher speeds. Whereas a human-powered bicycle may typically travel at 10 to 15 miles per hour (mph), an e-bike can provide power assistance to reach speeds of 20 to 30 mph for limited distances on level ground. Higher speeds may be feasible for some models. Lithium battery-powered e-scooters can achieve highway speeds (35 mph) for limited distances (Ridetwowheels.com 2019). Depending on the state regulations and the maximum speed of the e-scooter or e-bike, an operator’s license may be required to operate them as personal vehicles on public roads (California DMV 2018). Riders also may be required to wear a helmet, depending on their age. Local ordinances and state vehicle codes may or may not allow operation of these vehicles on the sidewalk and may set speed limits for operation in bike lanes and on roads. Various municipalities may set differing speed limits for these vehicles. Some cities have requested or required the provision of “geo-fencing,” a technology by which the vehicle is electronically disabled by the provider if it is taken out of its approved service area or used on restricted portions of the street right-of-way (ROW), such as sidewalks (DeRuy 2018; Kenney 2018; valuepenguin.com 2019; Keenan 2018). E-bikes generally come with a seat and pedals. E-scooters may or may not have a seat for the rider. The range that the electric vehicles can travel on a single battery charge varies according to speed, payload weight, and grade. A reasonable range for an e-scooter is 5 to 10 miles at speeds below 10 mph (Cladek 2018). Other sources say that the e-scooters typically used in shared systems today have a range of about 15 to 20 miles per charge (Lime Bike 2019, May 2018). Higher speeds reduce the range. The batteries on e-bikes are optimally sized to provide about 1 hour of assistance over the course of the trip (Cyclist 2018). Electric vehicles in shared systems that have suitably powered physical docking stations can be recharged between rides at the designated docking stations. Dockless electric vehicles generally are charged overnight by independent contractors that use GPS and a cell phone app to track down the devices and bring them back to the base location or to some other specified location for charging. Basic human-powered bicycles for commuters range in price from $100 to $900. More expensive models may fall in the $1,000 to $10,000 range. E-bikes range in price from $300 to $3,000 (Google 2018b). Gas-powered scooters range in price from $500 to $3,000. E-scooters range in price from $100 to $1,500 (Google 2018b). The prices varied according to range of travel, maximum speed, and added features. E-bikes and e-scooters are available for consumer

Characteristics of New Technologies II-9 purchase anywhere in the United States. Numerous cities also have providers of shared e-bike and shared e-scooter services. Introduced in 2001, Segways are a variation of two-wheeled e-scooters (wheels opposite each other, rather than in line) (Segway 2018). They have maximum speeds on the order of 10 to 15 mph and a maximum range of 20 to 25 miles on a single charge. A variety of electric-powered personal devices ranging from skates to unicycles also are available. 2.2.2 Deployment Status and Challenges The technologies for e-bikes and e-scooters are currently fully operational. Entrepreneurs, however, see potential revenue streams in owning and renting out fleets of e-bikes and e-scooters as facilitated by cell phone-based apps and GPS units that make it easy to rent these vehicles and track their locations. The location information itself may also be marketable to data aggregators and ultimately advertisers. Fleets of e-scooters and e-bikes have been and are being deployed in numerous large cities throughout the United States. 2.2.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand By increasing the feasible range of travel and making active transportation vehicles more accessible to more travelers, e-bikes and e-scooters might decrease walking for longer trips; replace some short transit and taxi trips; and increase the use of transit for longer trips by pro- viding first- and last-mile access to transit stops. Increased transit use for longer distance trips might reduce automobile trips. The actual effects of these single-person vehicles will ultimately depend upon deployment and pricing. Mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) applications of e-bikes and e-scooters (discussed in Chapter 3) will have greater impacts. 2.2.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use Parking and use of dockless bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters present significant land use plan- ning and regulation challenges. E-bikes and e-scooters currently are charged using docking stations installed on the sidewalks or parking lanes of the public ROW or charged overnight using docks at home or at an office building. The increased range of personal travel provided by e-bikes and e-scooters will increase the feasible geographic area for dense downtown developments. As e-bikes and e-scooters become ubiquitous, a significant streetscape design challenge will be finding suitable lanes within the public street for them to travel and suitable places to park them that are within the ROW but outside of the traveled way. The higher speeds of e-scooters and e-bikes will create conflicts with pedestrians if they are used on sidewalks and with slower moving conventional bicycles if they are used in bicycle lanes. At the same time, their speeds and the relatively unprotected status of their riders will make it difficult for them to mix safely with other vehicular traffic that may be moving at speeds in excess of 25 mph. Converting portions of existing sidewalks or curbside lanes to incorporate new features that integrate e-bikes and e-scooters for shared or exclusive use will present additional design and construction challenges, particularly in areas where streetscape features are complex and may even differ from block to block.

II-10 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.2.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure As usage of e-bikes and e-scooters increases, it may be desirable to incorporate into roadway designs special travel lanes for light vehicles that typically travel at speeds greater than conven- tional bicycles and pedestrians but slower than most automobiles and trucks. Greater use of bicycles and scooters (both electric and manual) might reduce the need for added automobile travel lanes in downtown core settings. 2.2.6 Implications for Logistics E-bikes will enable expansion of downtown bicycle messenger and delivery services. Their power assistance and higher speeds might shift some short-distance delivery services from conventional bicycles to e-bikes and e-scooters. 2.2.7 Policy and Planning Challenges The policy and planning challenges of e-bikes and e-scooters include: • Managing the interactions of e-bikes and e-scooters with residents, pedestrians, conventional bicyclists, transit vehicles, trucks, and automobiles to maximize safety for all users of the city street; • Identifying and enforcing parking sites that do not interfere with access to residences and businesses; • Ensuring equitable access to e-bike and e-scooter services in lower density and lower income areas of the city; and • Ensuring generally consistent regulations among jurisdictions within the metropolitan or rural areas regarding how and when the vehicles may be used on sidewalks, in bike lanes, and in the travel lanes of streets. 2.2.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas The lower density population and travel patterns of rural areas suggest that these areas are less likely to attract e-bike and e-scooter services. If such services are desired, agen- cies in rural areas might consider offering subsidies or engaging in public-private partnerships (PPPs) to secure shared e-bike and e-scooter services in their area. 2.3 Vehicle-Related Technologies Potentially transformative technologies that affect automobiles, transit vehicles, and trucks include: • Alternative fuel vehicles, • Electric vehicles (EVs), • CVs, and • AVs. Developments with each of these technologies already have begun to have impacts on numerous aspects of transportation, and it appears likely those impacts will continue and accelerate in coming years. The new technologies being incorporated into motor vehicles—cars, buses, and trucks—have implications not only for personal vehicles but also for vehicles used in mass transit and freight. Each technology affects transportation and land use in distinct ways.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-11 The Desk Reference discusses each technology separately in order to highlight their specific impacts. It is anticipated that the cumulative impacts of these technologies will have a magnify- ing effect on the transformation of travel and land use. 2.4 Alternative Fuel Vehicles Conventional (manually driven) vehicles, CVs, and AVs all require a power source to operate. Vehicles today obtain power from conventional fuels (gasoline or diesel), alternative fuels, or some combination of conventional and alternative fuels (in the case of hybrid vehicles). Alter- native fuel vehicles typically rely on liquid or gaseous fuels other than gasoline and diesel, or on battery power (for EVs). For purposes of this Desk Reference, the alternative fuel technologies and their implications are described separately, In the future, however, vehicles probably will incorporate multiple technologies. 2.4.1 Description To power its engine, an alternative fuel vehicle may use a variety of gaseous or liquid fuels, including various kinds of natural gas (methane) such as compressed natural gas (CNG), lique- fied petroleum gas (LPG), or liquefied natural gas (LNG) from traditional petroleum sources, or renewable natural gas (RNG)—also called biogas or biomethane—and biodiesel from renewable sources. Propane gas, butane gas, or various mixes of the two, may be the fuel. The alternative fuel may mix ethanol with gasoline. The alternative fuels offer various air quality and sustainability benefits compared to gasoline or diesel fuel. Generally, but not always, the alternative fuels and/or the plants that produce them are more expensive than traditional gasoline or diesel. Government subsidies and taxes can affect the comparative prices seen by the consumer. • CNG. Many transit agencies, including MARTA in Atlanta, Georgia; LACMTA in Los Angeles County, California; and WMATA in Washington, D.C., use CNG buses (U.S. DOE 2003). Some heavy-duty freight vehicle manufacturers, including Kenworth and Sterling, offer natural gas-powered trucks. In California, as a part of San Francisco’s zero-emission fleet, 160 taxicabs are operating more than 1 million CNG-miles per month in the city (C40 Cities 2011). The CNG buses were reported to be more reliable than the hybrids (SFMTA 2002). In Portland, Oregon, use of CNG buses was implemented over a decade ago, and in 2018 more buses using alternative fuels were added in the greater Portland metropolitan area (Metro-Magazine 2018). • LNG. This fuel is a better alternative fuel than CNG for long-distance trips or heavy-duty engines (e.g., long-haul FHWA Class 7 or Class 8 truck-tractor uses) because in the liquid state, more LNG fuel can be stored on board a vehicle compared with CNG (U.S. DOE 2018e). Compared with a conventional diesel engine, however, LNG provides less range for the equivalent fuel storage capacity. • LPG. This fuel is compatible with spark ignition engines (mono-fuel, bi-fuel, and hybrid). LPG offers advantages to conventional fuels in performance and emissions through direct inject technology. Because direct inject is not yet widely used in heavy-duty engine applications, LPG is more commonly used in vehicles with light- and medium-duty engines (e.g., buses and light trucks). LPG may be used as a range extender in current or future hybrid powertrain technologies such as marine, train, or battery-powered EV applications.

II-12 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation According to the World LPG Association, LPG as a fuel is used today in the following basic engine technologies, which can also be combined with hybrid electric powertrain technologies (World LPG Association 2018): – Spark-ignition (Otto cycle) engines that are dedicated (mono-fuel) engines, – Spark-ignition (Otto cycle) engines that are bi-fuel (gasoline and LPG) engines, – Diesel compression-ignition diesel/LPG dual-fuel engines, and – Turbine engines. LPG has been a worldwide fuel for a long time. A case study on LPG for Michigan school buses in 2017 showed that the fuel cost of 125,000 miles was around 1/2 cent less per gallon than diesel. The project ran eight propane-powered buses and onsite fueling stations. Another case study comes from Delaware Transit Corporation, which has added propane buses to its fleet and converted more than 100 shuttles to LPG since 2014. The LPG fleet ran over 1.5 million miles in 2017, with cost savings of $1 million. The overall performance of vehicles was reported superior to that of diesel-powered models, with a simpler maintenance schedule and fewer oil changes (U.S. DOE 2016). • RNG (Biogas or Biomethane). An alternative to conventional natural gas that can be used interchangeably with the conventional fuel in natural gas vehicles, RNG is a biogas created by the decomposition of organic matter and then processed to meet the fuel standards. Sources of RNG include landfills, livestock operations, wastewater treatment plants, and may even include food manufacturing, wholesalers, supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, and educa- tional facilities (U.S. DOE 2018d). In DeKalb County, Georgia, landfill gases are being col- lected and converted into CNG for sale to the public and to fuel CNG-powered sanitation vehicles (Malone 2018). Many industrial, institutional, and commercial entities produce biogas. For example, Sacramento BioDigester produces 100 standard cubic feet per minute of gas, which corre- sponds to 450 diesel-gallon equivalent per day from a food waste digester. The fuel is used for Atlas Disposal waste hauling trucks (BioCNG 2018). • Biodiesel. A diesel-like liquid fuel that is produced from vegetable oil or animal fat, biodiesel is designed to be a substitute for petroleum diesel in conventional diesel engines. Biodiesel may be mixed with petroleum diesel in varying proportions (from 2 percent to 100 percent). The optimal blend is selected based on each vehicle’s engine original equipment manufacturer recommendations (U.S. DOE 2018a). In contrast to petroleum diesel, biodiesel is safe to handle, store, and transport. Biodiesel enhances engine performance because of its better engine-part lubrication and solvent characteristics; however, biodiesel tends to degrade natural rubber gaskets and hoses faster than petroleum-based diesel (Wikipedia 2018). 2.4.2 Deployment Status and Challenges Alternative fuel vehicle technologies are already operational and available for pilot testing. They have been the subject of several publicly subsidized pilot tests. Today, the most common alternative fuel used for engines is LPG (World LPG Association 2018). CNG vehicles are produced by many well-known car manufacturers including Honda, Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, and General Motors (GM). The two greatest limits on further expansion of the alternative vehicle fleet are lack of fueling stations and the limited infrastructure for producing and distributing the alternative fuel. The higher price of alternative fuel vehicles also plays a role. Until a critical mass is reached in terms of vehicles that can burn the alternative fuels, the higher costs of the fuel, the limited fueling stations, and the higher costs of the vehicles will constrain expansion of alternative fuel vehicles. Reductions in the price of alternative fuel vehicles as obtained through mass production also will help drive growth in refueling stations.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-13 Currently, alternative fuel vehicles are generally more expensive to purchase than conven- tionally fueled vehicles. Maintenance and fuel may be cheaper in some cases, but given the specialized nature of the required maintenance and the limited number of refueling stations, potential purchasers may perceive owning and operating an alternative fuel vehicle as riskier than owning and operating conventionally fueled vehicles. Further technological advances that reduce purchase prices, operating costs, and mainte- nance costs can change the actual and perceived cost differences between alternative fuel vehicles and conventionally fueled vehicles. Lower purchasing and maintenance costs, more ubiquitous refueling stations, conventional fuel shortages, and the impacts of government regulations and government subsidies could shift the relative price points of conventional and alternative fuel vehicles such that alternative fuel vehicles have significant cost advantages. 2.4.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand Because the ranges and speeds of alternative fuel vehicles are similar to those of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, this technology is not anticipated to significantly change travel demand in the short term. The higher vehicle purchase costs (until mass production is able to lower the costs) also are likely to limit the impact of alternative fuel vehicles on travel. Looking at the long term, shortages of conventional fuels may enable travelers to benefit from alternative fuel options to reduce their overall costs, including maintenance. These direct economic advantages, along with the long-term positive effects on vehicle emissions and energy independence, may drive greater market penetration by alternative fuels. 2.4.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use Because of industry consolidation, the number of gasoline and diesel refueling stations has been declining in the United States for several years. Alternative fuel vehicles, however, will need an increase in dedicated refueling stations to increase their market penetration. Alternative fuel vehicles are unlikely to have other effects on regional land use or streetscape design. Biofuels will have a direct impact on land use. They bring economic value to domestic indus- trial, institutional, and commercial entities such as landfills, livestock operations, and wastewater treatment facilities. In urban areas, sources of biodecomposition can include food manufacturing and wholesalers, supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, and educational facilities. In the long-term, replacing fossil fuels with biofuels can help control conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) pol- lutant emissions, reduce the depletion of exhaustible resources, and mitigate fuel price instability related to foreign suppliers. However, major growth in the biofuel industry requires land and water. Research suggests that biofuel production may adversely affect communities by consuming rural lands to establish facilities, with the consequence that land and water currently available for farming and producing food may be reduced in size or quality (U.S. EPA 2018). 2.4.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure No highway or roadway design modifications are anticipated to be needed for alternative fuel vehicles. 2.4.6 Implications for Logistics To the extent that vehicle purchasing and operating costs are similar or higher than for con- ventional diesel trucks, alternative fuel vehicles are not anticipated to affect logistics practices significantly.

