Skip to main content

Tag: automated vehicles

Everything we liked (and didn’t like) at Buttigieg’s Transportation Secretary confirmation hearing

Last Thursday, former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg faced the Senate for questioning on his nomination to be Secretary of Transportation. We liked almost all of his answers, and we weren’t alone: Senator Tester said Buttigieg’s testimony was “refreshing.” Here’s what T4America liked and didn’t like from Buttigieg’s confirmation hearing. 

Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg facing the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee as President Biden’s nominee to be Secretary of Transportation. Screen grab from C-SPAN.

✅ Complete Streets is a priority for Buttigieg

When answering a powerfully-worded question from Senator Schatz (D-HI), a cosponsor of the Complete Streets Act, Buttigieg confirmed his commitment to a Complete Streets approach. He even highlighted the Complete Streets projects that took place in South Bend. (Smart Growth America provided technical assistance to South Bend to pursue Complete Streets demonstration projects.)

“It’s very important to recognize the importance of roadways where pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, any other mode can coexist peacefully. And that Complete Streets vision will continue to enjoy support from me if confirmed,” Buttgieg said. 

✅  Our “autocentric view” is a problem

Doubling down on his commitment to Complete Streets, Buttigieg noted that transportation in the United States overwhelmingly prioritizes cars. “There are so many ways that people get around, and I think often we have an autocentric view that forgets historically all of the other different modes,” Buttigieg told Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN). “We want to make sure that every time we do a street design that it enables cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, and businesses and any other mode to coexist in a positive way. We should be putting funding behind that.” 

✅  Addressing past damages is a priority 

Transportation infrastructure—particularly urban highways that have demolished and divided communities of color—is sometimes a major roadblock to improving equity in this country. Buttigieg knows this and told senators so in his opening remarks. “I also recognize that at their worst, misguided policies and missed opportunities in transportation can reinforce racial and economic inequality, by dividing or isolating neighborhoods and undermining government’s basic role of empowering Americans to thrive,” Buttigieg said. 

✅  Policy hasn’t kept up with automated vehicles 

Automated vehicles (AVs) is one of the transportation technologies that often captures lawmakers’ imagination. But in response to Sen. Fischer (R-NE), Buttigieg acknowledged that the federal government has failed to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that AVs actually deliver the benefits they promise. “[AV technology] is advancing quickly and has the potential to be transformative, but in a lot of ways, policy hasn’t kept up,” Buttigieg said. 

This couldn’t be more true. After investigating deaths from two separate AV crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) billed the utter lack of federal safety performance standards as one of the causes for the fatalities. 

But proactive federal policy is needed for more than just ensuring that AVs are safe. Policy is needed to ensure that AVs are equitable, accessible, and sustainable. That’s why we joined Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and other partners in creating tenets for AV policy. 

✅  He supports passenger rail

Buttigieg said he’s the “second biggest enthusiast for passenger rail in this administration,” referring of course to President Biden, a long-time rider and fan of Amtrak, as the first.  “Americans deserve the highest standard of passenger rail,” Buttigieg said. 

When Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)—a major supporter of restoring passenger rail to the Gulf Coast—asked Buttigieg if he’s a rail rider himself, Buttigieg said he enjoys short rail trips “and long ones too.” In light of Amtrak’s proposal to cut its long-distance network, this might signal Buttigieg’s support for those critical routes.  

✅  The BUILD program should be easier to apply for

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) offers a host of grant programs for cities and towns to construct and maintain transportation infrastructure. But the application process is often daunting for smaller entities. As mayor of a small city that wasn’t able to have “full-time staff managing federal relations,” Buttigieg told Sen. Wicker (R-MS) that making BUILD and INFRA grants easier for small and rural municipalities to apply for are one of his priorities. 

“It’s very important to me that this process is user-friendly, that criteria are transparent, and that communities of every size, including rural communities and smaller communities, have every opportunity to access those funds,” Buttigieg said. 

✅  Senators on both side of the aisle support Buttigieg

Buttigieg felt the love from both sides of the aisle during his confirmation hearing, with Sen. Tester (D-MT) going as far to say that Buttigieg’s testimony should serve as a model for other nominees facing Senate approval. Sen. Wicker (R-MS) listed Buttigieg’s accomplishments in his opening statement, praising his “impressive credentials that demonstrate his intellect and commitment to serving our nation.”

With slim Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, bipartisanship will be key to passing surface transportation authorization. But historically, infrastructure is one the areas where lawmakers bipartisanly agree to pass bad policy—rather than ruffling feathers and taking a hard look at what the federal government spends money on and why. (We blogged about it here.) It will take lots of work—like the herculean effort the House underwent this summer to pass a new kind of transportation bill—to make sure that the long-term transportation bill lawmakers must pass this year actually connects funding with the outcomes Americans want.

🚫 His climate answer only mentioned electric vehicles 

When Sen. Schatz asked about Buttigieg’s approach to climate change, Buttigieg only discussed electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, and increased vehicle fuel efficiency as a solution. Yet it’s a fact that electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency—while critical—aren’t enough to reduce transportation emissions on their own. 

While we applaud Buttigieg’s support of President Biden’s “whole government” approach to addressing climate change (meaning that climate work isn’t confined to a single department like the EPA), we need Buttigieg to understand that USDOT needs to do more than invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution.

We like what we heard. Now let’s make sure it happens 

Buttigieg might be one of the most promising new Secretaries of Transportation that we’ve seen, but we must hold him accountable to following through on these initiatives. Now is not the time to lay back: we have a lot of work to do to ensure that USDOT does what it can internally to connect transportation funding to the outcomes Americans want (like our three principles) and that Congress passes a long-term transportation bill that ends decades of broken, misguided policy.

The NTSB recommends safety standards for AVs. But Congress isn’t listening.

Update, 4/10/20: Republican staff of the House Energy and Commerce committee published a blog post arguing that the COVID-19 crisis is a great opportunity to pass automated vehicle legislation that prioritizes vehicle deployment over safety. To be clear, ventilators and personal protective equipment save lives during pandemics, not AVs. Don’t exploit a crisis to advance legislation devoid of any meaningful safety standards.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found in two investigations that the lack of safety standards contributed to fatal automated vehicle crashes. And polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly want these safety standards. There’s both evidence that safety standards are needed, and a desire among the public to establish them: so why isn’t Congress including safety standards in its draft automated vehicle (AV) legislation? 

A traffic jam in Texas. Photo by Open Grid Scheduler on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

To hear some in the  automotive and technology industries tell it, the only way we can ever advance as a society and develop AVs—”innovate” as they say—is to do so in a Wild West regulatory state. No basic, minimum performance standards to keep people safe. 

And that’s exactly what Congress is planning to gift to the automated vehicle industry. Congressional committees across party lines are writing legislation that allows AV manufacturers and developers to put this new technology on the road before it’s proven to be safe. 

This is incredibly disturbing in light of new findings from the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S.’s premier transportation safety investigators. The NTSB found in not one but two investigations that the complete lack of federal safety standards contributed to fatal AV crashes. In its investigation of a fatal Tesla crash (released last week), the NTSB said that the main federal vehicle safety regulator “failed to develop a method for verifying that manufacturers … are incorporating system safeguards that are critical to ensuring the safety of the motoring public.” Translation: The federal government is doing nothing to check  that AVs are actually safe. 

The investigators at the NTSB aren’t the only ones highlighting the importance of safety standards: New polling from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety found that Americans overwhelmingly want safety performance standards for AVs. 

Yet Congress is doing the exact opposite. For the last few months, a bicameral, bipartisan group of Congressional committee staff have been drafting pieces of a potential AV bill that deploys AVs before they are proven to be safe. In the drafts released publicly, the Secretary of Transportation has 10 years to set motor vehicle safety standards; in the interim, automakers must “self-certify” that their AVs are safe by submitting test results and data—but the Secretary is prohibited from banning AVs for sale based on any of those materials. 

These drafts directly contradict what the NTSB advises and what the public wants. The NTSB has now repeatedly recommended that the federal government verify that AV manufacturers include critical safety systems in their vehicles; but the draft AV bill sections doesn’t require that the federal government do this. The NTSB recommends that the federal government test AV technology themselves; the draft bill also doesn’t require this. The NTSB recommends that the federal government use “enforcement authority” to make automakers comply with safety rules, but the draft bill doesn’t give the federal government any imminent hazard authority—nor create any safety rules to comply with. Whether or not Congress adopts these specific proposals, it should concern us all that Congress is considering legislation which fails to include any safety standards before AVs are deployed. 

Safety standards are not a lot to ask for. Without safety standards, preventable crashes will happen; people will die. Yet it seems that Congress has fallen for the siren song of automakers and tech firms, believing the marketing tale the AVs are inherently safe. If that’s the case, then what’s the harm in enshrining that safety into law with minimum safety performance standards? 

AV technology is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dramatically improve safety for all road users, not just people inside cars. And with more people dying while walking and biking than ever before, it’s an opportunity Congress would regret to miss. 

We’re not the only ones who want minimum performance safety standards. In August, we joined over 40 national advocacy groups to send a letter to Congress outlining what any AV legislation needs to guarantee safety and equitable access to this new technology. You can read that letter here.

“Voluntary safety assessments” for automated vehicles will result in more deaths

The National Transportation Safety Board agrees with T4America on automated vehicle safety: making safety assessments “voluntary” utterly fails to ensure public safety—and at least one person has already died as a result. The federal government’s current hands-off approach is unsafe for everyone, especially those outside of a car. 

A dangerous intersection in Scottsdale, AZ, near Tempe. Photo by Lawrence G. Miller on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its findings on Uber’s fatal 2018 Arizona crash, where 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg was killed by an automated vehicle (AV) while crossing the street with her bike. 

“When companies test automated vehicles (AVs) without minimum safety standards to guide them, we are virtually guaranteeing that people will be killed unnecessarily by this technology —though heralded by boosters as the technology that will end all traffic deaths,” said T4America director Beth Osborne. “While Uber was at fault in this tragic death, we are also encouraged to see a federal agency take a hard look at the underlying causes, namely the lack of uniform safety standards and the willingness of those charged with protecting the public to abdicate that responsibility and allow these companies to set the rules.” 

With no safety performance standards to speak of, Arizona—through an executive order from the governor—granted the ride-hail company the right to test AVs on all public roads, so long as a human driver is present to take over in emergencies. But that sole safety requirement failed Herzberg in numerous ways, the NTSB announced on Wednesday.  

At the time of the crash, the human safety driver was watching a video on her phone—violating the company’s policy for that position. But according to the NTSB, “The federal government also bore its share of responsibility for failing to better regulate autonomous car operations,” writes the Verge reporter Andrew J. Hawkins. T4America would add that the State of Arizona might have established such a standard before allowing AVs on their streets but similarly failed.

During the hearing this week, NTSB board member Jennifer Homendy further berated the federal government’s safety ineptitude, calling NHTSA’s automated vehicle safety plan “actually laughable. …They should rename it a Vision for Lax Safety,” she said.

The nation’s foremost transportation safety experts just called our automated vehicle regulations “laughable.” So what is Congress doing about it? Nothing. 

Fearing another safety-lite bill like the AV START Act—which lacked any safety performance standards, and merely contained “voluntary” safety assessments from automakers—Transportation for America and 46 other national groups wrote a letter to Congress spelling out exactly what needs to be in any future AV legislation to guarantee that this fledgling technology doesn’t kill people. That means concrete, enforceable performance standards, and the NTSB agrees. Such standards include “vision tests” to ensure an AV can properly identify and respond to its surroundings—including people crossing the street with their bikes, like Herzberg. (Uber’s vehicle was shockingly not even programmed to recognize Herzberg in this situation.) It also includes requirements that all AVs are built with proven safety technologies, like automatic emergency braking. 

We sent that letter in August. This month, congressional committees released three sections of a forthcoming AV bill, which show that Congress is still not getting the message and is failing to prioritize safety above all else.  

As a response, our coalition of national groups sent another letter to Congress criticizing the decision not to release the full bill and highlighting where these three sections failed. For example, the following essential components were not included in the released section: any mandatory rulemakings for necessary safety features to safeguard motorists and other road users; provisions for securing this advanced technology from cyberattacks; an explanation of how federal preemption of state laws would be avoided; how local policy control for safety on the roads would be ensured; a data sharing framework for consumers, cities, states, law enforcement, and federal regulators; adequate resources for NHTSA; and definitions of the terms used in the sections, among other issues.

Transportation for America, the 46 other national groups who joined us to fight for safety, and the NTSB agree that nobody wins when safety isn’t a priority. 

Broad coalition takes the offensive on federal automated vehicle policy

Instead of waiting for Congress to release a new bill to regulate autonomous vehicles worse than last year’s notorious AV START Act, T4America joined a diverse coalition of safety, public health, consumer, and transportation groups to urge lawmakers to take a smarter approach than last year’s reckless hands-off approach for the driverless car industry. 

We’re living through the first time in a hundred years a truly new transportation mode has hit American streets. While electric scooters, shareable mopeds, and electric bikes are all variations on a theme, automated vehicles (AVs) represent a truly transformational change to the world of mobility.

Yet federal policy hasn’t kept up. Current long-term transportation policy law—The FAST Act— which passed in 2015, didn’t even mention the phrase “automated vehicles.” When Congress did finally attempt to set basic rules for them, the House unanimously passed a bill before anyone knew what was in it and then the Senate attempted to pass the AV START Act. Both bills were a giveaway to the nascent industry which would have allowed hundreds of thousands of AVs on the road while preempting states and localities from not only regulating the vehicles in their jurisdictions, but even from knowing basic information about where and how they are operating.

But this issue isn’t going away. And if advocates fail to engage with Congress on this policy, these vehicles could undermine safety, exacerbate inequities, and worsen land-use policies that promote sprawl and create congestion. Rather than waiting for Congress, T4America and a host of other advocates want to do things differently this time. Instead of fighting to stop dangerous legislation from passing, T4America would rather fight for a bill that the public can support because they know it’s clearly in their best interests and protects their safety above all else.

We teamed up with a variety of stakeholders—including Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, National League of Cities, and the League of American Bicyclists—to send a letter to Congress with specific AV policy recommendations. The final letter was signed by 47 national groups with a range of interests, and it covered seven broad recommendations, all of which were either ignored or handled poorly in last year’s legislation:

Any federal AV legislation must prioritize safety for motorists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, transit riders, and cyclists; ensure access for everyone including people with disabilities; protect local control; and provide appropriate data to consumers and local authorities while also equipping the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the resources and authorities it needs to oversee this new technology.

AVs are certainly complicated, but getting the policy right shouldn’t be that difficult. But it does require an open, deliberative process of gathering feedback from everyone with a stake in how they’re rolled out and how they operate. 

For a new transportation mode that has the power to dramatically reshape our communities, Congress can’t just ask the industry what they think and then hastily rush a bill through based on their limited feedback. We need our deliberative bodies to do better.  By keeping safety at the forefront, we can craft legislation that works for everyone. 

We are optimistic we can work together with Congress on a bill that enhances the federal government’s ability to regulate auto safety, protects states and local governments’ authority to promote safety for all road users in their communities, and ensures that this new transportation technology is accessible to everyone. 

The full letter with the list of all signatories can be found here.

Ten things to know about USDOT’s new framework to guide the future of automated vehicles

The USDOT’s newly released policy guidance for automated vehicles is consistent with Congress’ attempts to limit regulations and give private industry carte blanche to operate mostly in secret with little public oversight.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0, the Department’s latest effort to try and describe a plan for integrating automated vehicles. This updated version of 2017’s Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety fails to answer basic questions, leaves local communities with few tools to safely integrate this technology onto their roads, and puts private industry in control of what data local communities can access about automated vehicles.