II-14 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.4.7 Policy and Planning Challenges Alternative fuel vehicles have the potential to significantly reduce pollutant emissions and reduce dependence on oil. The policy and planning challenge is to identify the desired mix of alternative fuel vehicles, EVs, and conventionally powered vehicles in the future vehicle fleet, and then to identify the appropriate mix of regulations and incentives to promote achievement of that mix. A major challenge facing public agencies considering policies for promoting alternative fuels is the plethora of alternative fuels. There is no clear “winner,” although EVs (discussed in a separate part of this chapter) appear to be the current leader. Promoting all alternative fuels dilutes the gov- ernment’s efforts; however, picking a single fuel risks betting on the wrong technology. Until clear winners emerge, public agencies are advised to take a cautious approach that promotes alternative fuels in general without picking a single fuel to promote. Agencies can pursue several options: • Options for Facilitating the Technology. National, state, and local governments have various taxation, regulation, and subsidization options for promoting alternative fuel vehicles. These options include favorable treatment of alternative fuel vehicles in parking regulations, vehicle property tax credits, income tax credits for alternative fuel vehicles purchases, and sales tax exemptions for alternative fuel purchases. Probably the most critical action public agencies can take to promote alternative fuel use is establishing public policies and regulations that encourage the location of alternative fuel stations within urban areas, along major intercity freeways, and in small urban centers located in rural areas. • Land Use Planning for Alternative Fuels. As conventional fuel stations continue to con- solidate and land values climb, it will become increasingly difficult to locate sites for new fuel stations that can provide alternative fuels within urban areas. Environmental regulations may further inhibit locating new fuel stations in urban areas. Zoning regulations might be modi- fied to encourage consolidation of single-fuel stations into stations that offer multiple fuel options, including alternative fuel options, in urban areas. Conditions of approval for any new or enlarged fuel station might include the requirement to provide multiple fuel options. – Federal agencies will be concerned with establishing national environmental, performance, and safety regulations for alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. Key decision makers will be the legislative and executive branches of government. – State agencies will be concerned with establishing environmental policies, vehicle licensing, refueling station licenses, and taxation regulations related to alternative fuels and alterna- tive fuel vehicles. Preserving transportation revenue streams will be a key concern. Key decision makers will be the legislative and executive branches of government. – County and city agencies will be concerned with establishing local zoning, parking, licensing, and taxation regulations for alternative fuel stations and alternative fuel vehicles. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) will be concerned with assisting cities and counties in coordinating local regulations and securing federal funding for their activities. Public transit operators and private fleet owners/operators will be interested in taking advantage of the economic benefits of alternative fuel vehicles and the associated government regulations to promote their use. – Producers of alternative natural fuels, such as oil refineries, landfills, livestock operations, and wastewater treatment facilities, will be interested in taking advantage of government subsidies and regulations that favor the production and use of alternative fuels. 2.4.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas Locating fueling stations and the support infrastructure to serve those stations will be a sig- nificant challenge for expanded deployment of alternative fuel vehicles in rural areas. Providing signage to direct unfamiliar travelers in rural areas to the appropriate alternative fuel station also might be critical.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-15 2.5 EVs EVs use electricity to provide the motive power for the vehicle. The electricity may be pro- vided by overhead wire, a third rail, a battery, solar cells, fuel cells, or an internal combustion engine. Overhead wires and third rails have been deployed for more than 100 years with transit vehicles and need not be discussed in this Desk Reference. Because solar cell-powered EVs still appear to have significant technological challenges, this reference focuses on the emerging varieties of EVs that employ new battery or fuel cell technologies. 2.5.1 Description A wide variety of EVs currently are commercially available. Electric passenger cars, trucks, and buses are in various stages of pilot testing and commercial deployment. Battery-powered electric vehicles (BEVs) run strictly on batteries, and are limited in range by the size of the battery. To overcome the range limitations of BEVs, variations on the EV concept have been developed. Some EVs use an internal combustion engine in parallel with the electric motor, and others, like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), use a fuel cell to power the electric motor. • EV Passenger Cars. Based on sales numbers, the global EV stock in passenger cars increased to more than 2 million EVs from 2010 to 2016. China has the largest market for EV sales, and the United States has the second-largest market (International Energy Agency 2017). In contrast to conventional car ownership, many drivers of EVs prefer to lease rather than own to take the advantage of the immediate federal income tax credit, and on the expecta- tion of better models to come in the near future. Tesla’s EV models are an exception: people prefer to own Tesla EVs rather than lease them (Voelcker 2018). To promote leasing of its HFCV the Clarity, in 2018 Honda was subsidizing the fuel costs for the first 3 years, up to $15,000 (Honda 2018). • EV Trucks. In 2017, Tesla started Tesla Semi, a heavy-duty all-electric truck program. A Tesla Semi electric truck prototype was traveling in the Midwest as part of the automaker’s test program ahead of the vehicle’s production in 2019 (Electrek 2019). Another example is Nikola Motor Company’s Nikola One, a hybrid (HFCV) truck (Nikola Motor Co. 2018). • EV Buses. Many demonstration projects (e.g., Proterra) have been conducted for EV buses. Transit team research, development, and demonstration projects have included the Mountain Line Electric Bus Deployment in Missoula, Montana (Center for Transportation and Envi- ronment 2018). Although HFCVs are not as established as natural gas vehicles in the United States, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that eight transit agencies, includ- ing the MBTA in Boston, Massachusetts, and SunLine Transit in Thousand Palms, California, ran at least one HFCV in their transit fleet in 2018 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2018). All of these hydrogen fuel cell buses were federally funded demonstration or evaluation projects. In Illinois, the Champaign-Urbana Fuel Cell Bus Deployment uses zero-emission fuel cell electric buses. The first commercial deployment of its kind, this project will deploy two HFCV buses and install a hydrogen refueling station with onsite generation. The goal of the Champaign-Urbana project is a better energy consumption efficiency and a lower GHG emission (Center for Transportation and Environment 2018b). Before examining the specific impacts and challenges of EV technology, it is helpful to review the distinguishing characteristics of the available BEVs and hybrid vehicles: • BEVs. BEVs are powered exclusively by on-board batteries. BEV options include automo- biles, transit vehicles, trucks, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), e-bikes, e-scooters, electric skateboards, e-skates, and even electric unicycles. The range of a BEV is limited by the size of the vehicle’s battery.

II-16 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation • Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs). HEVs and PHEVs have two powertrains: one powertrain is electric, with a battery that drives the electric motor; the other is a traditional internal combustion engine. Generally, the internal combustion engine takes over when the power requirements are greater than can be provided by the battery (usually at higher speeds or when the vehicle is driven over a longer range). Both powertrains may be employed under high demand conditions, such as climbing a steep hill (McEachern 2012). Additionally, – HEVs cannot be plugged in to recharge the battery. In an HEV, the internal com- bustion engine powers the alternator, which recharges the battery while the vehicle is running. – PHEVs can be plugged in to recharge the battery, and generally have a larger and more powerful battery than an HEV; however, the added complexity of PHEVs and their larger batteries generally make them more expensive to purchase than HEVs (Travers 2018). Although they reduce the use of conventional fuels, both HEVs and PHEVs depend on the presence of a conventional (petroleum-fueled) powertrain. The electricity mode is possible only when the battery is sufficiently charged. PHEVs are a good option for driving long distances with scarce charging stations along the road (Indiana Office of Energy Development 2018). • HFCVs. HFCVs have a hydrogen fuel cell on board that converts hydrogen electricity to power the vehicle. HFCVs can be fueled quickly, like traditional gasoline and diesel vehicles, provide a long driving range, and emit only water and warm air (U.S. DOE 2018c). 2.5.2 Deployment Status and Challenges EVs are currently available in the marketplace, but the purchase costs and operating costs of EVs over the 20-year lifetime of the vehicle are significantly higher than for comparable gasoline- powered vehicles (see Exhibit II-3). Early adopters of EV technologies have been somewhat insulated from these costs through various government tax incentives and the availability of free public recharging stations. Source: Adapted from Brennan and Barder (2016) Exhibit II-3. Lifetime ownership costs of conventional and battery-powered EVs.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-17 Besides the cost of the vehicle, significant constraints on further market penetration of BEVs are: • Their limited range (compared to conventionally powered vehicles), • Their lengthy recharging times, and • The comparative rarity of recharging stations, especially outside of major urban areas. HEVs and PHEVs offer ranges comparable to those of conventionally fueled vehicles. The current federal tax incentive for EV purchases is a tax credit to the purchaser of $7,500 per vehicle. This incentive is tied to the number of vehicles sold by the manufacturer: When the manufacturer has sold 200,000 EVs, the incentive amount is immediately cut in half, following which, over the course of a 12-month period, it is phased out completely (Boudette 2019). California has implemented a clean air vehicle sticker program that allows qualifying single occu- pant vehicles (including EVs) to access the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Federal require- ments require the state to maintain HOV lane speeds in order to continue the sticker program. The cost of the electricity that powers EVs may be subsidized (e.g., through free public charging stations or charging stations at work) or subsumed in the vehicle owner’s household or company electric bill (if charging is done at home or at a business site). As EV market pen- etration increases, however, a time will come when the cost and environmental consequences of generating electricity will become a challenge to further EV deployment. Recycling and/or disposal of exhausted batteries also may impose an environmental challenge. • Range. Battery range is the primary short-term technological challenge to greater market penetration by BEVs. Cold temperatures also can reduce EV range. This challenge comes into particular focus on long trips for vehicles in applications such as long-distance buses or freight movement fleets. Hybrid vehicles overcome this limitation by using fuels to extend the range of the batteries (Reichmuth 2016). • Recharging Stations. Another challenge for EVs, like other alternative fuel vehicles, is being range-dependent on availability of charging stations. Between 100,000 and 160,000 gas and diesel fueling stations exist in the United States, whereas only about 22,000 public and private EV charging sites and stations are available (EVAdoption 2017). The number of fuel and recharging stations listed also varies by source and type of fuel. In 2011, the U.S. DOE started tallying the number of charging plugs for EVs rather than the number of sites where plugs are available. The average number of plugs per site is on the order of three. For non- EV alternatives, the number of stations tallied equals the number of sites, not the number of refueling pumps. The challenges of locating suitable charging stations can significantly affect the perceived dependability of EV applications in personal long-distance trips, ridesharing, and freight move- ment. For a relatively new technology, the current number and distribution of charging stations is promising, but policy changes may be needed to increase the coverage and the enhanced develop- ment of the EV charging infrastructure across the country to support a larger fleet of EVs. • Charging Time. Charging time is another short-term technological challenge for EVs. Currently, three levels of charging are offered for EVs: 110V (Level 1, corresponding to con- ventional wall outlets in the United States); 220V (Level 2, the most common public charging level); and 330V (Level 3, also called “DC fast charging”). In an evacuation scenario such as a fast-approaching hurricane, the time currently needed to recharge an EV at standard 110V or 220V rates makes it unfeasible for EVs to travel long distances as efficiently as fuel-powered vehicles (Adderly 2018). A 3-hour recharge cannot compare to a 5-minute refueling stop. HFCVs overcome the long charging times of BEVs, but currently very few HFCV refueling stations exist in the United States. The U.S. DOE lists fewer than 50 public hydrogen fueling

II-18 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation stations in the entire United States (compared to 160,000 gasoline stations in the United States) (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2012). All the listed hydrogen fueling stations are in California. Many HFCVs are purchased for use in commercial fleets because the fleet can share a single fueling station back at the company’s yard or garage. • Cost. The purchase cost of HFCVs is higher than that for gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles. Information found on the Kelley Blue Book® Website (https://www.kbb.com/) suggests that the price of a mid-sized HFCV can be double to triple the price of its gasoline equivalent. For example, in 2018, the Blue Book Website listed a new Honda Clarity Fuel Cell for about $60,000, about three times the price of a new gasoline-powered Honda Civic (Kelley Blue Book 2018). It is likely that prices would come down if market share were to reach levels that support mass production of these vehicles. EV battery technology is improving every day. As the battery technology improves, the price will come down. The price also will come down if the market penetration for EVs triggers higher levels of mass production. EV operating costs per mile may be higher or lower than per-mile costs for internal combus- tion vehicles, depending on the fuel costs (for hybrids), cost of power generation and distribu- tion, and the extent to which public agencies subsidize the delivery of electric power to the EVs. A study comparing the operating costs of electric school buses to diesel buses found that electric school buses cost about 19 cents per mile (excluding battery replacement costs and driver) whereas diesel buses cost 82 cents per mile (excluding the driver). The primary differ- ence is fuel cost. Variations in local electricity rates can change this (Descant 2018b). For non-hybrid EVs, maintenance costs are expected to be lower than for conventional gas- or diesel-powered vehicles. Fully electric EVs do not require frequent oil changes or other maintenance needed by an internal combustion engine with a conventional transmis- sion, alternator, and hydraulic brake and steering pumps. However, batteries—an expensive component for EVs—need to be replaced when they can no longer hold a charge. Over the lifetime of the vehicle, hybrid EVs will probably have higher maintenance costs than conven- tional vehicles because they have to maintain both the batteries and the internal combustion engine and associated powertrain components. • Electricity Generation. The long-term challenges to greater penetration of the vehicle fleet by non-hybrid EVs will be associated with constructing the necessary electric power generation facilities; finding the fuel, wind, or solar sources for that power generation; and augmenting the capacity of the current electric distribution network. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) forecasts that EVs may reach 50 percent of new car sales in the United States by 2035 (Triveti 2018) (see Exhibit II-4). There would be a 10- to 15-year lag after that before EVs reached the same percentage of the operating U.S. passenger car fleet. Exhibit II-4. Forecast U.S. passenger car sales for EVs.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-19 The California Air Resources Board recently adopted a regulation requiring emission- free buses (electric or hydrogen fueled) by 2040. Bus operators in the state must begin purchasing zero-emission buses by 2020. Several exceptions to this regulation are allowed (Descant 2018a). TCRP Synthesis of Practice 130: Battery Electric Buses (Hanlin, Reffaway, and Lane 2018) documents current transit system practices deploying battery electric buses. 2.5.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand EVs are currently more expensive to purchase than conventionally powered vehicles. Their operating and maintenance costs can be significantly lower than for conventional vehicles, if one does not consider the eventual cost of replacing the batteries when they will no longer hold a charge. Current government incentives (tax credits and free public recharging stations) greatly reduce the perceived cost of owning and operating an EV. Mass production and advancements in tech- nology might further reduce EV purchase and operating costs. The ultimate impact of EVs on travel will depend on the extent to which manufacturers and government subsidies reduce the initial costs and perceived operating costs of EVs. Note that current federal tax incentives for purchasers of EVs are designed to phase out when the manufacturer has sold a cumulative 200,000 EVs. State tax incentives may have other “sunset” provisions. Generally, increased use of EVs could mean a decrease in the need for gas or diesel fueling stations. EVs can usually be charged in locations where they would otherwise already be parked. A rise in usage of EVs may lead to an increase in supercharger stations or inductive charging locations, which may be provided at sites specific for charging, similar to current gas or diesel fueling stations. In the long term, fully autonomous EVs will require inductive charging at the locations where the AV parks itself. The short-term solution is to provide a charging attendant to plug in self-parking vehicles. Given the long recharge times required by current battery technology, the location needs of electric recharging stations differ from those of other kinds of fueling stations. Conventional fueling stations are located conveniently to where the traffic is flowing, but recharging sta- tions are best located within walking distances of the places where EVs will be parked for long periods (e.g., at residences and employment centers). As recharging technology improves, however, EV charging station needs may evolve to be more similar to those of conventional fueling stations. The activity centers that currently exist around refueling stations may change to cater to an EV charging client. A 5-minute refueling trip may be replaced by a 30-minute to 3-hour charging time, so charging locations may adapt to provide amenities for cus- tomers while they wait to charge. Rather than providing quick snacks, recharging stations might offer amenities geared toward a 30- to 60-minute visit, such as coffee shops, hair or nail salons, diners, or even short-term entertainment venues such as roller-skating rinks (Rogers 2018). 2.5.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use The direct land use impact of EVs will be on the proliferation of recharging stations at parking garages, lots, and curbside to support EVs. Shopping centers and office parking lots may have designated EV parking spaces and charging stations.

II-20 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.5.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure No design modifications are anticipated to be needed for EVs in the short term. The inclusion of power strips on the highway to run EVs is a long-term possibility, particularly as fully auto- nomous electric AVs and EVs used for hauling freight become a larger part of the vehicle mix. 2.5.6 Implications for Logistics The logistics industry is currently testing electric trucks. Mass production may enable EV manufacturers to reduce manufacturing costs. 2.5.7 Policy and Planning Challenges EVs can significantly reduce air pollutant emissions from vehicles but will require significant upgrades to the current electrical generation, distribution, and storage system to accommodate a significant increase in EVs in the vehicle fleet. Specific policy and planning challenges are expected in relation to: • Crashes. One concern to emerge recently is dealing with crashes and vehicle fires involving EVs. Damaged batteries can re-ignite in storage (Green and Salonga 2018). • Electric Power Generation. Another concern is that the U.S. electric generation and distribution grid might not be able to accommodate a sudden shift to EVs by the motor fleet; however, it may be able to support gradual transition with additional generation and distribution infrastructure investments (Davidson, Tuttle, Rhodes, and Nagasawa 2018; Triveti 2018). • Recharging Facilities. EVs will require a significant increase in the number of recharging facilities available at locations where vehicles may be parked for significant periods of time. Significant advances in recharging technology may open up additional potential locations, like gasoline stations. • Subsidies. Until mass production is able to reduce the cost differential for EVs, sustained subsidies may be required to promote greater use of EVs. A policy challenge will be ensur- ing that such subsidies are distributed equitably among higher income and lower income residents. • Energy Security and Readiness. Energy security is an advantage of EVs (U.S. DOE 2018b). In 2015, the United States imported 24 percent of its petroleum. EVs can support the U.S. economy and help diversify transportation fleets’ public awareness campaigns, educational programming, market research, and commuter behavior studies. Community leaders and planners can assess their community’s EV readiness by using the information and tools available online at the U.S. DOE’s Alternative Fuels Data Center (www. afdc.energy.gov). Based on the assessment results, EV-related projects can be implemented in long-term and short-term planning. The U.S. DOE provides EV users with fuel-related information such as benefits, laws, and incentives, as well as station locations. Effective solutions offered for EV purchase include federal tax credits for charging equipment for businesses and investors, utility incentives for businesses and organizations to install public charging equipment, and tax credits for new EVs and PHEVs. • Route Guidance. Until the range limitations of current battery technology can be solved, high-quality route guidance will take on greater importance. Information sharing is critical for intelligent route guidance; it informs drivers or automated/autonomous driving systems of trip length, roadway grade, road closures, ambient temperature, and other factors that may affect the vehicle range of EVs that may be used for making longer trips, such as ride hailing service or medium- to long-haul trucking.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-21 • Parking Enforcement. Limited charging locations and increasing EV demand require enforcement to ensure that vehicles are parked at chargers only when actively charging. Many parking agencies enforce maximum durations for charging to ensure that the chargers are made available to more vehicles. The limited charging locations also require agencies to educate the public and to enforce parking for EVs similar to ADA parking space enforce- ment; otherwise, EVs can get “ICEd” out of the charging station (when an internal combus- tion engine [ICE] vehicle parks in an EV space and blocks access to the charger). • Funding Stream Concerns. Even with only 20 percent EV market penetration, losing the current financial revenue from the gas tax due to improved fuel efficiency or alternative fuels such as battery electric could affect funding availability for the maintenance of roads and infrastructure by $3 billion (Connor 2018). • Encouraging the Technology. Actions that public agencies can take to support EVs consist of regulations, subsidies, and direct investments. Examples include the following: – Tax incentives or direct subsidies may be used to encourage EV purchases. – Zoning regulations may be modified to require or encourage the location of EV charging stations in private and public parking garages and lots. – On-street parking meters may be adapted to include electrical outlets. Inductive loops may be placed in the pavement to charge EVs. – Property tax credits may be given for EV stations and for EVs. – Sales tax credits may be given for EV purchases. – Toll and parking rate reductions may be given to EVs. – EVs may be allowed discounted or free use of certain facilities to bypass congestion, such as HOV, high-occupancy toll (HOT), or express lanes. – The agency may invest in installing EV charging stations at its public facilities. – Taxes on conventional fuels and conventionally fueled vehicles may be raised. – Agencies may subsidize or invest in electric power generation and distribution grids. Decision makers will involve governmental entities from the federal to the local level, as well as private-sector interests: • Federal agencies will be concerned with establishing national environmental, performance, and safety regulations for EVs. Key decision makers will be the federal legislative and execu- tive branches. • State agencies will be concerned with vehicle licensing and recharging station licensing, with taxation regulations for EV recharging stations and for the EVs themselves. Key decision makers will be the state legislative and executive branches. • County and city agencies will be concerned with establishing local zoning, parking, licens- ing, and taxation regulations for EV charging stations and for EVs. For example, EVs may be given discounted or priority access to certain public facilities (e.g., parking lots, curb parking, HOV lanes). • MPOs will be concerned with assisting cities and counties in coordinating local regulations and securing federal funding for their activities. • Public transit operators and private fleet owners/operators will be interested in taking advan- tage of the economic benefits of EVs and the associated government regulations to promote their use. • Producers of electricity will be interested in taking advantage of government subsidies and regulations favoring the production and use of electricity for transportation. 2.5.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas Locating recharging stations and upgrading the residential and commercial power grid will be significant challengers to deployment of EVs in rural areas.