This policy guidance is voluntary, but it does start to provide a big-picture view of how USDOT is approaching this emerging industry at the same time that Congress is trying to pass their first comprehensive law to regulate it. Here are 10 key things you need to know about this guidance:

1) USDOT is doing nothing to help states and cities receive vital data on AV operations

Local governments recognize that in order to properly manage their roadways, ensure safety for all, and provide service to the residents who face the most transportation barriers (low-income people, communities of color, and people with disabilities), they need data on operations and travel patterns of automated vehicles. Yet this guidance is virtually silent on this critical issue, only restating the principles outlined in 2.0 for developing “voluntary data exchanges.”

This is simply unacceptable.

Without a robust federal framework to set expectations and requirements for sharing data, the likeliest outcome is that local communities will be pitted against each other in a race to the bottom to attract AV companies by enacting little to no regulation, thus ensuring the public will stay in the dark about AV deployment on their local roadways, leaving millions of Americans in harm’s way. Such was the case with Arizona’s move to create a highly permissive and opaque regulatory climate, where a pedestrian was struck and killed by an automated Uber earlier this year.

2) Public safety officials will be left in the dark

Tacked onto the very end of the guidance is a section in which USDOT encourages “engagement” with first responders and public safety officials. However, once again, the guidance does not provide any instruction or best practices for how manufacturers, communities, and public safety officials should engage with one another. Further, without access to data, public safety officials will have zero idea about how these vehicles are operating and will likely be unable to fully execute their responsibilities.

3) It ignores the impact on land use and curb space in cities

The guidance contains 120 words on two of the most pressing impacts of automated vehicles for cities: land use and curb space. Continuing with the theme, the guidance tells cities to consider the implications of automated vehicles on the built environment, but doesn’t provide cities any of the tools (like data) necessary to do so.

4) Automation will almost certainly increase congestion, but that’s just a problem for cities to figure out on their own

The guidance contains even fewer words—only 85!—on the congestion impacts of automated vehicles. USDOT correctly notes that automated vehicles can create an entirely new problem of zero occupancy vehicle trips and potentially drive riders away from transit, further increasing vehicle miles traveled and road congestion, but does little to even start a discussion about how to deploy AVs without increasing congestion.  A study from the SFCTA released just a few weeks ago noted that the overwhelming majority of new congestion on San Francisco County’s streets are due to ridesourcing companies, the same companies most eager to deploy AVs on a wide scale. We are working hard through our Smart Cities Collaborative to help communities plan for integrating automated technology without increasing congestion, but communities need USDOT to provide more than a one-paragraph acknowledgement that there may be an issue.

NTSB investigators in Arizona examining the automated Volvo operated by Uber that killed a pedestrian. Photo by the NTSB.

5) Safety assessments are still voluntary—and not that helpful

Previous iterations of federal AV guidance encouraged manufacturers to provide “voluntary safety assessments” to help build “public trust, acceptance, and confidence through transparent testing and deployment of ADSs [automated driving systems].”

If you tell your kids that making their beds is voluntary, do you think most will still go to the trouble? Only a few of the companies that are testing have even met this low bar, and most are just glossy marketing docs with little to no substantive information. This new guidance encourages manufacturers to make these voluntary safety assessments public, but if a manufacturer fails to provide a useful assessment and make it easy for the public to find and understand, there are no repercussions. It’s also important to note that the template from NHTSA isn’t really asking for the kind of information that would be most helpful for the public.

6) USDOT will adapt definitions for “driver” and ”operator” to incorporate driverless vehicles, but crucially fails to define “performance.”

This action, while a potentially useful step that recognizes a changing world, does not address an even bigger question about terminology: how to interpret the word “performance”. Why is the definition of this single word important? The AV legislation currently being considered by Congress (The AV Start Act) would preempt most state and local laws and regulations that affect the “design, construction, or performance” of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system.

“Performance” has traditionally referred to the mechanical operation of a vehicle or vehicle component. But now, given that the driver of AVs will be both mechanical and software-based in nature, the lack of a definition for “performance” in the AV START Act (or any other federal law for motor vehicles) will likely lead to lengthy and costly legal fights over the definition and whether or not proposed state and local laws or regulations will affect it.

While USDOT acknowledges that they want to “strike the appropriate balance between the federal government’s use of its authorities…and the State and local authorities’ use of their traditional powers,” the guidance provides no indication of how USDOT’s views on what the appropriate roles are for federal, state, and local governments. The lack of clarity is a significant concern for local communities who are left unsure if current control over their roads will, in the end, apply to this new technology.

7) USDOT says it already has the authority to set testing and regulatory standards for vehicles configured without human controls. What?

If true, this begs the question: why do we even need federal AV legislation? This guidance states that, for high-level and full automation, “NHTSA’s current safety standards constitute an unintended regulatory barrier to innovation” and that, “in an upcoming rulemaking, NHTSA plans to seek comment on proposed changes to particular safety standards to accommodate automated vehicle technologies and the possibility of setting exceptions to certain standards.” If USDOT feels that they (through NHTSA) already have this authority to set safety standards for AVs, why are the House and Senate even considering legislation? The guidance is completely silent on further explaining this critical topic for local communities and the public.

8) USDOT wants to update the federal manual that governs street design to “take into account” automated driving

As with anything, the devil is in the details. AV 3.0 provides no details on when or how the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) will be updated, only that the FHWA is conducting research. As previously stated, this guidance does nothing to provide communities with data about how automated vehicles are performing, so how would communities or even the FHWA have the foggiest idea what kinds of updates are required for the MUTCD to incorporate AVs in a productive and safe way?

9) The guidance advises state legislatures to adopt common terminology and assess roadway conditions

USDOT really leaves states holding the bag with this one. The guidance tells states to use voluntary, consensus-based terminology when discussing automated vehicles. While it provides an example, in practice, it allows 50 states to select 50 different ways of discussing this new technology.  In the next paragraph, the guidance states that “states may want to assess roadway readiness for automated vehicles, as such assessments could help infrastructure for automated vehicles, while improving safety for drivers today.”  How would states or cities have any idea how to “assess roadway readiness” considering that the guidance (as with the AV START Act,) completely and utterly fails to provide communities with any data about how and where automated vehicles are operating?

10) Complete Streets get a welcome shout out, but only in the “transit” section.

We were pleased to see that this guidance recognized the value of complete streets policies in improving safety. However, the guidance refers to these  policies only in the context of transit, in encouraging transit providers to review complete streets policies when planning for automation. Complete streets are a proven tool to make streets and cities safer, with or without transit or automation, and the most potentially dangerous impacts of AVs will be felt by those who are not driving and attempting to share the road with them while walking and biking, as well as taking transit.

Fundamentally flawed bill to govern automated vehicles springs back to life

A Senate bill that would leave cities, states, and the public in the dark while handing the keys to the self-driving auto industry has returned in the 11th hour, with the Senate considering a move to expedite its passage by attaching it to a huge must-pass aviation bill. (Updated: 9/18/2018)

NTSB investigators in Arizona examining the automated Volvo operated by Uber that killed a pedestrian. Photo by the NTSB.

Update (9/18/2018): Bloomberg reported today that the AV Start Act would NOT be attached to the FAA authorization bill, after a decision made by committee chairman Sen. John Thune. While the bill is still not dead, that likely ends the chance of passage anytime soon. Thanks to all of you who called or wrote your Senators.

—

After being shelved earlier this year in response to widespread concerns about its hands-off approach to regulating automated vehicles, the AV START Act appears to have only been “mostly dead,” and as we all know, mostly dead is also partly alive.

In response to rumblings that the Senate is considering attaching the AV START Act to the Federal Aviation Administration’s multi-year reauthorization that must pass before the end of September, T4America today resent a letter from May to Senators reminding them that the AV START Act is still “a fundamentally flawed bill that will put hundreds of thousands of automated vehicles (AVs) on the roads, keep local governments and the public from knowing much about where and how they are operating, while preempting cities and states from overseeing how and where these vehicles operate in their communities.”

We originally sent this letter to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation back in May, after which time the bill appeared to be put on the backburner due to the concerns of T4America and numerous other groups — as well as the lack of a clear champion on the Hill. One of our biggest concerns with Congress’ approach at the time was that the final product was not the result of methodical policymaking, gathering robust feedback from everyone with a stake, and forging a true bipartisan consensus.

The process was instead largely influenced by the tech and auto industry and the final bill was the product of an unfortunate lack of interest from Congress on a critical issue that could reshape our towns and cities.

The most concerning issue is that the bill would essentially codify into federal law the same statewide approach that allowed self-driving vehicles to operate in Arizona with few regulations, almost no oversight, and no ability for local communities to even learn basic details about where and how these vehicles are operating.

As we all remember, that approach resulted in tragedy. From our letter:

Americans were deeply troubled after an AV operated by Uber struck and killed a woman in Tempe, AZ. Videos of the incident show the vehicle made no attempt to slow down before the crash and the safety driver failed to take control of the vehicle. It is clear that both the technology and the human safety driver failed, resulting in a tragic fatality. Reports after the fatality suggest that Uber had data indicating its vehicles were underperforming. Unfortunately, Arizona and many other states do not require AV operators to disclose any data regarding their performance. This leaves everyone in the dark about whether it is safe to move about our communities and creates a climate of secrecy around AV testing and deployment.

If you create a system that 1) allows mistakes to happen, and 2) intentionally keeps the public in the dark, there’s no way to be sure that anyone is going to learn a thing, much less feel confident that the public will be protected first and foremost.

As currently written, there is nothing in the AV START Act that would help cities, states, law enforcement, or even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) learn from these incidents or develop policies and safety regulations to prevent similar crashes in the future.

The Senate might be making a decision about whether or not to include this bill in the FAA authorization as soon as this afternoon, but the FAA authorization is unlikely to pass before its September 30 deadline, so get your calls in whenever you can.

Call your Senator’s office today and share this simple message with them:

  • Hi, my name is ___ and I’m calling from ___
  • I’m calling to let Senator ___ know that the Senate should NOT expedite the passage of the AV START Act by including it in the aviation bill.
  • The AV START Act will put hundreds of thousands of automated vehicles (AVs) on the roads, keep local governments and the public from knowing much about where and how these vehicles are operating, and preempt cities and states from any oversight.
  • This bill was produced too quickly, with too little input from local leaders or the people who will be most affected by this hands-off approach to letting the industry operate with almost no oversight. It
  • Please return it to committee and urge them to produce something thoughtful by working closely with the local and state transportation leaders who stand ready to address these problems.

Setting effective data standards for new mobility providers

When transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft came into cities earlier this decade, they refused to share data with cities, which has presented a major challenge for cities trying to assess their impacts. As new modes such as bikeshare, microtransit, and automated vehicles enter our communities, will this happen again?

Transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft have been operating in many cities for the greater part of a decade. Though they’ve changed the face of transportation, cities are still trying to determine whether (or how) TNCs are adding to congestion, cannibalizing transit or active transportation, or affecting equity. This is principally due to the fact that these companies have largely refused to share data with the communities they’re operating within. Without this clear understanding, cities haven’t been able to respond accordingly and mitigate any negative impacts of these technologies—or foster beneficial ones.

Whether it’s protecting trade secrets, consumer privacy or fear of public data requests, or even that it’s cumbersome and cities don’t know how to use the data, TNCs have provided countless justifications for withholding this information. Unfortunately, this approach has set the tone for other startups and new mobility operators.

As cities consider how to permit, procure, and deploy new mobility options such as microtransit, bikeshare, or automated vehicles (AVs), strong data-sharing requirements will allow cities to better understand and adapt to their impacts and proactively plan for their future. It’s also a critical tool for collaborating and sharing their experience with other communities as cities collectively determine best practices for implementing these technologies.

Through tools such as General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) and General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS), cities have been able standardize and share data with each other and improve their internal operations. At the same time, organizations such as Shared Streets are working to develop a universal language so cities, private companies, and others can be assured they’re talking about the same things in the same way.

To enable more consistent data sharing between the public and private sector and across communities, during our next Smart Cities Collaborative meeting this July in Seattle, we’ll start developing a set of data sharing standards for new mobility options. This process will begin by determining the outcomes cities want from these new modes, and then identify what data cities will need to track, the data they’re currently collecting, and which data are being created by each new mode that they’re not currently collecting. From this we’ll determine a baseline set of data that cities should be requiring from each of these modes.

What are cities in the Collaborative already doing? We spoke with a few of our member cities to see how they’re approaching data collection for bikeshare, microtransit, and AV pilots and what they’ve learned so far.

Bikeshare

While cities have struggled to negotiate data sharing contracts with TNCs, they’ve found more success with new modes when they’ve been able to set the tone of these conversations with a clear vision of what they want.

Cities have done a good job of this with bikeshare providers. In Washington, DC, for example, the city began its Capital Bikeshare program with fairly robust data collection, but hadn’t figured out how to use it yet. Often this had to do with data reporting that was not refined to be most helpful to the city, or that the city did not have a consistent standard for talking about the specific data it was receiving. Over the course of the program, “we’ve gotten better at sharpening our pencil to define, for example, what counts as a trip,” says Kim Lucas, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Specialist at the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). “We’ve used an iterative process to tweak our methodology over time and understand those nuances,” in order to improve data collection practices.

In 2017, when DDOT began to develop terms for a dockless bikeshare pilot program, it applied its lessons learned for these new operators, but also took the opportunity to look at additional data that could be gathered as well. “We’ve gotten a lot out of freely available data with Capital Bikeshare. With dockless, we knew there was a desire to have publicly available data from our community, so we took suggestions to understand the data they want and how they would want it,” says Lucas. Both in the city and the community at large, open data from bikesharing had become part of the culture, and DDOT leveraged their past experience and current community needs to set a clear standard for the data new providers would have to share.

DDOT isn’t alone in using its authority to set clear and consistent data standards for new dockless bikeshare operators. The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) published its bike share permit requirements last June, which set out a clear framework for their operations and established what data companies would need to provide. Since then, cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have created their own permitting processes that similarly govern data collection and sharing, often similar to Seattle’s model.

Microtransit

While cities are comfortable setting the terms for deployment with bikeshare and are learning and borrowing from one another, this comfort has not fully crossed over into other modes.

The City of West Sacramento, CA launched a microtransit pilot in May with Via. Through the pilot, the city receives data on pickup and drop-off location requests, the number of passengers per ride, travel time and distance, fares paid, whether a wheelchair accessible vehicle was used, and aggregated data on ridership trends.

In determining the data to collect, the city “developed an agreement for a discrete dataset that we knew we wanted, but also built in language committing Via to work in earnest to provide additional data (or a sufficient proxy) as other available data emerges over time—whether unforeseen or otherwise excluded—which could inform broader transportation planning and investments decisions,” says Sarah Strand, Assistant Transportation Planner for the City of West Sacramento. The city set out initial terms for data collection, recognized that it would need more, and built that into the contract in order to enable the program to evolve to further help it understand the impact of this new mode.

If the provider isn’t willing, setting these terms isn’t enough. Last year, Lone Tree, CO launched its Link On-Demand service in partnership with Uber to provide shared, on-demand rides throughout the city. While the pilot was one of the first of its kind, it only got off the ground because the city backed down on its data concerns.

“We had to make a choice—were we going to let data stop us from doing the pilot?” says Jeff Holwell, Economic Development Director for the City of Lone Tree, recalling initial conversations with Uber. While the city was able to launch a pilot, and is able to receive some data because pilot vehicles are city owned, it’s not getting the necessary information to fully understand how well the pilot is operating and how it might be improved, scaled, or iterated over time.