II-22 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.6 CVs Various connective technologies are currently available that can assist human drivers (e.g., by “sensing” nearby objects of features) or allow vehicles to communicate with other vehicles or with technology built into the roadside infrastructure. The specific functionalities and limitations of differing types of connective technology illuminate the potential impacts—and challenges—these technologies present. 2.6.1 Description Connective technologies that assist human drivers have already begun to be integrated into newer vehicles. Exhibit II-5 shows an urban intersection in which the vehicles are using con- nective technology to exchange data with each other and to receive and interpret data from the immediate surrounding environment. Through V2V and V2I communications, CVs may talk to each other and/or to the road- side infrastructure. CVs can exchange basic information like location, speed, and status, or more sophisticated information like destination, payload, and on-time status. Through V2I communications, roadside infrastructure can inform CVs of downstream conditions and recommend a speed. V2V connectivity and V2I connectivity can potentially accomplish a wide range of safety and facility performance improvements. But they accomplish relatively little by themselves. The on-board unit in a CV displays the information it receives and may issue auditory noti- fications to the driver. The information that has been transmitted must then be put to use in some way. The driver—or the computer, if it is a fully automated self-driving AV—decides what to do with the information. Without agency involvement, V2I is little more than another means of providing facility status to the vehicle driver. Drivers with in-dash and dash-mounted smart phones and naviga- tion devices can obtain the same facility information over the cellular network through many smartphone applications. V2I is much more effective when the agency or fleet operator has an active management plan (traffic, parking, demand) to change facility controls and operations in response to V2I information. Similarly, V2V information is of less use to the typical human driver than “driver assist” technologies typically enabled by vehicle-mounted proximity sensors. Proximity sensors Source: Image © Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; used by permission Exhibit II-5. Visualization of connectivity at an urban intersection.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-23 can detect the proximity of all vehicles and objects, not just those equipped with V2V transponders. CVs can only talk to other compatibly equipped CVs or roadside units. They cannot detect non-CVs on the road unless proximity sensors also are added to the vehicle.V2V comes into its own when it is combined with proximity sensors, driver assist technology, and automated/autonomous (self-driving) technologies that cut the human driver out of the loop. Although significant safety benefits can accrue when 10 percent to 20 percent of vehicles are CV-equipped (Dowling, Skabardonis, Barrios, Jia, and Nevers 2015), the potential facility management benefits of CVs will be greatly amplified when the percentage of CVs is closer to 100 percent. More aggressive traffic management options become available when 100 percent connectivity is combined with 100 percent fully automated AVs. Some car manufacturers already provide direct communications to their vehicles via the cellular network (e.g., Toyota and GM). Toyota and Lexus have announced they would deploy DSRC in the United States (Alleven 2018b). Other manufacturers, such as Cadillac and Ford, have announced the installation of DSRC units in some models after 2020 (Abuelsamid 2018, Alleven 2018b). Transit signal priority (TSP) is an established example of CV technology. In a TSP system, a communication device (often DSRC) on the transit vehicle communicates with the roadside infrastructure at a traffic signal to alert the signal of the approaching transit vehicle. If the vehicle is running behind schedule, the signal timing may be changed to extend the green phase to allow the transit vehicle to catch up on its schedule. If the vehicle is not running behind schedule, the signal controller will reject the TSP request and continue with the planned cycle timing. The FHWA is funding CV application pilot projects in Ohio, Wyoming, Florida, and New York. In Wyoming, the participating cities and the Wyoming DOT are testing different safety applications of CV technology. In Tampa, Florida, testing includes a traffic signal control application of CVs for buses and for automobiles called the Multimodal Intelligent Traffic Signal System (MMITSS). MMITSS applications are discussed in more detail in the section on AVs. Various state DOT-funded pilot tests also are ongoing or planned. For example, the Ohio DOT is partnering with Honda to test CV applications in 1,200 vehicles at two dozen signals in Marysville, Ohio, and the Colorado DOT is testing 100 roadside units along 90 miles of Interstate 70 around Vail (Descant 2018c). The U.S. DOT’s first long-term, real-world CV demonstration was the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Begun in 2011 and lasting for more than 2 years, the deployment demonstration evaluated DSRC for V2V safety applications (Bezzina and Sayer 2015, Wyoming DOT 2018). More recently, the U.S. DOT has sponsored the Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment (CVPD) Program, which includes V2V and V2I DSRC communi- cations in Tampa, Florida; New York City, New York; the I-80 corridor across Wyoming; and the Smart Columbus Smart Cities Challenge deployment in Columbus, Ohio. The New York City and Tampa CVPD sites also include vehicle- or infrastructure-to-pedestrian applica- tions (U.S. DOT 2018a). Consisting of three deployment phases: (1) concept development, (2) design/deploy/test, and (3) operate and maintain, the CVPD Program is currently in Phase 2 (design/deploy/test). Examples of CV applications include cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) com- bined with automatic emergency braking and audio alerts (CACC-AB), forward collision

II-24 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation warning, red-light running violation warnings, and intersection movement assist (to warn drivers of potential intersection conflict crashes). CACC communicates directly with vehicles in its range of communication. Currently, researchers study this feature in simulators and simulations (Roldan, Inman, Balk, and Philips 2018). The U.S. DOT’s CVPD Program sites are studying forward collision warning, red-light running violation warnings, and other CV applications. In addition, some car manufacturers also offer traffic jam assistance (for low-speed and high traffic congestion) enabled through V2V. Many CV technologies perform functions similar to the currently available driver assist technologies that rely on in-vehicle proximity sensors to detect the roadway environment and other vehicles. Adding connected communication between vehicles or the roadside infrastruc- ture and other vehicles enables advanced detection, redundancy, and improved confidence to not only warn drivers but also take action (e.g., automatic braking). 2.6.2 Deployment Status and Challenges V2V and V2I currently are implemented using two-way DSRC in the 5.9-GHz band. Some automobile manufacturers are building DSRC units into their new vehicles. The range of DSRC communications is on the order of 300 meters (900 feet). DSRC trans- ceivers called on-board units (OBUs) must be installed in the CVs themselves to enable V2V communications and along the roadside in roadside units (RSUs) for V2I communications. Cellular network services claim that 5G wireless systems will provide the low latency and higher capacity communications services needed for V2V or V2I functions, without requiring the roadside DSRC installations by public agencies. 5G currently is anticipated to be trans- mitted in three electromagnetic band ranges; the band range may vary by carrier. The lower frequency band has greater range, better penetration of buildings, and higher latency than the higher frequency bands. The highest frequency 5G band may require transmitters every few hundred feet, depending on conditions (De Looper 2019). An alternative communications protocol is C-V2X (cellular “vehicle to everything” commu- nication, as distinguished from the DSRC-based V2X). C-V2X is being promoted by the cellular network industry (Alleven 2018a). The technical challenges for the future of CVs mostly relate to regulatory uncertainty, market penetration, and infrastructure costs: • Regulatory Uncertainty. Uncertainty exists about the future of the communications band currently allocated for DSRC communications. The FCC allocation of the band- width for DSRC is temporary, and 5G cell phone providers would like access to that band (Alleven 2018a). • Market Penetration. The value of CVs increases as more vehicles are equipped with the CV technology. Currently, only some new vehicles in the United States come equipped with DSRC, and some manufacturers are considering the alternative C-V2X technology. Unless a technical method is developed to retrofit existing vehicles with CV and federal incen- tives or regulations are developed to spur CV installations, the United States will not reach 100 percent CVs for a long time. The average age of light-duty motor vehicles on the road in the United States is currently 11.6 years (as of 2016). New vehicles currently account for 7 percent of the fleet, so it would take about 15 years from 2019 for the vehicle fleet to turn over to all CVs (Schwartz 2018). • Infrastructure Costs. The cost of installing roadside DSRC units and communications in the field will limit the facilities and the speed with which V2I can be implemented. Rural

Characteristics of New Technologies II-25 areas and lightly traveled roads with few facility management challenges may be the last to see roadside DSRC units installed. 2.6.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand CVs are expected to reduce the frequency of crashes, thereby reducing unexpected delays due to crashes. The improved travel-time reliability may modestly increase vehicle travel (both trips and distance) at the expense of other modes of travel. The CV technology by itself is expected to have minor impacts on traffic delays. CV tech- nology in combination with other technologies like self-driving vehicles (AVs) will have significantly magnified impacts. When combined with intelligent road infrastructure, active traffic management (ATM) plans, and automated/autonomous driving capabilities, CVs will result in reduced crash fre- quency and severity, higher roadway capacity, and reduced fuel consumption (due to reduced congestion related to higher capacities) (Barnes, Turkel, Moreland, and Pragg 2017). These effects are expected to translate into lower vehicle operating costs, which in turn will affect mode choice, trip generation, and distribution. Vehicle connectivity with intelligent infra- structure management can enhance the reliability of public transport for urban areas. The result could serve people with disabilities, lower income populations, or residents of congested areas (INRIX 2017). More information about routing, weather, congested areas, and parking availability can influ- ence users’ decisions to make a trip. With CVs, routing can be assigned by real-time data-driven artificial intelligence rather than drivers’ habits and limitations. During the early years of CV deployment, the low market-penetration rate for CVs and the small percentage of CV-enabled highway facilities will limit the benefits of vehicle communica- tion (V2V and V2I). After the early stages of CV deployment, the ease of driving could bring more private vehicles and more travel demand on the limited roadway capacity. 2.6.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use Lower travel costs favor increased economic development, increased land values in the vicinity of the improvement, and dispersed land use. Improvements in travel-time reliability might modestly increase the pressure to develop land on the fringes of urban areas. If CV deployments are limited only to a few high-congestion freeways in urban areas, the land use impacts may be limited. Streetscape designs would need to incorporate RSUs for DSRC or 5G transceivers. 2.6.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure Highway and roadway designs will need to be modified to provide for RSUs and commu- nications back to a central office. Designs will need to be developed for retrofitting RSUs onto existing highways. 2.6.6 Implications for Logistics CV technology will make government and private-sector operators of highway or roadway facilities and wayfinding applications more aware of congestion conditions. The technology also should reduce crashes. Fewer crashes and less uncertainty about delays will improve on-time delivery of goods.

II-26 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.6.7 Policy and Planning Challenges Steve Kuciemba, chair of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Connected Vehicle/ Automated Vehicle Steering Committee, identified six steps for agencies to prepare for CVs and AVs (Kuciemba 2018): 1. Build on the Transportation System Management and Operations philosophy (self-assessment, set goals, identify resources needed, engage stakeholders, evaluate, and adjust); 2. Identify a starting point (a pilot project); 3. Explore partnerships; 4 Integrate CV and AV considerations into planning; 5. Take a deliberate, measured approach; and 6. Maintain perspective—it will be difficult. Challenges for the future of CVs in logistics mostly relate to: • Privacy. CVs may create a privacy problem for drivers as vehicle manufacturers, software application developers, and public agencies can gather data on the movements of the vehicle (Gephardt 2018). • Choice of Technology for Investment. At present, the primary policy and planning chal- lenges focus on whether to continue to invest in the proven DSRC technology or to wait for the commercial development of 5G, which could still be several years off given the required investment in transmitter stations. Given the potentially high startup costs, the commercial sector may choose to install 5G only in major urban areas, where the market is greater. Gov- ernment incentives may be needed to expand installation of 5G infrastructure into rural areas. If DSRC is pursued, public funding limitations will likely limit initial deployments to highly congested urban freeways. A secondary challenge will be getting the public to buy and install DSRC devices in older vehicles. Public agencies could rely on manufacturers installing DSRC in their newer vehicles and then wait for the natural turnover of the vehicle fleet to increase the market penetration of DSRC-equipped vehicles; however, the risk of taking this approach is that the FCC may assign the DSRC band to other uses. Decision makers will involve governmental entities from the federal to the local level, as well as private-sector interests: • Federal agencies will be concerned with establishing national environmental, performance, and safety regulations and communication standards for connectivity between vehicles and between vehicles and TMCs. Key decision makers will be the FCC and the U.S. DOT. • State agencies will be concerned with constructing the necessary roadside infrastructure and developing management protocols for utilizing the data and communicating with the driving public. They will also be concerned with obtaining and maintaining adequate technical knowledge among staff in maintenance, operations, and data management. Key decision makers will be the state DOTs. • County and city agencies will be concerned with constructing intelligent infrastructure, devel- oping facility management protocols to take advantage of the CV information, and maintain- ing the necessary technical knowledge among staff to maintain and operate the systems. • MPOs will be concerned with assisting cities and counties in coordinating local regulations and securing federal funding for their activities. • Public transit operators and private fleet owners/operators will be interested in taking advan- tage of the benefits of vehicle connectivity. 2.6.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas The required heavy initial investment in DSRC RSUs or 5G towers (and connecting fiber) will likely delay deployment of CVs in rural areas unless government subsidies or regulations are employed to spur deployment in rural areas.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-27 2.7 AVs (Self-Driving Vehicles) This section includes some technical information that can help readers distinguish among the levels of automation currently in play in AV technology and the contexts in which they may be used. In discussing the impacts and implications of the technology, the Desk Reference focuses on the most transformational level of automation, the fully self-driving AV. Although fully automated AVs are not yet commercially available, some AVs at the next-highest level have been deployed, and numerous pilot projects involving fully automated AVs are underway. It is anticipated that, after a period of transition, private ownership of fully automated AVs will become widespread. 2.7.1 Description The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines five levels of automation, ranging from limited driver assistance like cruise control to fully self-driving vehicles (see Exhibit II-6). At the highest level, self-driving AVs are capable of performing all driving tasks under all conditions within their defined operational design domains. Operational design domains are the specific conditions under which a given automated driving system (ADS) or feature is intended to function, such as the roadway type(s), geographic area, vehicle speeds, or environmental condi- tions like weather or darkness (NHTSA 2019). Less technically, the operational design domain can be understood as the context or contexts for which the automated driving tasks have been designed. Operational design domains often are described in terms of location (i.e., driving in a parking lot, on a freeway, on a city street). Currently, an AV may be self-driving only in certain operational design domains. The human driver may be required to intervene outside of those design domains. Remote control is an additional option for replacing or supporting the human driver or ADS in the vehicle. Remote control may be useful in unique situations, such as diverting traffic onto wrong-way travel lanes to evacuate vehicles after a major crash or during extreme weather events. Remote control also may become useful in other contexts as machine-learning algo- rithms learn how to handle less-common driving situations like double-parked vehicles on two-lane streets or situations involving temporary work zones. The race to achieve fully self-driving cars is being led by Waymo and GM. Currently no examples of SAE Level 5 (full automation) technology are available for consumer purchase. Level Title Description No Automation Zero autonomy. Driver performs all driving tasks. Driver Assistance Vehicle is controlled by driver, but some driving assist features may be included in the vehicle design. Partial Automation Vehicle has combined automated functions, like acceleration and steering, but driver must remain engaged with the driving task and monitor the environment at all times. Conditional Automation Driver is a necessity but is not required to monitor the environment. Driver must be ready to take control of the vehicles at all times with notice. High Automation Vehicle can perform all driving functions under certain conditions.Driver may have the option to control the vehicle. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Full Automation (Self-Driving) Vehicle can perform all driving functions under all conditions. Driver may have the option to control the vehicle. Source: NHTSA (2017) Exhibit II-6. SAE levels of vehicle automation.