This is a problem not only for the city, but for the many other communities interested in similar pilots for on-demand, dynamically routed vehicles. These are brand new technologies that both the public and private sector is still figuring out how to operate. Without this data, cities won’t know how to replicate similar projects in their own communities or modify them to unlock the positive benefits of these technologies. Instead, companies know cities want these technologies in their communities and use the leverage to bully them into agreements that are entirely on their terms.

Automated vehicles

Like many TNCs and some microtransit providers, AV companies have also been extremely reluctant to share their data.

Some cities, such as San Jose, CA, are working on AV pilots with robust and flexible data sharing agreements. Last year, the city released a Request for Information (RFI) for an AV demonstration project. Since the release, the city has worked with potential providers to clarify its goals of increasing transit and reducing single-occupancy drivers, while addressing the larger question of how well AVs operate in the right-of-way. “The question we’re asking is, what impact will AVs have and how can we make it positive?” says Jill North, Innovation Program Manager with the City of San Jose.

To answer this, San Jose is prioritizing providers that are willing to help by sharing their data. “We want to collaborate and figure things out together,” says North of the city’s plans for data collection. “We want a provider we can learn with and help us understand the correlations we’re not thinking about.” With clear outcomes in mind, the city will keep its data sharing open and fluid to learn and adapt along the way.

Information from San Jose’s pilot will help other cities design their own AV projects. And while San Jose has been very intentional in using its authority to get the data it needs, unfortunately this represents a stark difference from other cities with AVs testing in their communities.

In Tempe, AZ and Pittsburgh, PA, where data sharing wasn’t required as an initial part of testing agreements, they have struggled to understand how and where these vehicles are operating in their communities, as evidenced by Uber’s refusal to share data in the immediate aftermath of the crash that killed Elaine Herzberg in Tempe, AZ in March 2018.

Refusing to require or share data, especially on disengagements and crashes, not only harms the communities developing best practices and considering street redesigns to accommodate these vehicles, but also prevents other operators from learning from potentially fatal crashes.

Preventing a race to the bottom

Private providers are gathering data and learning everywhere they’re testing, but cities are not. When cities don’t get data from these private providers, it not only hamstrings their own ability to adapt to these modes, but it hurts other cities when they’re unable to learn from each other. Even if they don’t know the entirety of the data they want from private providers, they can begin the conversation with clear outcomes in mind and set the stage for success.

Additionally, in order to increase their leverage, cities, transit agencies, and others need to stand together on the need for data in their regulations, permitting processes, and procurement to realize the potential and understand the impacts of these new modes.

Working together will also prevent a race to the bottom where companies run rampant through our communities and share zero data. Cities like Lone Tree should not have to be in a position where they are forced to choose between running a pilot and receiving helpful data. Private providers need to be partners in the cities they’re operating in, and they should not be able to freely roll into cities, testing their products in the public right-of-way without providing any data in return to local governments.

This requires the public and private sector to come together on data sharing and determine a way forward that benefits both parties. Local governments need to truly understand what’s happening in their communities and work to optimize and harmonize these new modes. Private sector companies will also benefit as providing data can help cities tie these new modes to transit, upgrade the appropriate infrastructure, develop new policies for curb management, encourage modal shift, and more.

Recently developed dockless bikeshare and scooter permit processes and regulations are showing that cities and the private sector can work together effectively and in a way that meets both their needs. In order to realize the full benefits of this technology, and to enhance safe, equitable, and affordable transportation access in communities across the country, cities and the private sector will need to replicate these lessons for additional modes.

T4America Statement on Senate Commerce AV START Markup

press release

On Wednesday, October 4, the Senate Commerce Committee marked up and approved the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. Beth Osborne, senior policy advisor for T4America, offered this statement in response.

“We share the committee’s enthusiasm about the potential of automated vehicles (AVs) to reduce fatalities and improve access to necessities for all Americans. However, today’s committee markup is emblematic of what has been troubling about this entire process — it has all been too rushed and the process is too opaque.

“The committee is not listening to nor addressing the concerns expressed by city and state leaders who are ultimately responsible for the roads where these vehicles will operate. The preemption language in this bill challenges their ability to regulate their own roads and, without requirements to share any data on their operations, creates a climate of secrecy around AV testing or deployment. This approach is unlikely to win the public trust, which will be necessary to successfully bring these vehicles to market.

“Neither this bill nor its House counterpart is a product of methodical policymaking, gathering robust feedback from everyone involved, and forging a true bipartisan consensus. It’s more the product of an unfortunate lack of interest on a critical issue that could reshape our towns and cities.

“Local and state transportation leaders stand ready to address these problems before work on the bill is completed — or whenever the auto industry and Congress realize the confusion and problems this approach creates.”

###

Senate revises bill on automated vehicles but fails to address the primary concerns of cities and states

press release

On Wednesday, October 4, the Senate Commerce Committee will mark up the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. A revised draft was released by the committee on September 29.

In numerous meetings with the Senate Commerce Committee, staff have agreed with us that cities and states must maintain their existing authority to manage the operation of all vehicles on their road networks. Unfortunately, the revised draft introduced last week does not reflect this.

“We appreciate that the committee heard our concerns on preemption, but they merely replaced their preemption language with language from the House bill, which still puts just as many cities and states at risk of losing control of their roads,” said Beth Osborne, Senior Policy Advisor of Transportation for America. “That House bill, and the preemption language within it, was hastily assembled and rushed through a House committee overnight with no time for comment or thoughtful debate from city or state transportation officials or law enforcement.”

The Senate bill restricts local governments from passing or enforcing any laws that are an “unreasonable restriction on the design, construction, or performance” of an automated vehicle. Without defining what “unreasonable restriction” or “performance” means, the language enables an endless series of lawsuits and leaves the management of our roads in the hands of judges.

Automated vehicles should be tested in real-world situations, but proper management and public safety should be paramount. This requires manufacturers sharing information on how these vehicles are operating and where they are struggling to keep up with the rules of the road with the agencies charged with managing those roadways. Merely requiring a publicly available safety report once a year does not cut it. Without access to real-time or near-real-time data on how these vehicles move throughout our streets, city and state governments as well as law enforcement will be unable to enforce their laws or adapt their infrastructure designs and investments in a timely way to ensure these vehicles have the necessary tools on the road to operate safely.

“Automated vehicles have the potential to make our cities safer, more efficient, and more economically productive, and cities want to do their part to bring this new technology to our streets,” said Linda Bailey, Executive Director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). “The legislation as currently written hinders this progress — weakening instead of strengthening cities’ and states’ ability to engage with private partners on safe operations and data sharing.”

This new technology is exciting and poised to have dramatic impacts on the safety of our streets in the long-term. But in the short-term, we need to give our cities and states — where these vehicles are operating — the authority and information to ensure their safety. Getting this right requires tackling challenges head on, and we’re disappointed the committee has chosen to run away from them.

###

About T4A

Transportation for America is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions — because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity. Visit t4america.org

About NACTO

NACTO is an association of 55 North American cities formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization’s mission is to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life. To learn more, visit nacto.org.

Contact: Alexander Engel
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
alex@nacto.org 

 Contact: Steve Davis
Transportation for America
202-971-3902
Steve.davis@t4america.org

Take action on Senate automated vehicles bill that would would leave cities, states, and the public in the dark

Congress is on the cusp of passing the very first federal law to regulate automated vehicles (AVs). Unfortunately, a Senate committee has produced a law that would leave cities, states, and the public in the dark while handing the keys to the industry.

Flickr photo by Ed and Eddie. Source

The AV START bill could put hundreds of thousands of AVs on the roads, preempt states and cities from having any oversight on how those vehicles operate, and keep the public from accessing any of the valuable data about where and how they are operating.

The Senate Commerce Committee will be considering this bill on Wednesday, October 4. Write your Senators today and urge them to reconsider and improve their approach.

Thus far, Congress has hastily legislated on a complicated issue with impacts that will be felt for decades primarily by people and groups who were never invited into the room.

Any state and local laws for AVs could be at risk if they are found to be an “unreasonable restriction” — vague language that will almost certainly lead to costly legal battles.

For example, if a city wants to prevent empty AVs from endlessly circling their streets or keep them from operating on certain streets, they could be left with no recourse for setting local policies to do so.

When it comes to safety, cities (and others) also need access to data on these vehicles’ performance on their own streets. Is there a particular intersection that’s more dangerous than others for automated vehicles? They’ll have no way to find out on their own.

While the bill does require manufacturers testing AVs to report all crashes to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and produce a publicly available annual safety report, there are no requirements for sharing more robust real-time or near-real-time data with cities or states. This ensures that no one other than the private companies doing the testing will be able to learn anything from the massive amounts of data produced by the tests.

In order to create more hospitable conditions for all modes of travel — especially AVs — cities and states need these data to inform and optimize their planning, policymaking and operations to prepare for the coming wave of automation.

Take action and tell the Senate that they need to do better — this issue has the potential to dramatically reshape our cities in profound ways.

Member Policy Report – Week of September 22nd

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes policy updates and summaries to inform your work. Check out the latest on Automated Vehicles and TIGER Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Senate Bill on Automated Vehicles

On Friday, September 8th the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) released draft legislation to set new federal regulations for automated vehicles (AVs). The bill would set nationwide policy for AVs and preempt state and local requirements; significantly expand the number of test vehicles allowed on the roads; and limit data sharing requirements. AV manufacturers and operators have advocated for a single, national set of rules. T4America and our partners are concerned that this bill cuts out local governments and undermines safety in our communities. T4America has been working with the Senate to ensure local governments preserve their authority to control their roadways, and improve data collection and sharing about autonomous vehicles.

A detailed summary of the draft bill is included below.

Background

On Friday, September 8, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee released a draft of their automated vehicle legislation. Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) have been leading the legislative efforts on automated vehicles in the Senate.

T4America expects the sponsors to release an updated bill draft this week. This revision may address some of the concerns raised by stakeholders, including T4America. The Commerce Committee is expected to markup the revised bill next week.

The release of the Senate discussion draft follows action in the House of Representatives, which on Wednesday, September 7 passed by voice vote their bipartisan automated vehicle legislation, H.R. 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act.

The impetus for both bills comes from a desire from manufacturers and operators of automated vehicles to move away from the current patchwork of state rules and regulations over testing and deployment of automated vehicles, and instead establish a relatively uniform standard at the federal level.

What T4America is Doing

T4America is working with the 16 cities in our Smart City Collaborative (SCC) and a number of partners including the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO), the National League of Cities (NLC), and New York City to give feedback to the Senate Commerce Committee on the concerns we have about the discussion draft, and push our proposed legislative language changes. We met with both majority and minority Committee staff on Friday and the Committee seemed receptive to some of our concerns around preemption and data sharing.

Additionally, we have met with staff for numerous Senators on the Commerce Committee about the discussion draft, including staff from Senators Nelson (D-FL), Baldwin (D-WI), Peters (D-MI), Cantwell (D-WA), Duckworth (D-IL), Klobuchar (D-MN), Markey (D-MA), Blumenthal (D-CT), Cortez Masto (D-NV), Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Blunt (R-MO).

What is in the bill

The Senate discussion draft does a number of things including:

  • Delineating the federal and state/local roles when it comes to regulating automated vehicles via a pre-emption clause;
  • Establishing a specific exemption from federal motor vehicle safety standards to test automated vehicles;
  • Raising the number of safety exemptions a manufacturer can get to test vehicles to 100,000 over three years; and
  • Establishing an automated vehicle advisory committee to advise the Secretary of U.S. DOT on a number of issues related to automated vehicles.

Preemption

The Senate draft preempts any state or local government from passing a new, or enforcing an existing, law or regulation in any of the nine categories of data that manufacturers are required to submit to the Secretary of Transportation as part of the Safety Evaluation Report required in section 9 of the draft. The nine areas preempted in the draft bill are:

  • How the AV avoids safety risks, including whether its safety systems are functioning properly;
  • Data collection of an AV’s performance, including its crashes and disengagements;
  • Cybersecurity;
  • Human-machine interface;
  • Crashworthiness;
  • Capabilities of the automated vehicle;
  • Post-crash behavior;
  • Compliance with traffic laws and rules of the road; and
  • The behavior and operation of the AV during on- or off-road testing, including an AV’s crash avoidance capability.

The stated intent is to apply the existing federal-state preemption framework, which mainly deals with the design, construction and performance of vehicles, to automated vehicles. However, as written the preemption language seems to be broader than the existing framework because it would preempt any state or local law and regulation related to the areas listed above, rather than just laws dealing with the design, construction or performance of automated vehicles in those areas.

Safety Evaluation Report

The Senate discussion draft requires that manufacturers must submit a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to the U.S. DOT Secretary in order to receive the exemption to test AVs. The bill specifies that the manufacturer’s SER should provide a description of how the automated vehicle would address the same nine areas mentioned above.

The discussion draft also requires the Secretary to make this data publicly available. However, the draft requires the Secretary to redact the data considered to be a trade secret or confidential business information The bill prohibits the Secretary from conditioning pre-approval of the testing, deployment, or sale of automated vehicles to consumers on a review or approval of the Safety Evaluation Report submitted by manufacturers.

Data Sharing

Other than the SER that operators must submit to U.S. DOT, the discussion draft includes no requirements that operators or manufacturers of automated vehicles share any data with the states, localities, or law enforcement organizations in the places they are testing or deploying automated vehicles.

Automated vehicle technology has the potential to provide aggregated information about how people and goods move through our streets, but without access to these data, city and state governments will be blind to the impacts of emerging transportation technologies.

Data on vehicle collisions and near-misses allows cities to proactively redesign dangerous intersections and corridors to ensure safety for all street users. Understanding vehicle movement at the corridor level provides immense value for governments and citizens. Real-time data on vehicle speeds, travel times and volumes has the potential to inform speed limits, manage congestion, uncover patterns of excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street redesign projects and ultimately improve productivity and quality of life.

Because of the importance of real-time data, T4America and our partners are urging the Committee to include data sharing requirements which protects the privacy of users and legitimate trade secrets while providing states, municipalities and law enforcement the real time data necessary to ensure the safety of AVs in their communities. Such data would potentially cover areas like the number of crashes and disengagements an AV has had, the types of roads AVs have had problems on and the weather conditions at the time of a crash or disengagement.

Level of Exemptions

The bill would allow manufacturers to apply for an exemption from federal motor vehicle safety rules to test automated vehicles. Over a period of three years, the Senate draft would raise the cap on exemptions per manufacturer for testing automated vehicles forty-fold, from 2,500 to 100,000. There are potentially up to 20 manufacturers interested in testing automated vehicles, so if each manufacturer maximizes the 100,000 exemptions allowed, that could be up to 2 million automated vehicles testing on the road. There are no restrictions in the bill on where automated vehicles could test or restrictions on how many automated vehicles could be tested in a given area. Theoretically, a manufacturer could test all 100,000 vehicles in one city or state.

Automated Vehicle Advisory Committee

The Senate discussion draft proposes a new “Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Safety Committee” to advise the U.S. DOT Secretary on a host of issues related to the safety of automated vehicles. The discussion draft specifies that the Secretary shall select 12 members of the Committee drawing from industry, safety advocates, or state and local government representatives. The bill does not specify committee memberships for specific groups, however. Theoretically, the Secretary could appoint all 12 members from industry and zero from state and local governments or vice versa.