II-28 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation Even the Waymo self-driving car (aka the “Google car”) is still being tested and is constantly monitored by backup safety operators who step in to help the car learn how to respond in challenging situations. The Waymo self-driving car was the first self-driving car to be developed and tested (Waymo 2018). Google started testing the self-driving car in 2009 and conducted the “world’s first fully self-driving ride on public roads” in 2015. In 2018, Waymo announced it would continue to advance the technology and had plans to partner with Jaguar to develop the “world’s first premium electric self-driving vehicle” (Waymo 2018). In 2016, Otto (Uber’s self-driving vehicle company) tested the first commercial truck delivery by running a Volvo truck-tractor towing a payload of Budweiser beer on a 120-mile “beer run” on Interstate 25 (Isaac 2016). For part of the trip, the truck driver was seated in the rear of the cab while the truck drove down the Interstate. Several original equipment manufacturers have begun making automated/autonomous shuttles. These vehicles function at SAE Level 4 (high automation). Most deployments to date have operated in mild weather environments, but the Minnesota DOT is pilot testing an “EasyMile” automated/autonomous shuttle in extreme winter conditions. The Nevada DOT is currently running an AV shuttle in Las Vegas on a fixed route, which is giving city visitors the chance to experience the new technology. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center has produced an inventory of inter- national and domestic low-speed AV shuttle deployments (Cregger et al. 2018). The inventory lists 20 domestic pilot projects involving a similar number of vehicles and identifies the following factors as potential obstacles to deployment of AV shuttles: • Vehicle capabilities, • Operating environment, • Product availability, • Planning and implementation, • Financial considerations, • Labor considerations, • Data and evaluation, • Public acceptance, and • Federal, state, and local regulations. 2.7.2 Deployment Status and Challenges AVs are currently in the development and pilot testing stage. They are being tested in controlled and monitored situations, often with a human present to intervene when the AV is not acting correctly. Several low-speed (under 25 mph) shuttle vans without human moni- tors also are currently being pilot tested on low-speed public streets and in parking lots in the United States. Currently, the primary challenges to greater deployment of AVs are: • Developing a Robust Driving Algorithm. The driving algorithm must work in combina- tion with the in-vehicle detectors and navigation information provided over the internet to navigate safely through all eventualities. The extra computer and detection equipment in the vehicle increases its purchase price, maintenance costs, and weight (reducing fuel efficiency). • Reducing the Price of the Vehicle. Although many consumers might enjoy giving up the driving task, whether or not consumers would be willing to pay extra for this convenience has yet to be tested. When the technological problems have been solved, the next great challenge

Characteristics of New Technologies II-29 to the deployment of AVs will be getting the costs down so that AV prices are competitive with the prices of conventional human-driven vehicles. • Developing State and Federal Safety Standards. The existing federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) established by NHTSA were not developed with AVs in mind. For exam- ple, the light vehicle brake standard (FMVSS No. 135) requires a specific brake pedal applica- tion for the stopping distance test, which may not be possible in an AV that does not have a brake pedal. Until the FMVSS are updated to accommodate AV testing, each pilot deployment of an automated/autonomous shuttle requires individual vehicle exemptions from NHTSA. This creates a roadblock to the greater deployment of AVs. NHTSA is actively evaluating the safety standards to identify potential changes needed to accommodate AVs. For AVs in commercial service, the FMCSA will need to develop roadside inspection test procedures to be able to test that necessary safety systems are functioning in the AVs in commercial service. States may need to adopt vehicle safety equipment inspection requirements to ensure the safe operation of AVs in service. For states that do not currently require annual vehicle inspec- tions, such as Florida, this type of regulatory change may take time to develop. • Obtaining Consumer Acceptance. The slow turnover of the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet will be the last obstacle. The average age of passenger cars in the U.S. passenger fleet is about 11.6 years (Schwartz 2018). Schwartz (2018) estimates that it will take about 15 years for a complete turnover of the U.S. passenger car fleet with new cars. It has been estimated that it will take about 20 years for AVs to reach 50 percent of the U.S. passenger car fleet (see Exhibit II-7). Even once AVs become 100 percent of new car sales, it could take another 15 years before AVs would come close to being 100 percent of the fleet. Unless and until methods are found to retrofit AV capabilities onto existing vehicles, the penetration of AVs into the U.S. vehicle fleet will have to rely on new vehicles sales. Government incentives and regulations that encourage or require retrofitting also will likely be needed to promote faster replacement or conversion of conventional vehicles to AVs. Probably the earliest adopters of self-driving vehicles will be enterprises seeking to save money used to pay drivers (e.g., public transit properties, ride hailing companies, and freight carriers). The projected savings on driver wages can be substantial for a fleet operator, which has triggered a great deal of interest for vehicle manufacturers that sell vehicles to fleet operators. Note: The higher market penetration estimates in this exhibit assume that manufacturers are able to achieve significant decreases in manufacturing costs for AVs. Source: Adapted from Litman (2018) Exhibit II-7. U.S. passenger car market penetration forecasts for AVs.

II-30 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation Litman (2018) has projected that AVs may constitute around 50 percent of new car sales and constitute anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of the vehicle fleet on the road in the United States by the 2040s. Litman also notes that some of the ultimate benefits of AVs will not be available until human drivers are prohibited from using the road. In the United States, it could be at least the 2060s before AVs constitute close to 100 percent of new car sales, and the 2070s or 2080s before AVs reach over 90 percent of the vehicle fleet on the road. Government regulations, tax incentives, and subsidies can accelerate the penetration of AVs into the marketplace. As discussed in Part I, Chapter 9 (“Be Nimble”), an ongoing challenge to government agencies during the transition period will be updating the language of policies and regulations to facilitate equity and maintain safety as the newer transportation technology replaces the old. Research on the future of AVs conducted for Caltrans by the University of California, Berkeley, made the following predictions (Gordon, Kaplan, El Zarwi, Walker, and Zilberman 2018): • Private ownership of AVs will prevail after a transition period, as was the case for other tech- nologies like computers, tractors, and cars; • With technological progress, the cost of privately owning AVs will decline, and they will be customized to meet individual tastes; • There will be an increase in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per capita; • There may be more vehicles on the road; • An expansion of the transportation user base may occur to include persons currently facing limited mobility; • These trends may lead to increased GHG emissions and an expansion of the transportation sector; and • The technology will evolve and might result in complementary innovations that could address delivery to the front doorstep of the business or home (the “last 10 feet” problem). 2.7.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand Whether they are rented or leased, AVs used to provide ride hailing, taxi, limousine, and chauffer services are expected to reduce the cost of using those services by eliminating the labor costs of the hired driver. This will serve to increase the number of trips taken by these modes of travel at the expense of other modes (e.g., drive alone, carpool, and transit). Ownership of AVs for exclusive personal use will be more expensive than owning a conven- tional (human-driven) vehicle. Although some higher income people will no doubt be willing to pay for this luxury, as long as humans are allowed to drive, the presence of personal AVs is not expected to have an effect on overall travel demand. Typically, the addition of a more expensive mode choice does not increase total demand. Currently, no operating cost data for AVs is available. It is likely that operating costs for AVs will equal or exceed those for non-AV vehicles. Maintenance costs of the sophisticated equip- ment likely will be higher than the costs for human-driven vehicles. Self-driving vehicles were originally anticipated to eliminate the need for liability insurance. Recent incidents have caused the insurance industry to realize that liability insurance will still be needed, although the nature of the insurance product may change (Mathis 2018). By eliminating the cost of a human driver, self-driving vehicles hired on an as-needed basis can offer a lower cost mobility solution to almost anyone, including visually impaired or older travelers who no longer drive, persons with physical disabilities, and young children not old enough to drive.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-31 Mode split could shift away from large transit vehicles toward smaller AVs, especially for people who have been dependent on transit because they are not allowed to drive. If the reduced labor costs of AVs result in lower per-trip costs, people may be willing to make more trips, which will increase travel demand. If AV developers can reduce their produc- tion and operating costs to levels significantly below those of conventional human-driven taxi services (roughly $3 per mile), the result might be substantial increases in public use of AVs, essentially as chauffeured vehicles. A recent study at the University of California, Davis, found that providing completely free chauffer service (rather than charging passengers $3 per mile) would increase family vehicle trips by over 80 percent, and that the biggest users of the service were family members without drivers’ licenses (i.e., teenagers) (Harb, Xiao, Circella, Mokhtarian, and Walker 2018). Increased chauffeured travel via AVs will probably draw time-sensitive passengers away from public transit and other competing modes. Conversely, the assurance of an inexpensive ride to or from transit stations might encourage increased transit use. A 2018 evaluation by Rodier of the likely impacts of AVs concluded that AVs will or probably will: • Improve safety; • Increase roadway capacity; • Reduce the time cost of travel by enabling drivers to do other activities while in the vehicle; • Generate empty vehicle relocation traffic; • Reduce parking needs; • Enable more people to engage in car travel; and • Increase VMT. In addition, Rodier (2018) concluded that AVs may: • Reduce vehicle operating costs by lowering insurance costs and eliminating the need for hired drivers, and • Reduce transit use. In 2018, demand modeling studies of the San Francisco Bay Area conducted by Caroline, Jaller, and Pourrahmani, also at the University of California, Davis, tested differing future scenarios. The scenarios assumed that AVs might increase roadway capacity by 100 percent, reduce the perceived value of time spent in the vehicle by 25 percent, reduce vehicle operating costs by 4 cents, and/or attract new drivers. The various scenarios predicted the AVs might increase VMT by 2 percent to 11 percent, increase traffic by 0 percent to 8 percent, and cause vehicle delay to increase by as much as 7 percent or to decrease by as much as 78 percent (Caroline, Jaller, and Pourrahmani 2018). A University of Iowa report came to ambivalent conclusions about the planning impacts of AVs, finding that AVs might increase or decrease capacity and increase or decrease pavement stress. This report did come to a firm conclusion that AVs will increase VMT and result in unexpected changes in traffic patterns as empty vehicles make trips to their next pick up point (McGehee, Brewer, Schwarz, and Walker-Smith 2016). 2.7.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use If AV operators can reduce their hired vehicle costs significantly below $3 per mile (the average cost of ride hailing and taxi service in many downtown areas), then the availability of low-cost chauffeured service would significantly affect the need for and the location of parking facilities