Commercial Vehicles

One issue totally left out of the Senate discussion draft is whether commercial vehicles (defined as motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds) should be included in this bill, which is a controversial topic. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing this past Wednesday specifically to examine whether commercial vehicles should be included in the bill. A number of witnesses, including the American Trucking Association, urged the Committee to include commercial vehicles, so that remains a possibility as the legislative process in the Senate moves forward. From our understanding, Chairman John Thune (R-SD) would like the legislation to include trucks while Democrats, including Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) are vehemently opposed to including automated trucks in this draft. If trucks are included in the draft, staff from Democratic offices have indicated that any chance of bipartisan support for the bill would go away.

Conclusion

There is tremendous interest in Congress in speeding up the testing and deployment of automated vehicles because of the concerns of industry that the U.S. is falling behind other countries because of a lack of a national regulatory framework for AVs. Additionally, Congress is excited about the life-saving and revolutionary benefits AVs can bring in terms of motor vehicle safety and expanding mobility options for the people with disabilities, seniors, and other groups that may not drive or have access to a car. Therefore, legislation in some form around AVs is likely to become law. Right now, Congress is trying to strike the right balance between deploying these AVs as fast as possible while making sure they are tested and deployed in the short term in a safe manner that doesn’t endanger the safety of other persons because of the problems and unforeseen issues that arise when testing a new technology.

TIGER Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)

As a reminder, U.S. DOT recently released the FY 2017 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for the $500 million TIGER program. U.S. DOT will evaluate projects based on the extent to which they benefit safety, economic competitiveness, state of repair, quality of life and environmental sustainability. These are the same selection criteria used in the TIGER rounds from 2014, 2015, and 2016. However, this Administration will emphasize “improved access to reliable, safe, and affordable transportation for communities in rural areas, such as projects that improve infrastructure condition, address public health and safety, promote regional connectivity, or facilitate economic growth or competitiveness.”

Applications are due by 8:00 p.m. E.D.T. on October 16, 2017 through the grants.gov portal. U.S. DOT hosted informational webinars on Wednesday September 13th, Tuesday September 18th, and Wednesday September 19th. You can find recordings and information related to the webinars from U.S. DOT here.

Federal approach to regulating automated vehicles described as a “giveaway to the industry”

After producing draft legislation for discussion last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing this week about automated vehicles (AVs). Some of the witnesses’ testimony highlighted the continued problems with the committee’s approach that would hand the oversight keys to automakers and manufacturers, kick cities to the curb, and threaten the safety of millions.

The hearing, “Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation’s Highways,” was intended to inform the Senate’s approach to the inclusion of commercial vehicles in their AV legislation. But the hearing also highlighted many of the larger issues about the proposed framework to manage all automated vehicles — commercial or not — and much of the discussion focused on the need to get the framework right before setting it into law.

It’s hard to imagine they’ll get it right with the private sector in charge.

Ken Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters, raised this point throughout the hearing, noting the private sector and auto industry’s long history of skirting rules and putting consumers at risk, and warned that we “can’t trust the industry to guide the process to safety based on their past behavior.”

The hearing came the same week that the National Highway Traffic Safety Association released new guidance on automated vehicles, guidance which Senator Richard Blumenthal described as “anemic,” and “a giveaway to the industry,” adding that the introduction of these vehicles “could result in lives lost unless we have enforceable rules to protect the public.”

Not only have both the House and Senate ignored the important role of state and local governments in the process of testing vehicles, but their approach threatens state and local ability to regulate their own roads. From our statement about the Senate draft:

The bill strips states and local governments of the authority to manage the vehicles on their roadways and leaves them without the tools to deal with problems already arising during the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Cities work to make streets safe places for all users and are not willing to endanger citizens for the sake of innovation with no levers of control. For example, if the safety report showed that a certain type of LIDAR system is incapable of reading a stop sign if vandalized with graffiti, or confused by bike lanes if painted a certain shade of green, state or local authorities — who own and maintain almost all roadways — would have no ability to intervene.

Public confidence in AVs will be vital to their adoption, and it’s hard to imagine how they could ever be deployed effectively by hiding their safety performance from the public and preventing the managers of our roadways and public safety officers from having a role in managing them.

“States and municipalities have to be at the table, whether we’re talking about lane markings and how we have systems that interact with each other, or about the rules of the road we set,” Deborah Hersman, President of the National Safety Council, said in the hearing. “We need to bring all parties in the loop and state and local leaders need to have a role in that.”

The committee has asked for all comments on the draft discussion to be submitted by the end of the day today (Friday). Based on how quickly they’ve moved so far, we expect them to take comments, produce a revised draft, and prepare for a markup soon. In the meantime, we’re continuing to push the committee to consider the issues that we and their witnesses raised in the past week and produce a bill that provides all levels of government with the tools to ensure the safety of these vehicles on our roads and in our communities.

Senate automated vehicles legislation would jeopardize the safety of millions and leave cities and states on the side of the road

For Immediate Release
September 12, 2017

Transportation for America (T4A) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) issued the following response to the released Senate discussion draft of the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act from Chairman John Thune (SD) and Senator Gary Peters (MI).

We support the deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) and are pleased to see Congress supporting the effort of automakers to test and improve this technology. The best way to do this is to ensure that the testing is done with full transparency and in cooperation with the cities and states that own and manage the roads on which AVs are operating. Sadly, this legislation does not do that.

Protecting public safety is the fundamental role of government and has been the stated priority of the Commerce Committee for regulating automated vehicles, but the staff discussion draft circulated last Friday by Chairman Thune and Senator Peters puts business interests above the basic safety of Americans.

No one wants to see a patchwork of regulations that stifle innovation, but the unified federal framework is a poisoned chalice: it provides no mechanism for local, state, or even federal safety regulators to hold companies accountable for the safety of their vehicles or technology.

The bill’s requirement of a safety report is just an exercise: the draft bill actively prevents USDOT or any local government from taking any action based on a review of that data. If the safety report showed that a particular fleet of AVs was frequently blowing through red lights, even the Secretary of Transportation would have no recourse to require changes or to pull the cars from the road.

The bill strips states and local governments of the authority to manage the vehicles on their roadways and leaves them without the tools to deal with problems already arising during the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Cities work to make streets safe places for all users and are not willing to endanger citizens for the sake of innovation with no levers of control. For example, if the safety report showed that a certain type of LIDAR system is incapable of reading a stop sign if vandalized with graffiti, or confused by bike lanes if painted a certain shade of green, state or local authorities — who own and maintain almost all roadways — would have no ability to intervene.

Automated vehicles will be deployed at the state and local level. But the draft legislation kicks cities and states to the curb by both failing to require any inclusion of state or local representatives on a new federal Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Safety Committee and by stripping away key means of local government control.

AVs should be tested in real-world situations, but proper management and public safety should be paramount. This draft legislation would put hundreds of thousands of untested vehicles on our streets without giving state and local governments critical information about where and how those vehicles are operating.

Understanding vehicle movement at the corridor level provides immense value for governments and citizens. Data on vehicle collisions and near-misses allows cities to proactively redesign dangerous intersections and corridors to ensure safety for all street users. Real-time data on vehicle speeds, travel times and volumes have the potential to inform speed limits, manage congestion, uncover patterns of excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street redesign projects and ultimately improve productivity and quality of life. But without access to these data, city and state governments will be blind to the impacts of emerging transportation technologies, how their construction and management of their roadways interacts with those technologies and unable to determine their own destinies.

Protecting public safety is the fundamental role of government, but this bill would actively prevent federal, state and local authorities from creating safe conditions for the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Building public confidence should be in the industry’s self-interest and if the public doesn’t believe AVs are safe, this technology will go nowhere. It is hard to imagine how the deployment of AVs could be promoted effectively by hiding from the public their safety performance and preventing the managers of our roadways and public safety officers from having a role in managing them.

Instead of creating a framework that unlocks the transformative potential of this technology and allows cities and states to experiment and innovate to tackle their most pressing challenges, this draft puts business interests first, handcuffs transportation leaders and revokes their ability to keep our streets and residents safe by deploying automated vehicles in a thoughtful manner.

###

About T4A

Transportation for America is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions — because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity.

About NACTO

NACTO is an association of 55 North American cities formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization’s mission is to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life. To learn more, visit nacto.org.

House abdicates methodical policymaking for new regulations on automated vehicles

Congress has taken the first major legislative step to encourage & govern the roll-out of automated vehicles, passing the SELF DRIVE Act of 2017 by a voice vote today. Unfortunately, the House only consulted a narrow range of stakeholders like automakers and technology companies to produce this flawed legislation.

GoogleCar-selfdriving

House policymakers were eager to move quickly after facing heavy pressure from private sector groups like automakers, mobility providers (such as Uber or Lyft), and tech industry groups that are working on self-driving technology.

“This bill was produced quickly and voted upon in committee within hours of replacing the entire bill text with an amendment,” said T4America interim director Beth Osborne. “As a result, the unanimous subcommittee and committee votes are less about bipartisan agreement and more the product of a lack of interest in thoughtfully producing sound policy on a critical issue with the potential to reshape our towns, suburbs, and cities dramatically.”

“Without bringing mayors, city or state transportation officials, law enforcement, and others to the table, the House hastily legislated on an issue about which they’re poorly informed, with impacts that will be felt for decades primarily by people and groups who were never invited into the room,” Osborne said.

Cities aren’t opposed to producing legislation to govern how automated vehicles (AVs) operate on our streets — far from it.

But many are concerned by this rush to legislate without their input. They’re convinced of the long-term benefits that self-driving technologies could offer, but want a legislative framework that allows them to experiment, innovate and bring these new technologies to the market in their cities in flexible ways that help them meet other goals.

While no one wants to see a patchwork of regulations that stifle innovation, one of our primary concerns — and that of many of the cities — is that this legislation will preempt local authorities from managing their own streets and fail to give local leaders the confidence that manufacturers and operators will be aware of and follow local laws and regulations.

As written, depending on how certain terms are interpreted, any state and local laws could be at risk if they are found to be an “unreasonable restriction.” This vague language will almost certainly lead to costly legal battles to determine what that term even means when the rubber meets the road.

AVs absolutely need to be tested in real-world situations. But they also need to be tested in manner that ensures public safety and builds public confidence in the technology. Allowing huge levels of safety exemptions per manufacturer each year, increasing from the current level of 2,500, to 25,000 in the first year, up to 100,000 in just three years, is too much too fast. Especially considering that this technology is still very much in its infancy and these vehicles are likely to be clustered in urban centers and not evenly distributed.

What if three manufacturers all want to test the bulk of their vehicles in one or two cities? Shouldn’t federal safety watchdogs like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have some role to play in assessing their safety along the way and deciding whether or not exemptions should increase based on actual results from testing?

When it comes to safety, cities (and others) also need access to the data on how these vehicles are performing on their own streets. While the bill does require manufacturers testing AVs to report all crashes to NHTSA, it doesn’t require data-sharing on disengagements, near misses or other vehicle movement, safety, and performance indicators. There are also no requirements to share any data with cities, states, academics or relevant parties such as safety advocates for independent review and wouldn’t be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) either.

This legislation ensures that no one other than the private companies doing the testing will be able to learn anything from the massive amounts of data produced by the tests. In order to create more hospitable conditions for all modes of travel, especially AVs, cities and states need these data to inform and optimize their planning, policymaking and operations to prepare for the coming wave of automation.

It’s important that Congress take this issue more seriously and bring all the stakeholders together to produce thoughtful legislation that balances the needs of private industry with the public’s desire for safety, transparency, and improved mobility.

The next step will be a Senate version of the bill and we’re eager to work with them and bring cities to the table to produce something stronger than the House’s first attempt.

The House takes its first crack at automated vehicle legislation

As self-driving technology advances toward becoming an everyday fixture in our lives, Congress is beginning to consider regulations to govern how they’ll be tested, how they’ll operate and how to ensure they’ll be safe for everyone. But are they taking the right approach?

Uber’s self-driving pilot program in Pittsburgh. Flickr photo by zombieite.

The House Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection last week produced what they hope becomes the first federal law on automated vehicle testing and regulation, combining 14 bills that were introduced after a hearing in late June into one bill.

Legislators have been under tremendous pressure from the private sector (like automakers, for example), who say that legislation is necessary to increase safety, avoid a patchwork of state regulations and streamline, not stifle, innovation. While cities are generally both supportive and convinced of the long-term benefits that self-driving technologies could offer, many cities are also concerned by this rush to legislate without their input, potentially losing the ability to regulate their own roads, the lack of data provided by the private sector, the short-term threat to safety, and a lack of focus on long-term impacts to equity, the environment, congestion, land-use and a host of other critical issues.

What’s in the bill?

Among other things, the draft bill contained provisions that would:

  • Pre-empt cities and states from regulating the “design, construction, mechanical systems, hardware and software systems, or communications systems” of highly automated vehicles.
  • Allow automakers to self-certify the safety of both the vehicle and its software without an independent reviewer.
  • Increase the number of NHTSA exemptions to test automated vehicles on public roads from 2,500 to 100,000 vehicles per manufacturer.
  • Create an advisory council that would be devoid of any representation from cities, MPOs or states to study and advise on the effects of this technology.
  • Allow manufacturers and operators to keep secret “…situational information related to any testing or deployment event.”

What are our concerns?

While the bill addressed some of the most critical issues, much of the language lacked specificity and failed to consider the needs of local communities or the long-term impacts of this technology.

Members of our Smart Cities Collaborative were concerned. So last week, we partnered with the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), National League of Cities (NLC), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other organizations to oppose the legislation as it was introduced.

We traveled to Capitol Hill to share our concerns directly with members of the committee and offer alternative language and amendments. Here are some of the specific changes we were seeking:

  • Clarify pre-emption language in order to guarantee that local communities will retain control of their streets.
  • Reduce the number of possible exemptions from 100,000 to a figure that cities and states can safely manage on their streets. We suggested 5,000 was a reasonable increase.
  • Require that the advisory council contain representatives from local governments (including states, MPOs and urban and rural communities) to participate in the conversation alongside the private sector.
  • Establish a third-party repository of data that’s accessible to cities, states, academics and safety advocates on the operational and safety performance of any automated vehicle granted a safety exemption for testing.

After a week of meetings and outreach from cities, states and other organizations, the committee released a substitute amendment last week that compromised on or addressed many of these concerns, improving the bill from the original version. This substituted version (H.R. 3388) was unanimously approved by the the Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday and is headed to the House floor.

While legislators did improve the bill, much more needs to be done to ensure that the testing and deployment of automated vehicles are not just safe, but helps to drive cities and states towards the long-term outcomes they’re striving for.

What’s next?

As this bill continues to evolve in the House and as the Senate develops and releases its own bill (maybe as soon as this week), it will be important to continue pushing for changes to ensure that local governments can manage their roads effectively and provide the data and information to do so, and to guarantee that cities are proactively guiding the national conversation around the deployment of automated vehicles:

  • Ensure that data is shared and publicly available. The legislation increases the number of vehicles that can be tested on our streets, but fails to offer local governments (or anyone) access to data on their operation or performance. This is critical to assess vehicle safety as well as understand the policy and planning decisions necessary for full deployment.
  • Require a seat at the table for the public sector. State and local officials are permitted to be on the advisory councils, but that’s not enough. They need to be guaranteed representation. Congress cannot let the private sector drive this discussion on their own.
  • Stronger definitions and language. Much of the bill’s language is vague, open to multiple interpretations and has loopholes. For example, current language prevents a manufacturer from selling an automated vehicle, but does not address whether the company could use all 25,000-100,000 of their exempted vehicles in a commercially based “testing scenario,” such as how Waymo or Uber have operating in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Given the scale of the exemptions, these loopholes need to be clarified immediately.

We’ll continue tracking this legislation and this issue overall as it progresses, so stay tuned.