II-32 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation in an urban area. However, cost is not the only consideration. The low-cost AVs must also be able to quickly appear anywhere in the urban area on demand. If various travelers share AVs, the vehicles need not be parked at all. Each set of travelers can be dropped off and picked up curbside, and while travelers are out of the vehicle conducting business at any given location, the AV can continue on to serve another individual or groups. When. the initial travelers conclude their business, a different AV can readily be summoned to pick them up. Even for single-user (non-shared) AVs, if low-cost and highly responsive AV service is avail- able, AVs need not be parked within a short walking distance of travelers’ destinations. AV parking lots and garages can be shifted to more remote locations, and the spaces that would have been used for parking near destination shops or other buildings could be redeveloped into other commercial and residential uses. The increased use of curbs for pick ups and drop offs will place a premium on incorporating safe and convenient pick up and drop off areas in development site plans and streetscapes. Employing a land use model to forecast the likely land use effects of automated vehicles, Larson and Zhao (2017) concluded that: • AVs would decrease the costs of marginal commutes, thereby decreasing household density and expanding the physical footprint of the city, unless AVs were paired with reallocation of downtown parking to commercial and residential uses (in which case the impacts would be reversed and household densities would increase); • When combined with other technologies like car sharing and robotic vehicles, AVs would unequivocally result in urban decentralization (even with reallocation of downtown parking to other uses); • In no scenario did AVs reduce energy consumption or carbon emissions; • The cumulative effects of AVs, EVs, and car sharing technologies will be dramatic: Land prices near the city center would drop, density would decrease dramatically, the city area would expand, energy consumption would rise, and [residents’] welfare could potentially increase substantially. Zhang (2017) used a traffic simulation model and residential/commercial location choice models to look at the land use impacts of shared AVs. This study concluded that shared AVs could reduce downtown parking demands by 90 percent and could increase the attractiveness of downtowns for denser residential and commercial developments (Zhang 2017). 2.7.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure No design modifications are anticipated to be needed for AVs. Adherence to design standards for signing and striping the road may be more critical for AVs, which currently are less able to adapt to unique situations than human drivers. CAVs—which combine AV capabilities with CV capabilities—would enable closer car following distances on freeways, potentially increasing the capacity of existing freeways as CAVs achieve a minimum market penetration. AVs with CV V2X capabilities can also potentially communicate with signals to give signals more information on arriving vehicles. MMITSS signal control software is one example of the possibilities of improving signal timing through better communication with the vehicles. Conversely, the signals might let the vehicles know of upcoming signal indication changes. At least one application has been developed to do just that.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-33 No regulations currently require close vehicle following distances for CAVs, so the greater capacities would only occur if manufacturers and/or vehicle operators voluntarily selected closer car following distances for their CV-equipped AVs. Some states, such as Florida, do specify minimum following distance requirements: Florida currently requires a minimum 300-ft following distance for commercial trucks. An agency might consider dedicating lanes exclusively for CV and AV use as an incentive for the purchase or leasing of those technologies (Booz Allen Hamilton 2018). Theoretically, very large increases in capacity have been postulated for an all-CAV future; nonetheless, several practical constraints make achieving theoretical capacities impractical. The extent to which CAVs will be able to follow each other more closely than human-driven vehicles will depend on the following factors: • Manufacturers’ settings, which will depend on the manufacturers’ insurance considerations; • Fuel economy considerations when drafting (slipstreaming) another vehicle; • The comfort level of passengers with regard to their vehicle’s proximity to other vehicles; and • The need to leave gaps between vehicles so that other vehicles can enter the freeway, merge onto the street, or change lanes. In addition, vehicle-following distances will continue to have to allow for those vehicles still driven by humans. The World Economic Forum (2018) estimates that CAVs might increase street capacities by 8 percent at the 50 percent market penetration and by 25 percent at 100 percent penetration (see Exhibit II-8). Even at 50 percent market penetration of the passenger car fleet, the probability of a pair of CAVs closely following each other is just 25 percent. Thus, the capacity effects are low and will remain largely hypothetical until higher market penetration levels are reached. The Florida DOT (2018) posits a range of possible capacity increases (between 15 percent and 75 percent, depending on various possible future scenarios for implementing CAVs). 2.7.6 Implications for Logistics CAV trucks have the potential to reduce truck operating costs by 50 percent. Most of that savings would come from the elimination of driver wages and benefits (Rodrigues 2018). Some Source: Adapted from World Economic Forum (2018) Exhibit II-8. Impact of CAV market penetration on highway capacity.

II-34 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation savings also would come from the fuel savings associated with truck platooning, wherein one or more AV trucks closely draft a lead truck. These cost savings could attract longer haul freight to CAV trucks and away from alternative modes like rail. 2.7.7 Policy and Planning Challenges The policy and planning challenges related to AV technology are varied. At the federal and state levels, safety issues will need to be addressed. At the local level, the shift in demand from off-street parking to curbside pick ups and drop offs will require rethinking both onsite parking requirements and site plan designs. Over the long term, conversion of underused parking lots and garages to other uses will be a consideration. • National Policies. The U.S. DOT has developed a policy dealing with future automation that lays out the agency’s key automation principles (U.S. DOT 2018b). This policy guides the agency to: – Make safety the priority, – Be technology neutral, – Modernize regulations, – Encourage a consistent regulatory and operational environment, – Prepare for automation, and – Protect American freedoms. In 2019, the U.S. DOT is awarding $60 million in ADS demonstration grants to test the safe integration of ADSs into the nation’s on-road transportation system (FHWA 2018a). Letters from AASHTO to the NHTSA, the FCC, and the U.S. DOT’s Office of the Secretary have noted the following needs (AASHTO 2018b): – Continuing government oversight of pilot projects, – Updates to state and local laws, – Preservation of the 5.9 GHz (DSRC) band for CV use, and – Meeting the challenge of funding the needed infrastructure improvements to provide connectivity. In 2018, the ITE published a statement addressing CVs, AVs, and CAVs (ITE 2018b). The ITE statement supports the development of completely self-driving vehicles (SAE Levels 4 or 5 with limited human monitoring) rather than lower levels of automation that require continuous driver attention to the road. It urges preservation of the 5.9 GHz DSRC band for communicating with and between vehicles. It identifies the following challenges for AV deployment: – Lack of nationwide consistency with markings and signage, – The need for a national work zone traffic information database, – Curb space management, and – Cybersecurity concerns. The ITE policy statement identifies various steps that the U.S. DOT and public agencies can take to support AVs. • Research. Launched in early 2018 to identify research needs, the National Academies/ TRB Forum on Preparing for Automated Vehicles and Shared Mobility (http://www.trb.org/ TRBAVSMForum/AVSMForum.aspx) has yielded a catalog of research needs regarding safety; transportation system impacts; social, environmental, energy, and economic impacts; and data needs (Kortum and Norman 2018). • Equity. The potentially lower costs of ride hailing AVs could make the use of taxi and limousine service more accessible to lower income riders. The lower operating costs of AVs would lower shipping costs, thus making a wider range of goods available to a broader section of the public. Lack of low-skill jobs may counteract these effects.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-35 • Employment. AVs will significantly reduce the availability of jobs in an employment category that does not require a college degree (e.g., Uber/Lyft drivers, taxi drivers, limou- sine drivers, chauffeurs, truck drivers, and bus drivers). AVs also will change the labor skills needed to maintain vehicles, continuing the shift away from mechanical systems toward electric motors, electronics, and software. AASHTO has filed a letter with the U.S. DOT regarding its planned study of how AV tech- nologies might impact the U.S. workforce (AASHTO 2018a). The letter notes the challenges to state DOT workforce recruiting and retention, and expresses concern about the potential obsolescence of state maintenance crews. • State Legislation. In 2017 and 2018, numerous states introduced legislation dealing with AVs. Other states have enacted AV legislation or have issued executive orders related to AVs (National Conference of State Legislatures 2018). Many states have active shared-ride (low-speed van shuttle) AV pilot projects. As of 2018, roughly half of the shared-ride pilot projects were currently carrying passengers. State vehicle codes, licensing requirements, and liability laws need to be reviewed and updated to clarify manufacturer, software writer, automobile dealer, rental agency, and driver duties, roles, and responsibilities. AV software compliance with the unique aspects of state and local vehicle codes also needs to be considered. NCHRP Project 20-102, “Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies—Task Order Support,” has generated a series of targeted reports to help states, especially transportation and motor vehicle agencies and their associate legal departments, identify the critical laws and regula- tions that might need to be changed or modified as CV- and AV system-equipped vehicles are deployed (Trimble, Gallun, and Loftus-Otway 2018). The NCHRP 20-102 project page (accessible from www.trb.org) includes a link to a summary document, titled “A Summary of NCHRP 20-102 Activities.” Dated June 2019, the summary document lists the reports avail- able and provides links to additional information about work continuing under the project. • State and Local Agency Planning Challenges. The challenge for local planners and design- ers will be how to plan and design for an evolving vehicle fleet mix. AVs may eventually yield significant infrastructure savings in the future, but given 15 years for a complete vehicle fleet turnover (Schwartz 2018) and the fact that manufacturers are still turning out many, many more human-driven vehicles than AVs, it is likely that a few decades will pass before AVs constitute the majority of the vehicle fleet. In the meantime, engineers must design highways to safely accommodate the lowest common denominator—the human-driven vehicle. Even if, 30 years in the future, less infrastructure may be needed, planners must account for the current and interim needs of the public and find an appropriate balance that promotes both the short-term and long-term good of society. • Land Use. Zoning regulations for off-street parking and curbside passenger pick up/drop off zones will need to be reconsidered in light of the gradual penetration of AVs into the vehicle fleet. Similarly, zoning regulations for loading docks, loading zones, and UAV landing zones need to be reconsidered in light of AVs. Automated/autonomous and secure deposit boxes for AV package deliveries need to be considered. Decision makers will involve governmental entities from the federal to the local level, as well as private-sector interests: • At the federal level, the NHTSA is developing policy on ADS safety performance. • State governments are responsible for developing policy on licensing, registration, enforce- ment, liability, and insurance requirements for automated/autonomous driving systems. The NHTSA provides policy guidance and detailed recommendations on the responsibili- ties of state governments and state highway safety officials in Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (NHTSA 2017). Some of the responsibilities discussed in this document are listed in Exhibit II-9.

II-36 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation • County and city agencies will be concerned with establishing local zoning, parking, and taxation regulations for AVs as they become more prevalent. • MPOs will be concerned with assisting cities and counties in coordinating local regulations and securing federal funding for their activities. • Public transit operators and private fleet owners/operators will be interested in taking advantage of the economic benefits of AVs. • Public perceptions and reception of AVs also may present be a challenge, with some residents actively interfering with or damaging AVs on the road (Romero 2018). • Guidance for Cities. The National League of Cities has published a municipal action guide for addressing AV pilot tests (Perkins, Dupuis, and Rainwater 2018). It summarizes the state of AV pilot programs, provides examples and guidance on developing an AV pilot program, and suggests strategies for city leadership. Recommendations from the municipal action guide include: – Determine the city’s goals for pursuing an AV pilot project; – Build a consortium of federal, state, local, and private partners; – Engage the private sector as financial partners; – Look to join or create a regional alliance with other public agencies; – Scale the pilot appropriately to the resources available; – Work with the state; and – Pursue a phased plan. 2.7.7.1 Accelerating AV Deployment Infrastructure adaptations to accelerate AV deployment include RSUs to communicate road and weather information to the AV, and better signing and striping to assist in wayfinding. Standardized, well-maintained pavement markings have been identified by the FHWA as a key contribution of the highway infrastructure to safe AV deployment (Carlson 2019). A University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) research report by Kockelman, Boyles, Stone, Fagnant, and Pateet (2017) discussed the infrastructure needs of AVs, identified various vehicle cost, technology, and regulatory challenges for AVs, and noted the advantages to AVs if the road infrastructure could provide more information to AVs in a nationally uniform manner (see Exhibit II-10). A later study reported on the results of various pilot tests of NHTSA Responsibilities State Responsibilities Setting FMVSS for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (with which manufacturers must certify compliance before they sell the vehicles). Licensing human drivers and registering motor vehicles in their jurisdictions. Enforcing compliance with FMVSS. Enacting and enforcing traffic laws and regulations. Investigating and managing the recall and remedy of non-compliances and safety-related motor vehicle defects nationwide. Conducting safety inspections, where states choose to do so. Communicating with and educating the public about motor vehicle safety issues. Regulating motor vehicle insurance and liability. Source: NHTSA (2017) Exhibit II-9. Division of vehicle safety responsibilities between state and federal agencies.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-37 technology, opinion surveys, and modeling exercises related to maximizing the benefits of AVs (Kockelman, Boyles, Sturgeon, and Claudel 2018). As stated in the UT Austin report, the general infrastructure requirement of AVs is for “clear lane markings and traffic signs,” much the same as current Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices requirements for signing and striping roads for human drivers (Kockelman, Boyles, Stone, Fagnant, and Pateet 2017). The big challenge for AVs is navigating work zones and crash sites, where temporary signing, cones, and enforcement officer controls might be less clear than permanent signs and might contradict the permanent signing and marking for the site. A 2016 University of Iowa report recommended that the state of Iowa take the following steps to prepare its physical, information, and regulatory infrastructure for AV technologies (McGehee, Brewer, Schwarz, and Smith 2016). Actions recommended in the report included the following: • Prioritize the adequate maintenance of roadways (including pavement conditions and lane markings) to improve the real-life performance of early advanced driver assistance systems; • Ensure that policies on the design of transportation infrastructure (including traffic control devices) are clear, consistent across jurisdictions, and actually followed in practice to reduce the frequency with which automated/autonomous systems must confront unusual roadway conditions; • Verify that construction crews and emergency responders follow relevant policies when working on or near active roadways to reduce unanticipated conflicts between AVs and these personnel; • Standardize the management of road- and traffic-relevant data to make these data more accessible to digital mapmakers and other potential users; AV Function Infrastructure Need Infrastructure Cost Impacts 1. Forward Collision Warning None None 2. Blind Spot Monitoring None None 3. Lane Departure Warning Lane marks Low 4. Traffic Sign Recognition Traffic sign Moderate 5. Left Turn Assist Lane marks, low Low 6. Adaptive Headlight None None 7. Adaptive Cruise Control None, possible dedicated lane Depends 8. Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control None None 9. Automatic Emergency Braking None None 10. Lane Keeping Lane marks Low 11. Electric Stability Control None None 12. Parental Control None None 13. Traffic Jam Assist Lane marks Low 14. High-Speed Automation Lane marks, traffic sign Moderate 15. Automated Assistance in Roadwork and Congestion Lane marks, beacons, guide walls High 16. On-Highway Platooning Lane marks, traffic sign Moderate 17. Automated Operation for Military None Unknown 18. Driverless Car Lane marks, traffic sign, lighting High 19. Emergency Stopping Assistance None None 20. Auto-Valet Parking Parking facilities High Source: Adapted from Kockelman et al.(2017),Table 2.4 Exhibit II-10. UT Austin assessment of AV needs for supportive infrastructure.

II-38 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation • Update existing vehicle registration databases with information about the automation capabilities of every vehicle so that police can readily distinguish between AVs and conventional vehicles; • Coordinate with national authorities on V2V and V2I communications so that this infra- structure is available to those developers who wish to use it; • Encourage automation by preparing government agencies, infrastructure, leveraging procurement, and advocating for safety mandates; • Encourage the deployment of robust wireless communications networks so that developers of automated systems can more reliably share data and updates with these systems after they have been deployed; • Make existing congestion management tools (including managed lanes) available for auto- mation-related applications to encourage these applications; and • Emphasize neighborhood designs that are consistent with low vehicle speeds to provide roadway environments conducive to early driverless systems. Guides issued by the Missouri DOT (McGehee, Brewer, Schwarz, and Walker-Smith 2018) and the Delaware DOT (Barnes, Turkel, Moreland, and Pragg 2017) emphasize the uncer- tainty in planning infrastructure improvements for AVs, citing uncertainty in communication standards, future AV sales, and AV functionalities among other issues. 2.7.7.2 Augmenting AV Benefits Infrastructure adaptations that might augment the benefits of AVs include narrower lanes, higher speed limits, remotely located AV parking garages, smaller parking garages with fewer spaces, and smaller parking spaces. These adaptations to the infrastructure, plus the closer car following distances enabled by connected AVs, might enable agencies to get by with lower infrastructure investments in the future. In addition, smarter infrastructure (sensors and controls), combined with advanced traffic, parking, and demand management strategies, can take maximum advantage of CAVs’ capa- bilities to reap substantial transportation system benefits. The magnitude of these benefits is speculative at this time; they will be greatest with a 100 percent exclusive AV vehicle fleet in the United States and are significantly reduced with a mixed human-driven and AV vehicle fleet. Even if the greatest benefits of AV technology will not be realized until later, it can be argued that current investments should anticipate these benefits. At minimum, roads, traffic management systems, parking, and charging stations could be modified in some way to better accommodate the upcoming AV fleets. Extending the argument, one could conclude that all existing infrastructure can be modified for AV/CV functionality to improve traffic operational safety and efficiency; however, this approach would be very expensive (Godsmark, Kirk, Gill, and Flemming 2015). It is possible that less highway capacity and parking capacity will be needed in the future due to the theoretically greater efficiencies of AVs. As discussed earlier, however, it may be the 2040s before AVs constitute 50 percent of new car sales, and beyond that before AVs represent 50 percent of the passenger vehicle fleet on U.S. roadways. Short of new government regula- tions requiring AV retrofits of existing vehicles or prohibitions on human drivers, planners must expect a mixed human and AV fleet (and that the transportation infrastructure must accommodate both human drivers and AVs) for the foreseeable future. 2.7.7.3 Adaptation of Infrastructure for AV Trucks Infrastructure technologies can profoundly affect the dynamics of land use. For example, a smart infrastructure could enhance AV truck platooning using V2I communications and RSUs to communicate between the trucks and the TMC (FHWA 2017).

Characteristics of New Technologies II-39 Truck platooning on freeways (wherein CAV trucks follow each other at 1-second head- ways) will work best if the connected trucks can operate in exclusive lanes without mixing with human-driven vehicles. Limited AV truck platooning could work right now, even with no modification to the infrastructure. The frequency, length, speed, and following distance of AV truck platoons would have to be limited to preserve the ability of non-platooning vehicles to enter and exit the roadway and/or lanes. Given current vehicle codes for slower moving vehicles, right- hand lane operation of CAV trucks on freeways would be significantly affected by the need to allow passenger cars and other vehicles to enter and exit the freeway at the on- and off-ramps. CAV truck speeds would likely need to be slower (to allow for mingling with human-driven vehicles), and CAV platoons would have to break up as needed to allow passenger vehicles to cross their lane. 2.7.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas Many roadway features and operating conditions are unique to rural areas and probably have yet to be the focus of AV driving algorithm and detector development. Some of these considerations include: • High-speed, two-lane rural highways with passing and no-passing zones; • Low-speed or narrow winding roads lacking a centerline, edge striping, or shoulders; • Missing guide signs and control signs; • Washouts, flooding, loose rock, and landslides; • Slow-moving and extra-wide agricultural vehicles on the road; • Bicyclists and pedestrians present in travel lanes; • The presence of cattle guards or gates; • The possibility of large and small animals in the roadway. Until these rural driving scenarios can be reliably addressed by the AV driving algorithms and proximity sensors, rural areas will be outside the operational design domain of AVs. 2.8 UAVs and Droids UAVs (also called drones) and ground-based droids often are remote-controlled by a human pilot but also can be automated and self-piloted. 2.8.1 Description UAVs and droids may be powered by gasoline or electricity (using batteries). The technology can be designed to deliver lightweight, small-sized freight over short distances, such as the last mile or the last 50 feet of a delivery. Typically, gasoline-powered UAVs or droids are used for longer distances or to carry heavier loads. UAVs are commercially available from a variety of manufacturers. 2.8.2 Deployment Status and Challenges Ground-based droids currently operate inside many large U.S. manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution facilities on private property. Aerial drones (UAVs) are currently being pilot tested for delivering lightweight, low-volume packages over short distances. Outside the United States, pilot tests of UAVs have covered longer distances, and one company is currently looking into developing versions of UAVs that can carry passengers.

II-40 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation Commercially available aerial drones can fly up to an altitude of 2,000 feet, have a range of around 1 mile, and can carry loads weighing between 1 pound and 15 pounds. The higher capacity drones have eight rotors and tend to be gasoline-powered. Military versions have greater operating altitudes, ranges, and capacities (Drone Enthusiast 2019). UAVs range widely in price from $20 for low-capacity units that have few features and a short flying time to $60,000 for Lidar-equipped versions. UAVs are regulated by the FAA. For drones weighing less than 55 pounds, the FAA has set the following rules (Dorr 2018): • The UAV must be kept in sight of the human operator; • Night flying is not allowed; • The UAV should not be flown over people; • In flight, the UAV should be limited to 400 feet above the ground or any structure; and • The maximum speed of the UAV should be limited to 100 mph. Additional air space restrictions apply in the vicinity of airports, military bases, and other sensi- tive installations, and additional rules and licensing requirements apply for larger UAVs and for operation outside of the above limits (Dorr 2018). Drones may be equipped with camera equipment, which enables their use in visual inspec- tion, monitoring, and aerial photography for a variety of purposes such as fire-fighting, infrastructure inspection, and real estate photography (National League of Cities 2016). Aerial drones are a rapidly developing and emerging technology. Differing models offer features suited to various contexts. For example, urban areas will likely require drones that can achieve vertical take-offs and landings, use small “drone ports,” and generally operate over short flight distances. Rural areas may require machines that can operate over medium or longer distances, but likely can dedicate more space for take-offs and landings and for larger drone ports. The technical challenges related to drone use are evolving with the technology. Current challenges include: • Air Traffic Management Safety Concerns. NASA and the FAA are currently working to develop an Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management System that would manage fully automated drone operation, complementing the FAA’s existing systems (International Transportation Forum 2018). • Lack of Infrastructure. Drone operations require an appropriate supporting infrastructure, including “drone ports” where drones can take off and land. The size and design of these drone ports will vary based on the land use context, the types of drones intended to use them, and the purposes the drones will serve. • Restrictions on Operations. Locational/operational regulations limit drone operations within 5 miles of an airport without advance notice. 2.8.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand Aerial deliveries may reduce urban street congestion by reducing the number of trucks, the need for curbside truck-loading zones, and the likelihood of double parking for deliveries when a loading zone is not available. When combined with internet applications that facilitate e-commerce, short-distance package delivery systems using UAVs or droids could reduce some personal travel, replacing it with freight delivery.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-41 2.8.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use UAVs may affect the location choices for freight distribution centers. Building designs may be altered to provide drone ports and UAV- or droid-accessible “smart lockers” for temporarily storing delivered goods onsite until the consignees can pick them up. 2.8.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure If UAVs become sufficiently pervasive, they may require the designation of certain height ranges over highways or roadways for exclusive UAV use. On roadways with designated UAV airspace, utility poles and bridge structures would need to be adapted or designed to avoid pen- etrating the assigned UAV airspace. 2.8.6 Implications for Logistics UAVs are likely to affect the choice of mode (ground or air) for the last-mile delivery of small-sized, low-weight goods. Depending on how UAV, droid, and smart locker technologies are combined and deployed, the sizes and locations of distribution centers also may be affected. 2.8.7 Policy and Planning Challenges The use of UAVs raises questions of safety, security, and privacy. Even a small UAV has the potential to cause serious injury if the machine collides with a person, and drones or droids may be targets of hacking and cyberattacks. Across the globe, regulations and policy frameworks vary significantly, which has led to uneven adoption of the technology for various uses. The propeller noise associated with current UAVs might be a policy and planning challenge for residential areas and quiet zones around hos- pitals and schools. In the United States, although the FAA currently states that drones cannot fly over people, it leaves decisions about privacy regulations to state and local regulators (National League of Cities 2016). 2.8.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas The greater distances typical of rural settings may be a challenge to UAV ranges. A battery tender or recharging vehicle may be required to extend the range of the equipment. UAVs crossing private property and affecting privacy may present additional enforcement challenges in rural areas. 2.9 Infrastructure Technologies—Highways/Roadways Intelligent highway system (infrastructure) technologies take advantage of the greater real- time travel activity data available from traveler devices and smarter devices in the field. These data then enable improved management methods to increase the efficiency and productivity of the transportation infrastructure. The supporting technologies that make up the intelli- gent highway system are located on the road or street, at transit stations and stops, and at the TMC. Examples of innovative highway infrastructure installations include the following (FHWA 2019b): • I-15 integrated corridor management (ICM) project in San Diego, California; • I-80 ICM project in Richmond, California;

II-42 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation • I-5, I-90, and SR-520 freeway corridor projects in Seattle, Washington; • I-35W and I-94 freeway projects in Minneapolis, Minnesota; • I-66 freeway project in Arlington, Virginia; and • US-75 ICM project in Dallas, Texas. 2.9.1 Description The emerging highway system technologies can be divided between field sensors, control devices, and informational devices. • Field Sensors. Conventional field detection technologies include loop detectors and video cameras/detectors. These detectors count all vehicles that pass through their detection field, classify them (e.g., as a truck, car, or other type of vehicle), and estimate spot speeds. Field sensors also can track the arrival and departure of transit vehicles. Installation and maintenance of field sensors is expensive for local and state agencies. Emerging detection technologies track wireless devices that people carry on their person or in their vehicle as they move through the system. These newer technologies include cell phone location tracking (location-based services) and Bluetooth device-tracking sensors. Bluetooth or cell phone detection devices can be used for measuring travel times and estimating origin-destination patterns. Because not all vehicles or people carry cell phones or Bluetooth devices, these technologies cannot be used directly to obtain counts of traffic volumes or people movements; however, they do provide a sample of all movements. These devices and how they operate are described in more detail below: – Cell phone location-based services use the data generated by cell phone apps that users install on their phones to tell them about nearby businesses. The applications send data back to the software developer that includes the location of the device in real time. The positions of cell phone devices (determined via cell tower triangulation or in-device GPS) and in-vehicle GPS tracking devices (often used for fleet management purposes) may be tracked and the data aggregated to provide real-time information on roadway/facility conditions (e.g., travel speeds, incidents, traffic volumes). Various commercial vendors have begun to aggregate and process cell phone location- based services data into link speeds and origin-destination patterns, and to license the data to public agencies and others. Because of the processing steps involved before the data can be made available to third parties, the data generally are not available to third parties on a real-time basis. – Bluetooth traffic detectors can be installed by public agencies in the field to monitor travel times. Commercial vendors offer Bluetooth traffic detectors and processing software. These data typically are used to obtain historical travel patterns, but the data also can be used by the collecting agencies to monitor traffic operations on a near real-time basis. • Control Devices. Conventional devices for controlling vehicular traffic include traffic sig- nals, stop signs, and various signs to control turns, usage (e.g., weight limits), and speeds. Emerging technologies replace the traditional static controls and signage with dynamic traffic- and weather-responsive controls using advanced control logic and dynamic message signs (DMSs). Traffic-adaptive signal controllers are one example. The United States currently has about 300,000 signalized intersections. Each year, about 2,500 additional intersections are signalized (United States Access Board 2019). During the last 20 years, agencies have installed smarter control devices that react to traffic, such as traffic-actuated traffic signals. Several larger cities in the United States have installed traffic-responsive and traffic-adaptive coordinated signal systems. FHWA and several state DOTs are currently experimenting with more intelligent control devices

Characteristics of New Technologies II-43 that take advantage of V2I communications capabilities. One example, the University of Arizona’s MMITSS, implements traffic-adaptive control signals with CV capabilities (Head 2016). – Around the United States, emerging control technologies have been applied in a variety of pilot studies. Specific examples can be found in the FHWA’s ATM Website (FHWA 2019b). – Several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wyoming, have deployed weather-responsive speed limits. The implemented strategy con- sists of a dynamic speed-limit algorithm coupled with TMC control, field sensors, and DMSs. In addition, the advanced sensing technology proactively facilitates infrastructure maintenance in response to an adverse weather condition or event, such as sending an automatic request for de-icing at a specific location. – The Minneapolis Smart Lanes project deployed on I-35W and I-94 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, uses the following ATM strategies: dynamic lane-use control, dynamic speed limits, queue warning, and adaptive ramp metering (Turnbull, Balke, Burris, and Songchitruksa 2013). The goal of the project is to use advisory speed limits to prevent crashes and increase safety based on real-time information dissemination. – As of 2017, the Delaware DOT had installed 300 miles of fiber optic cable to support intel- ligent transportation infrastructure and had plans for another 300 miles (Barnes, Turkel, Moreland, and Pragg 2017). • Informational Devices. Static signs give drivers locational and directional information. Emerging technologies replace static informational signs with dynamic, remote-controlled signs that can convey a wealth of information to drivers. DMSs (also called variable mes- sage signs or changeable message signs, depending on the locality) can provide travelers with up-to-date information about roadway traffic, work zones, weather, detours, esti- mated travel time, parking availability, and other details. These devices support intel- ligent transportation systems (ITSs) by providing drivers and passengers with real-time information. Examples of emerging traffic information technologies include DMSs posted on the side of the road or on overhead gantries. DMSs may be employed in many ways. For example: – On freeways and arterial roads, DMSs might warn of incidents and congestion ahead, sug- gest alternate routes, and give expected travel times to selected waypoints; – At transit stops, DMSs may alert passengers to when the next bus or train is expected; and – Using internet technology, similar messages also may be transmitted directly to drivers’ cell phones or to a CV dashboard. • Data Sharing. SharedStreets is a non-profit data exchange for roadways. The various public and private partners of SharedStreets contribute data on curb space demand and driving speeds (Hyatt 2018). SharedStreets provides a standardized format and tools for referencing and accessing the data. Current partners include Ford, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Uber, and Lyft. More information can be found at https://sharedstreets.io/. • Smart Highway Infrastructure. When combined with advanced system management practices (applications), smart highway infrastructure can multiply the transportation benefits of smart vehicles. The following FHWA reports provide more technical information and planning/programming guidance on smart highway infrastructure technologies: – Integrated Corridor Management: Implementation Guide and Lessons Learned, Final Report, Version 2.0, FHWA-JPO-16-280 (Christie, Hardesty, Hatcher, and Mercer 2016); – Planning for Transportation Systems Management and Operations Within Corridors—A Desk Reference, FHWA-HOP-16-037 (Bauer et al. 2016); and – Developing and Sustaining a Transportation Systems Management & Operations Mission for Your Organization: A Primer for Program Planning, FHWA-HOP-17-017 (Grant et al. 2017).

II-44 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation 2.9.2 Deployment Status and Challenges The cost of installing and maintaining field infrastructure is the largest single impediment to further deployment of advanced traffic detection, control, and information technologies. Consequently, early deployments have been limited to the most critical sections of the highway infrastructure: heavily congested freeways, generally in large urban areas. Agencies have begun to experiment with obtaining travel-time and origin-destination infor- mation from non-infrastructure sources like cell phone location data. Cell phone data, however, has not yet reached the point where it can provide complete counts of activity and information on real-time conditions as fast and as completely as field-installed sensors. 2.9.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand When combined with management strategies and applications to reduce travel time, delay, and cost, advanced highway technologies would tend to shift travel demand from the less tech- nologically advanced modes to the more technologically advanced modes. For example, technol- ogy that is used to improve travel-time reliability for automobile drivers but not so much for bus passengers will tend to shift bus passengers to the automobile mode. A net increase in overall travel demand may also occur as the infrastructure technologies are employed to reduce overall travel times and costs; however, the impacts of advanced management practices on average peak-period corridor travel times tend to be on the order of 1 percent (Alexiadis 2016). In the presence of CVs and AVs, intersection control systems could be transformed from traffic lights to optimized “slot-based intersection” systems based on coordination of groups of vehicles combined with additional considerations for pedestrians and cyclists. The new control strategy could optimize flow and safety for all modes at intersections equipped with RSUs. RSUs facilitate communications between vehicles, traffic controllers, and a TMC through low-latency DSRC or through 4G LTE and 5G. Studies of infrastructure improvements are specific to each implementation and its context. Two studies of note addressed DMSs: • The Maryland State Highway Administration evaluated the localized safety impacts of their highway DMSs from 2007 to 2010. With the DMS deployment, over the course of 4 years, the number of accidents including property damage, injuries, and fatalities decreased by 40 percent (Haghani, Hamedi, Fish, and Nouruzi 2013). • The Mississippi DOT implemented ITS via DMS to broadcast warnings of crashes, travel times to major intersections, and other important messages. The project led to a 20 percent reduction in delays. In addition to saving travel time, this project is claimed to have improved air quality, emergency response to incidents, and traffic flow during peak hours (Stone 2018). 2.9.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use New highway technologies will tend to lower travel costs where they are installed. They are expected to have regional and streetscape impacts. • Regional Impacts. Lower cost travel tends to favor longer distance travel and dispersed land uses within urban areas. Lower cost travel within urban areas compared to rural areas also can draw new development from rural areas to urban areas. Urban areas with more advanced highway technologies may draw growth from less technologically advanced urban areas. • Streetscape Impacts. Street designs may need to allocate portions of the existing or future highway ROW for the installation of the various roadside technologies, their power supplies, and their supporting communication technologies.

Characteristics of New Technologies II-45 2.9.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure Advanced technologies in the field, combined with advanced traffic management practices, have the potential to improve reliability and decrease delays. In the absence of smarter CVs and AVs, the effects will generally be marginal, on the order of 1 percent capacity improvement (Alexiadis 2016). 2.9.6 Implications for Logistics When combined with advanced traffic management and logistics applications, advanced highway technologies will tend to improve reliability and reduce costs for shipping by truck. Reduced truck shipping costs might draw shipments from other modes and increase the over- all volume of shipments by all modes. More predictable shipping times might encourage the logistics sector to consolidate its warehousing and delivery infrastructure and, perhaps, locate its distribution centers on less expensive land on the fringes of large urban areas. Freight movement, parcel companies, and telecommunication companies could benefit from the application of smart highway technologies. Commercial truck owners, truck operators and decision makers, fright management companies, and supply chains will benefit from more advanced regulatory, weather, and traffic information sharing. 2.9.7 Policy and Planning Challenges Improved highway infrastructure will reduce delays and improve reliability. These improve- ments can promote economic development. They will also tend to increase highway travel, which will increase vehicular emissions (unless there is also a shift to non-emitting vehicles). They might increase development pressure on the fringes of urban areas. State, county, city, and MPO operators of transportation facilities would be key players in advancing the implementation of smart highway technologies. 2.9.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas Advanced highway infrastructure technologies are usually targeted to congested facilities. In rural areas, congestion tends to be focused during peak summer and winter tourist sea- sons in the vicinity of major tourist attractions. Tourists, being unfamiliar to the area and often using unfamiliar (rented) vehicles, pose special challenges to the application of advanced technologies. 2.10 Infrastructure Technologies—Parking Systems As infrastructure technologies, parking system technologies resemble highway system tech- nologies in several ways: sensors to monitor parking occupancy; control devices that set and collect parking fees; and informational devices that make travelers aware of parking availability, location, and pricing. Nonetheless, because of the ways they impact travel and land use, poten- tially transformational parking system technologies merit separate examination. 2.10.1 Description Emerging informational technologies for on-street parking, off-street parking lots, and garages can guide vehicles to open parking spaces. These parking messages also may be posted on roadside variable message signs or directly transmitted to the driver’s cell phone or vehicle

II-46 Foreseeing the Impact of Transformational Technologies on Land Use and Transportation dashboard. Examples of parking system technologies in current use include SpotHero; SFpark in San Francisco, California; and the online parking reservation system offered through the DowntownLA Website in Los Angeles, California (SpotHero 2019, SFpark 2019, and DTLA 2019). Public parking systems currently tend to be focused on the personal automobile. However, in the future, they could include loading zones for trucks as well as bicycles and scooters. 2.10.2 Deployment Status and Challenges Larger urban areas have begun to see deployment of extensive advanced parking monitor- ing, information, pricing, and control systems. The primary impediment to more extensive implementation of transformational parking system technologies is cost. Cost-effectively monitoring the occupancy of individual parking spaces on-street and off-street is a major challenge. There are both up front construction/installation costs as well as ongoing operating costs. In high-density urban areas, parking fees may fully compensate for the added operating costs and perhaps eventually pay off the added costs of construction. 2.10.3 Implications for Personal Travel Demand Any system that makes it easier to park one’s personal vehicle will tend to draw travelers to that mode from other modes of travel. The new parking system technologies may also increase total travel to the area where they are deployed. The superior guidance provided by parking system applications could eliminate “circling the block” to find a parking space. 2.10.4 Implications for Transportation and Land Use By enabling agencies and the public to make better use of the available parking inventory, these new technologies may enable agencies to dedicate less street space and less land to parking vehicles. They might enable better use of remote lots. Greater deployment of advanced parking system technologies might support greater densities of development and draw some develop- ment from fringe locations back to the urban core. These new technologies might enable agen- cies to modestly reduce off-street parking requirements for new development by facilitating shared use of parking spaces. 2.10.5 Implications for Highway/Roadway Infrastructure Better parking management employing the new technologies might enable agencies to reduce the provision of curbside parking in their street cross-sections. 2.10.6 Implications for Logistics Parking technologies that enable truckers to more quickly find open loading zones and loading docks will reduce truck shipping costs and improve reliability. Reduced costs and improved reliability will increase the use of trucks for goods movement. 2.10.7 Policy and Planning Challenges Parking technologies that enable travelers to park their vehicles at lower cost will tend to draw more travelers to use that mode. Increased vehicular emissions might be associated with

Characteristics of New Technologies II-47 the increased use of vehicles. Parking technologies that require the traveler to use payment methods other than cash to park the car (e.g., to use a cell phone and a credit card number) will be inaccessible for travelers who do not have the necessary devices or accounts. 2.10.8 Special Considerations for Rural Areas Parking systems that involve any level of technology will be more expensive to operate than the free, self-serve parking lot typical of rural areas, so such systems are generally inapplicable to rural settings. Areas that are transitioning from rural to more dense development may find that parking systems enable them to accommodate greater densities using the same initial parking supply.